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

[alan_boon]

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.

I'll say again, I'm not a Coventry fan - since Milton Keynes closed I've been a nomad and TV watcher. But that's not the point, I'm sure you wouldn't find a single Coventry fan that didn't agree with the 8-matches rule - if it were implemented for 2011 and not retrospectively.

[beesknees]

I'll say again, I'm not a Coventry fan - since Milton Keynes closed I've been a nomad and TV watcher. But that's not the point, I'm sure you wouldn't find a single Coventry fan that didn't agree with the 8-matches rule - if it were implemented for 2011 and not retrospectively.

Gah ... we can go back round the "retrospectively" loop again ... waits for TonyEs post For the record I did hold the same view on the word retrospective until it waws pointed out that averages were ratified at the AGM thus I conceded it was not a retrospective adjustment, simply one which penalised a minority of riders and their clubs.

 

ATB

BK

[ladyluck]

I'll say again, I'm not a Coventry fan - since Milton Keynes closed I've been a nomad and TV watcher. But that's not the point, I'm sure you wouldn't find a single Coventry fan that didn't agree with the 8-matches rule - if it were implemented for 2011 and not retrospectively.

 

It's being implemented for 2011.

Let's examine this "whiter than white" Coventry promotion, in relation to this re-arranged fixture at Swindon. The "white than white" Coventry promotion agreed to a ridiculous postponement of the original fixture when they were told they'd be granted no facility for the missing Kasprzak. They then rested Pawlicki so that he wouldn't gain a GSA for 2011. Is this really the behaviour of a club so devoted to honour and transparency?

Edited December 19, 2010 by ladyluck

[beesknees]

It's being implemented for 2011.

Let's examine this "whiter than white" Coventry promotion, in relation to this re-arranged fixture at Swindon. The "white than white" Coventry promotion agreed to a ridiculous postponement of the original fixture when they were told they'd be granted no facility for the missing Kasprzak. They then rested Pawlicki so that he wouldn't gain a GSA for 2011. Is this really the behaviour of a club so devoted to transparency?

Well, all I can say is that the Bees did declare they were resting Pawlicki which, at the time was within the rules. Whether this is transparent or not is a matter of opinion. I've gone on record as saying they played the rules to their advantage.

 

In terms of postponements, I thought that was at the judgment of the referee in charge?

[alan_boon]

It's being implemented for 2011.

But taking into account rides and points from 2010.

 

They then rested Pawlicki so that he wouldn't gain a GSA for 2011. Is this really the behaviour of a club so devoted to honour and transparency?

It was within the rules agreed by the AGM, which as you state should be binding.

[ladyluck]

In terms of postponements, I thought that was at the judgment of the referee in charge?

 

The meeting was postponed a day in advance, as was an Eastbourne meeting. It was to accommodate a re-arranged Polish fixture between Leszno and Tarnow, if you don't remember the circumstance.

[ladyluck]

But taking into account rides and points from 2010.

 

 

It was within the rules agreed by the AGM, which as you state should be binding.

 

Remember the Screen affair of 2009. Poole played by the rules and - rightly, as it happens - got their fingers burnt.

[speedibee]

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!

Thats right if you can't beat them join them .Sandhu should put aside his integrity sportmanlike attitude and business sense , get a few little chums on the bspa and work in the background to create rules that only suit themselves . if you can't defeat corruption and greed just go along with it and get better at it yourself . that will be a great benefit to speedway ,as it has been over the last 80 years

[orion]

 

 

The meeting was postponed a day in advance, as was an Eastbourne meeting. It was to accommodate a re-arranged Polish fixture between Leszno and Tarnow, if you don't remember the circumstance.

 

 

Wrong the reason was due to a poor weather forcast .

[ladyluck]

Wrong the reason was due to a poor weather forcast .

 

Yes, of course it was and Santa Claus will be delivering your presents shortly. Do you believe in the tooth fairy as well?

[orion]

Yes, of course it was and Santa Claus will be delivering your presents shortly. Do you believe in the tooth fairy as well?

