Coventry 99 % Certain To Be In Elite Next Season Acording To Sandu

[hyderd]

I wonder if this is the time to say how you'd feel if it were to happen? If Coventry run with changes made to the rules that forced their hand in the first place, I'd be delighted - not only for the Coventry fans but for all fans of speedway in this country. If Coventry run having caved in to the absurdities of the AGM, then I'm happy for the Bees fans that get to see speedway this year but I don't think the EL will get my money (not that it does as much as the other leagues, anyway) much this year.

 

 

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

 

[alan_boon]

I'd be interested to hear how you think anything I said in the former is foolish...?

[ladyluck]

Any compromise weakens an already weak BSPA and sadly it would be a compromise to allow Coventry a place in the EL in 2011 having previously stated the Bees were out. Any further compromise is abject surrender and surely everyone can see that is unacceptable. The BSPA would be sunk; more of a laughing stock than they already are.

The only realistic approach is to make someone from Coventry the scapegoat and sacrifice that person's position at the club. Thus, perhaps the earlier rumour that Trump will be defenestrated at Brandon isn't too far short of the mark. It was all Trump's fault and now he's gone can we please play again. There can certainly be no backing down from the BSPA other than to allow Coventry back having extracted the removal of Trump (or whomsoever they decide led Sandhu astray).

Edited December 19, 2010 by ladyluck

[alan_boon]

Any compromise weakens an already weak BSPA and sadly it would be a compromise to allow Coventry a place in the EL in 2011 having previously stated the Bees were out. Any further compromise is abject surrender and surely everyone can see that is unacceptable. The BSPA would be sunk; more of a laughing stock than they already are.

The only realistic approach is to make someone from Coventry the scapegoat and sacrifice that person's position at the club. Thus, perhaps the earlier rumour that Trump will be defenestrated at Brandon isn't too far short of the make. It was all Trump's fault and now he's gone can we please play again. There can certainly be no backing down from the BSPA other than to allow Coventry back having extracted the removal of Trump.

I would say that's just about the worst thing that could happen - not only for Coventry (and, of course, for Allan Trump) but also for anyone who thinks that there was the slightest whiff of corruption around what went on at the AGM. If the BSPA are already weak, why strengthen them by pretending nothing is wrong?

[ladyluck]

I would say that's just about the worst thing that could happen - not only for Coventry (and, of course, for Allan Trump) but also for anyone who thinks that there was the slightest whiff of corruption around what went on at the AGM. If the BSPA are already weak, why strengthen them by pretending nothing is wrong?

 

So you think it entirely right and proper that coventry run the Elite League and get to make up the rules regardless of the wishes of the other members of that league?

[alan_boon]

So you think it entirely right and proper that coventry run the Elite League and get to make up the rules regardless of the wishes of the other members of that league?

No, not at all. I think it's entirely right and proper that one club isn't victimised by a number of rules brought in purely to victimise that one club (and another caught in the crossfire). It's clear that certain clubs supported a lower points limit to get these rules through, so if Coventry were to compromise on the lower points limit, it's quite understandable that these rules could be struck from the statute book.

 

It's not about Coventry running the Elite League and making up rules - if anything they'd be un-making rules - it's about the rules agreed at the BSPA being in the interests of all clubs, wherever possible.

[colincooke]

Colin Cooke - Coventry's version of Steve Shovlar.

 

(Edited to add the 'e') The other Colin Cook was my hero.

 

 

......this from the Lady with the sheepdog! Keep rounding 'em up, Gem!

 

 

I reckon Col's a poor man's version meself, probably made in China.

 

 

Don't tar me with the same brush as Colin Cooke. I don't talk in riddles and try to blag that I know something when I don't. Cooke knows nothing but tries to post that he does.

 

Trouble is his posts are so gormless anyone can see through them!