 

 

That was the reason given ...both teams were ok with the match being called off as are many matches are during the season so yet again no rules broken .If the home side had wanted to ride the match in this case that being swindon it would have gone ahead

[barrow boy]

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

If it was voted on it could have been 7-0 6-1 5-2 or 4-3 so it could have been accepted but not thought by some to be acceptabe.

[Steve Shovlar]

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 really is no victimization no matter how you dress it up. 40 points was voted on and passed. Some clubs voted for a higher level, Poole being one of them. They lost the vote. Did they storm off in a huff? Did Swindon, who also voted for it? No. They accepted the decision and ar now building their teams to 40 points for 2011.

 

 

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.

Agree. A democratic vote means that some votes go against. But rather than accept like Swindon and Poole, they stormed out of the AGM and completely embarressed themselves.

 

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

It doesn't matter. the vote went against them whether it was a majority of just one. Normally clubs accept with good grace. The Coventry promotion don't have any.

 

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?

 

There was absolutely nothing vindictive about any of the rules brought in. 40 points rule affected Poole the most by the proverbial mile. No other club had to lose 8 points off their season ending average. How much did Coventry have to lose? 2 points? Where is the victimization? ONto the 60% PL/EL conversion. Where is the victimization? It affects every club. Coventry sign a rider before the rules were made? MORE FOOL THEM. They jumped the gun so suffer the consequences. pawlicki? It didn't take a brain to work out that they were never, ever going to get away with bending the rules t such an extent they were going to benefit from a second year. Every club, inc PL clubs, voted on this and Coventry had virtually no allies.

 

 

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!

Excellent post on the money.

 

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?

 

Well my name is Steve and I will answer it honestly. Of course they were!

The 8.01 rule has worked perfectly, because it means clubs cannot hog the best riders. yet Coventry don't want to play fair and would rather one team had no 8+ rider whilst they have two. That's pure self interest and nothing more.No wonder Coventry are so dispised.

 

Poole could have kept Bjarne under this rule but decided to loan him out to Eastbourne, as the budgies were struggling to find a number one. How about Coventry sending Harris to Belle Vue while they keep KK? Fair? To everyone else except the Coventry promotion. Self interest and greed.

 

And onto Pawlicki again. When you bend the rules, you take the consequences. Removing Pawlicki from the team against Swindon so he would remain at reserve for the playoff disgusted many promotions, who thought that Coventry were abusing the spirit of the rules. Then on top of that, Coventry expected to get Pawlicki on a 4 for the second year running! Who were they trying to kid? Promotions were already upset by their antics and as the precident had already been set the previous year with Screen, they were never going to get away with it.

 

Best bet for Coventry is to apologise for their disgraceful behaviour and sack Trump. Put a new promotion in place, that is overseen by a senior member of the BSPA to make sure they stay within the rules.

[Halifaxtiger]

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.

 

That's a very fair point but you will find that the setting of precedents is something that the Sandhu supporters simply brush aside because they really don't want to know about the possibility of Stuart Douglas, Bob Dugard or someone else taking the same actions next season.

 

One wonders whether they all would have supported Matt Ford (and vice-versa) taking similar action in 2009 when it certainly seemed to me that regulations were set to spite Poole, and in far less justifiable circumstances as it was half way through the season.

 

Somehow I doubt it, exposing their position for what it is - subjective, prejudiced and hypocritical.

 

 

 

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.

 

Very fair again. I think SCB has shown that the 60% conversion rate is fair, the Pawlicki rule does close a loophole (although I think it is motivated by spite) and the 8.00 rule is to even out top line riders.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Halifaxtiger

[Halifaxtiger]

Thats right if you can't beat them join them .Sandhu should put aside his integrity sportmanlike attitude and business sense , get a few little chums on the bspa and work in the background to create rules that only suit themselves . if you can't defeat corruption and greed just go along with it and get better at it yourself . that will be a great benefit to speedway ,as it has been over the last 80 years

 

Complete rubbish

 

He's been a member of the BSPA for six or seven seasons, being part of this heinous organisation and fully co-operating in inflicting unfair decisions on others (including Mildenhall). He's never said a word about impartial control or independent adjudication before now.