 

It is impossible for an englishman to open his mouth without making some other englishman hate or despise him.George Bernard Shaw

[ladyluck]

It's not about Coventry running the Elite League and making up rules - if anything they'd be un-making rules - it's about the rules agreed at the BSPA being in the interests of all clubs, wherever possible.

 

They were clearly in the interests, or at least acceptable, to seven of the Elite League clubs, while another club (King's Lynn) joined the ranks on the basis of those rules agreed at the AGM. If the agreed rules are then changed to suit a single club then surely the remainder of the clubs have the absolute right to take legal action. Coventry have made their bed and must now lie in it, or make an abject apology and seek forgiveness.

[colincooke]

They were clearly in the interests, or at least acceptable, to seven of the Elite League clubs, while another club (King's Lynn) joined the ranks on the basis of those rules agreed at the AGM. If the agreed rules are then changed to suit a single club then surely the remainder of the clubs have the absolute right to take legal action. Coventry have made their bed and must now lie in it, or make an abject apology and seek forgiveness.

 

 

except it wasn't 7, far from it. There is a suggestion that there we're abstentions.

[alan_boon]

They were clearly in the interests, or at least acceptable, to seven of the Elite League clubs, while another club (King's Lynn) joined the ranks on the basis of those rules agreed at the AGM. If the agreed rules are then changed to suit a single club then surely the remainder of the clubs have the absolute right to take legal action. Coventry have made their bed and must now lie in it, or make an abject apology and seek forgiveness.

We don't know why - or how - these rules became acceptable to Swindon, Lakeside, Ipswich, Belle Vue, and Eastbourne, but I'd imagine that not all of them agreed with them, and there was a certain amount of horse-trading and pressure put on them to pass them. Surely you can't deny that they were vindictive? If the vindictive rules are removed, and a review of the decision-making process is undertaken, it's a compromise that suits everyone, surely? Well, except those who pushed for the vindictive rules in the first place, but why should the rules to be changed to suit a single club?

[Trees]

I suspect that a lot of the derogatory and abusive comments made about you on here are just people taking any excuse to have a pot shot

Which probably Shovlar deserves most of the time

[Silver Bee]

and we'll be buying our winners merchandise........................................next season in the EL on our terms

 

You think that Coventry are going to walk back into the EL with whatever rules we like when teams have already started building?

 

There might be some middle ground (pawlicki?) but if we are in the EL it shouldn't really be on "our terms".

Edited December 19, 2010 by Silver Bee

[Steve0]

No, not at all. I think it's entirely right and proper that one club isn't victimised by a number of rules brought in purely to victimise that one club (and another caught in the crossfire). It's clear that certain clubs supported a lower points limit to get these rules through, so if Coventry were to compromise on the lower points limit, it's quite understandable that these rules could be struck from the statute book.

 

It's not about Coventry running the Elite League and making up rules - if anything they'd be un-making rules - it's about the rules agreed at the BSPA being in the interests of all clubs, wherever possible.

There are none so blind as those that will not see *sigh*

 

Playing the victim card again!! "Everyone else won't play by our rules so they must be picking on us because we are the mighty bees - EL champions don't you know!!"

 

For the past 2-3 weeks, while Coventry were seeking legal advice, the rest of the league has got on with building their teams to the rules agreed at the AGM. Now you think that the rest of the league should compromise these agreed rules because Coventry now want to play? Get real!

 

It is all about self interest as far as Coventry are concerned. If they now want to play - they should play by the rules that have been agreed. If the BSPA did back down on this then they will open the floodgates for all clubs to follow Coventry's lead in the future and that is wholly unacceptable!

 

In a democracy, you will usually find that not everyone agrees with everything but they are usually smart enough to stay around the table and work to change from within. By walking out Coventry gave up that right and must now accept what was agreed in their absence if they want to run next year. If they do run it is because they have swallowed their pride and agreed to abide by the rules as well as working to change them - from within!!

 

I do hope that Coventry runs but it has to be on the terms of the majority!