[alan_boon]

Well, nothing surprising said there, which is why I was interested in the views of a non-Steve. What we're dealing with here is a number of things, all tied up in one.

 

* The 40-point limit. Unacceptable to Coventry & Peterborough, acceptable to Poole & Wolverhampton because of certain concessions made elsewhere (which, funnily enough, were punitive to two teams). I now believe Coventry would accept this, since it's unavoidable.

 

* The 8.01+ rule. Unacceptable to Coventry & Peterborough, acceptable to EVERYONE else because no-one else was going to (or was rumoured to) be using two top-enders in 2011. The fact that it was made at 8.01+ is the funny thing, and I mean hysterical, because it points the finger at just one individual weasling his way into accepting it. I also believe Coventry would accept this rule now, because the 40-point limit makes it impractical to do otherwise.

 

* The change in EL-PL Conversion. Affects all teams but particularly affected two teams who had (apparently) already signed riders, Coventry & Peterborough. Figures posted on here neither support nor oppose the change, but PL teams were bound to support it, as were teams who had no interest in bringing on already British-based talent for 2011, rather preferring to go outside and take foreigners on 4s.

 

* The "Pawlicki" Rule. Affects a handful of teams, but none more than Coventry. Coventry acted within the precious rules and were still penalised. This is unfair, no matter how dodgy other promoters must have though Coventry's bending (and it is bending, not breaking, let's get that straight) of the rules was. Close the loophole by all means, but don't do it retrospectively. And it is retrospectively, despite people claiming that averages are not ratified until the AGM - anyone who claims otherwise is lying.

 

These four things have to be taken on their own. You can't bundle them up together. I just hope we get a speedy resolution.

[ladyluck]

Very fair again. I think SCB has shown that the 60% conversion rate is fair, the Pawlicki rule does close a loophole (although I think it is motivated by spite) and the 8.00 rule is to even out top line riders.

 

Spite on the part of Matt Ford, certainly. Ford, by his comments since his team was humbled in the final, has left himself open to such accusations. What about the rest? Is Matt Ford really some form of Sith Lord able to bend everyone but Sandhu and Frost to his will? Bob Dugard could swallow Ford whole without so much as a belch. The Lakeside promotion were the first to "out" Poole over the Screen affair, so why should they take a different stance when the Pawlicki situation was even more obvious? CVS at Wolverhapton should be hopping mad with the hair-dresser whose ill-advised decision not to leave the Midland clubs to fight it out in the semis arguably cost Wolverhapton a lucrative place in the final.

Edited December 19, 2010 by ladyluck

[Steve Shovlar]

Well, nothing surprising said there, which is why I was interested in the views of a non-Steve. What we're dealing with here is a number of things, all tied up in one.

 

* The 40-point limit. Unacceptable to Coventry & Peterborough, acceptable to Poole & Wolverhampton because of certain concessions made elsewhere (which, funnily enough, were punitive to two teams). I now believe Coventry would accept this, since it's unavoidable.

 

* The 8.01+ rule. Unacceptable to Coventry & Peterborough, acceptable to EVERYONE else because no-one else was going to (or was rumoured to) be using two top-enders in 2011. The fact that it was made at 8.01+ is the funny thing, and I mean hysterical, because it points the finger at just one individual weasling his way into accepting it. I also believe Coventry would accept this rule now, because the 40-point limit makes it impractical to do otherwise.

 

* The change in EL-PL Conversion. Affects all teams but particularly affected two teams who had (apparently) already signed riders, Coventry & Peterborough. Figures posted on here neither support nor oppose the change, but PL teams were bound to support it, as were teams who had no interest in bringing on already British-based talent for 2011, rather preferring to go outside and take foreigners on 4s.