[ladyluck]

We don't know why - or how - these rules became acceptable to Swindon, Lakeside, Ipswich, Belle Vue, and Eastbourne, but I'd imagine that not all of them agreed with them, and there was a certain amount of horse-trading and pressure put on them to pass them. Surely you can't deny that they were vindictive? If the vindictive rules are removed, and a review of the decision-making process is undertaken, it's a compromise that suits everyone, surely? Well, except those who pushed for the vindictive rules in the first place, but why should the rules to be changed to suit a single club?

 

The fact remains that the rule changes were acceptable to seven of the Elite League clubs and that King's Lynn signed up to the Elite League on the basis of those rules. It really doesn't matter how the rules were arrived at. Coventry had the opportunity to make deals and trade horses, but for whatever reason they chose not to (or the deals and trades they offered weren't attractive enough).

[alan_boon]

The fact remains that the rule changes were acceptable to seven of the Elite League clubs and that King's Lynn signed up to the Elite League on the basis of those rules. It really doesn't matter how the rules were arrived at. Coventry had the opportunity to make deals and trade horses, but for whatever reason they chose not to (or the deals and trades they offered weren't attractive enough).

Quick question, and I expect you'll answer it honestly if only because your name is not Steve:

 

Do you think that the 8.01+ rule, the "Pawlicki" rule, and the El-PL conversion rule were made with any other thought than punishing Coventry?

[ladyluck]

except it wasn't 7, far from it. There is a suggestion that there we're abstentions.

 

Since seven agreed to participate, the rules were acceptable to seven clubs.

[ladyluck]

Quick question, and I expect you'll answer it honestly if only because your name is not Steve:

 

Do you think that the 8.01+ rule, the "Pawlicki" rule, and the El-PL conversion rule were made with any other thought than punishing Coventry?

 

The "Pawlicki" rule, perhaps, but I think it a perfectly acceptable rule and one that should've been brought in a season earlier to address the Wolbert situation. Maybe it was just getting too obvious and too prevalent a situation.

The PL-EL conversion rule, no, if for no other reason than that it required the PL clubs to fall into line on the "anti-Bees" agenda. Incidentally, if that rule is changed the ramifications for the PL are many.

The 8.01+ rule, no, I don't think so.

[essaitch]

except it wasn't 7, far from it. There is a suggestion that there we're abstentions.

Thers's a suggestion it wasn't voted on

[alan_boon]

The "Pawlicki" rule, perhaps, but I think it a perfectly acceptable rule and one that should've been brought in a season earlier to address the Wolbert situation. Maybe it was just getting too obvious and too prevalent a situation.

The PL-EL conversion rule, no, if for no other reason than that it required the PL clubs to fall into line on the "anti-Bees" agenda. Incidentally, if that rule is changed the ramifications for the PL are many.

The 8.01+ rule, no, I don't think so.

That's fair enough - I don't agree with your assessment but thanks for taking the time to answer my question.

[Brummie Boy]

Do you think that the 8.01+ rule, the "Pawlicki" rule, and the El-PL conversion rule were made with any other thought than punishing Coventry?

 

Take a step back for a moment and forget about Coventry (if only) for a moment, do you think any of the rules changes have any commonsense reasoning behind them? Fans were complaining about average manipulation throughout 2010 and these rules go someway to reduce some of the loopholes + makes an effort to reduce costs. These were not the only rules introduced eg. extension of the doubling up and averages becoming effective after 8 matches, but Coventry fans seem to conveniently forget these and only concentrate on those they claim are anti-Bees.

 

The real issue is that Sandhu has been moaning for a few seasons now, constantly threatening the pull coventry out of Speedway (this is not the first time) and I am afraid his tantrums have left him with few friends. If he is going to start getting his way on the BSPA then he needs to change his style and start creating a few alliances. If the BSPA works on a majority rule then being the only person voting against proposals is going to achieve nothing. Working with some of the other promoters may stick in his craw, but that's the way the world works!