 

* The "Pawlicki" Rule. Affects a handful of teams, but none more than Coventry. Coventry acted within the precious rules and were still penalised. This is unfair, no matter how dodgy other promoters must have though Coventry's bending (and it is bending, not breaking, let's get that straight) of the rules was. Close the loophole by all means, but don't do it retrospectively. And it is retrospectively, despite people claiming that averages are not ratified until the AGM - anyone who claims otherwise is lying.

 

These four things have to be taken on their own. You can't bundle them up together. I just hope we get a speedy resolution.

 

It's quite simple really. Coventry accept the rules, and race in 2011.

 

They jumped the gun by signing a rider before rules were set. No one fault but their own.

 

The Pawlicki rule is NOT retrospective. The rule is coming in for the 2011 season. They bent the rules the the nth degree. Poole tried a similar move in 2009 and were hit MID SEASON. At least Coventry benefitted massively in the playoffs. In truth the BSPA MC should have stepped in directly after Pawlicki was no used at Swindon and given him an official average on the spot.

 

Coventry are trying to double dip on his 4 point average. Unacceptable to virtually everyone outside Brandon.

[Beeone]

There really is no victimization no matter how you dress it up. 40 points was voted on and passed. Some clubs voted for a higher level, Poole being one of them. They lost the vote. Did they storm off in a huff? Did Swindon, who also voted for it? No. They accepted the decision and ar now building their teams to 40 points for 2011.

 

 

 

Agree. A democratic vote means that some votes go against. But rather than accept like Swindon and Poole, they stormed out of the AGM and completely embarressed themselves.

 

 

It doesn't matter. the vote went against them whether it was a majority of just one. Normally clubs accept with good grace. The Coventry promotion don't have any.

 

 

 

There was absolutely nothing vindictive about any of the rules brought in. 40 points rule affected Poole the most by the proverbial mile. No other club had to lose 8 points off their season ending average. How much did Coventry have to lose? 2 points? Where is the victimization? ONto the 60% PL/EL conversion. Where is the victimization? It affects every club. Coventry sign a rider before the rules were made? MORE FOOL THEM. They jumped the gun so suffer the consequences. pawlicki? It didn't take a brain to work out that they were never, ever going to get away with bending the rules t such an extent they were going to benefit from a second year. Every club, inc PL clubs, voted on this and Coventry had virtually no allies.

 

 

 

Excellent post on the money.

 

 

 

Well my name is Steve and I will answer it honestly. Of course they were!

The 8.01 rule has worked perfectly, because it means clubs cannot hog the best riders. yet Coventry don't want to play fair and would rather one team had no 8+ rider whilst they have two. That's pure self interest and nothing more.No wonder Coventry are so dispised.

 

Poole could have kept Bjarne under this rule but decided to loan him out to Eastbourne, as the budgies were struggling to find a number one. How about Coventry sending Harris to Belle Vue while they keep KK? Fair? To everyone else except the Coventry promotion. Self interest and greed.

 

And onto Pawlicki again. When you bend the rules, you take the consequences. Removing Pawlicki from the team against Swindon so he would remain at reserve for the playoff disgusted many promotions, who thought that Coventry were abusing the spirit of the rules. Then on top of that, Coventry expected to get Pawlicki on a 4 for the second year running! Who were they trying to kid? Promotions were already upset by their antics and as the precident had already been set the previous year with Screen, they were never going to get away with it.

 

Best bet for Coventry is to apologise for their disgraceful behaviour and sack Trump. Put a new promotion in place, that is overseen by a senior member of the BSPA to make sure they stay within the rules.

 

 

 

Yeah right on that is really gonna have the Bees management gagging to get back in!!

 

The one thing that many people on these numerous threads are agreed on os that the current BSPA administration is deeply flawed, so to suggest that someone from within should be posted as "gatekeeper" at Brandon is utterly ludicrous. Who do you suggest Mat Ford or CVS? I'm sure that either suggestion would have the Coventry management falling over themselves to be granted re-entry to the League!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOT

 

Regards, Martin

Edited December 19, 2010 by Beeone

[gav]

Why if they are trying to weaken the league are they allowing foreign riders in on a 4.00 average, should this not be 6.00?

 

Would cov object to this? NO

 

Who would?????