Panthers 2013 Thread

[BluPanther]

More mudslinging:

 

http://www.peterboro...-boss-1-4658414

Maybe Gary Patchett has been away on holiday and has'nt opened his post from the BSPA yet .....

[Orbiter]

I guess this will all be discussed at the meeting later this month

[semion]

Why if Peterborough cannot deny Swindon permission to speak with Troy, then it begs the question why do Swindon have to ask Peterbourgh for permission ??

[Grachan]

You do kind of wonder why Peterborough are suddenly so keen to offload so many assets. But then, how come they ended up with so many in the first place who they clearly can't fit into their side?

 

I appreciate that the riders are their own assets, but if rules were put in place to insist on only 2 riders from the top 20 per side, why would the BSPA then insist on excess riders being bought? It makes no sense. The whole point of such a rule was surely to help the sides be competitive, but then they start saying "oh, by the way, you have to buy these riders that aren't needed". Weird.

 

I do understand Peterborough's position to an extent, but they are going a bit over the top with all this. Maybe they are just playing a few games until they are sure of getting a number one.

 

And, of course, Swindon - after being told they had to loan out Miedzinski last year - are not going to be impressed with then being told they have to buy riders.

[BluPanther]

You do kind of wonder why Peterborough are suddenly so keen to offload so many assets. But then, how come they ended up with so many in the first place who they clearly can't fit into their side?

 

I appreciate that the riders are their own assets, but if rules were put in place to insist on only 2 riders from the top 20 per side, why would the BSPA then insist on excess riders being bought? It makes no sense. The whole point of such a rule was surely to help the sides be competitive, but then they start saying "oh, by the way, you have to buy these riders that aren't needed". Weird.

 

I do understand Peterborough's position to an extent, but they are going a bit over the top with all this. Maybe they are just playing a few games until they are sure of getting a number one.

 

And, of course, Swindon - after being told they had to loan out Miedzinski last year - are not going to be impressed with then being told they have to buy riders.

Some decent points raised. However when Sundstrom was bought he was still a PL rider, and the 2/20 rule has restricted team building plans as they were going to use 3 in the top 20. Its all a bit of a mess, the 2/20 rule is plain crazy, what good has come of it. You have 42.5 pts, let the clubs decide how they build teams.

[g13webb]

Probably its because I’m classed as old, but some of the poster of here sure have a juvenile attitude and some, can only see as far as their nose.

The most terrible thing to these posters is that Lynn made an illegal approach to sign NKI. But lets put this into perspective. Yes it was wrong, but it’s not new. It has happened before and will happen again. It doesn’t justify it, nor make it correct, but it hasn’t harmed the sport, it probably generated a bit of added interest.

 

Now in this day and age, speedway appears to be dying a natural death, and no one seems to be bothered. We only have half the teams we use to have, the crowds now are non-existent, and most of the top riders can’t be asked to ride. We even have a Television contract to help promote this sport the but we can’t even get that right, and now we are sitting about waiting for that to end instead of being proactive and using the last opportunity to induce the much needed, new generation of support.

 

This sport needs all the positives it can get. What we don’t want is the situation that has been created by teams that have too many assets, and a governing body, who appear too weak to sort it out. So hence, we have teams not allowed to speak with certain riders, we have top riders who are told where to and where not to ride, we have teams without enough riders to compete in the league. We have team promoters not prepared to talk to each other. I fact we have everything that turns away what little support we have left.. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot…….

 

But, blame it all on Kings Lynn, after all, they made an illegal approach for NKI…

 

Get real….

[Vincent Blachshadow]

You do kind of wonder why Peterborough are suddenly so keen to offload so many assets. But then, how come they ended up with so many in the first place who they clearly can't fit into their side?

 

I appreciate that the riders are their own assets, but if rules were put in place to insist on only 2 riders from the top 20 per side, why would the BSPA then insist on excess riders being bought? It makes no sense. The whole point of such a rule was surely to help the sides be competitive, but then they start saying "oh, by the way, you have to buy these riders that aren't needed". Weird.

 

I do understand Peterborough's position to an extent, but they are going a bit over the top with all this. Maybe they are just playing a few games until they are sure of getting a number one.

 

And, of course, Swindon - after being told they had to loan out Miedzinski last year - are not going to be impressed with then being told they have to buy riders.

 

Peterborough were told to 'build up a suitable asset base' when one or other of the Hortons took over so they complied. They wanted Puk, they bought him. They wanted Hans, they bought him. They wanted Batch, they were told to buy him. All in compliance with a BSPA directive. These riders no longer wish to ride for Panthers for whatever reason, having ridden elsewhere previously, so maybe Mr Frost no longer wants the hassle of being sought for permission (by those that bother) and having to give it, deal with the paperwork (again, with those that bother) and all the rest that goes with having a rider that is no longer required or sees greener grass elsewhere.

Of course, there may well be an ulterior motive but for me, if I was in his position, I'd be of the opinion that you now want him and he wants you, fine, do what I did/had to do and buy him.

[semion]

It will come. a rider will be an asset as long as the club pay him on a contract. After the contract expires he will be free to seek employment elsewhere.

 

With the new Euro league, then then next stage will be that a rider can only have a contract with one employer, not 3/4 or however many countries that rider has a team place. The rider will then be loaned to other Clubs in other Countries. It will only take one rider to change things, and it will come.

[BluPanther]

Peterborough were told to 'build up a suitable asset base' when one or other of the Hortons took over so they complied. They wanted Puk, they bought him. They wanted Hans, they bought him. They wanted Batch, they were told to buy him. All in compliance with a BSPA directive. These riders no longer wish to ride for Panthers for whatever reason, having ridden elsewhere previously, so maybe Mr Frost no longer wants the hassle of being sought for permission (by those that bother) and having to give it, deal with the paperwork (again, with those that bother) and all the rest that goes with having a rider that is no longer required or sees greener grass elsewhere.

Of course, there may well be an ulterior motive but for me, if I was in his position, I'd be of the opinion that you now want him and he wants you, fine, do what I did/had to do and buy him.

100% correct, well said.

[Barney Rabbit]

Probably its because I’m classed as old, but some of the poster of here sure have a juvenile attitude and some, can only see as far as their nose.

The most terrible thing to these posters is that Lynn made an illegal approach to sign NKI. But lets put this into perspective. Yes it was wrong, but it’s not new. It has happened before and will happen again. It doesn’t justify it, nor make it correct, but it hasn’t harmed the sport, it probably generated a bit of added interest.

 

Now in this day and age, speedway appears to be dying a natural death, and no one seems to be bothered. We only have half the teams we use to have, the crowds now are non-existent, and most of the top riders can’t be asked to ride. We even have a Television contract to help promote this sport the but we can’t even get that right, and now we are sitting about waiting for that to end instead of being proactive and using the last opportunity to induce the much needed, new generation of support.

 

This sport needs all the positives it can get. What we don’t want is the situation that has been created by teams that have too many assets, and a governing body, who appear too weak to sort it out. So hence, we have teams not allowed to speak with certain riders, we have top riders who are told where to and where not to ride, we have teams without enough riders to compete in the league. We have team promoters not prepared to talk to each other. I fact we have everything that turns away what little support we have left.. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot…….

 

But, blame it all on Kings Lynn, after all, they made an illegal approach for NKI…

 

Get real….

 

Yes, the sport is dying. Yes, there are rules that need changing. But whilst rules are the rules they have to be adhered to. Peterborough only have the asset base they have because they were told to acquire a suitable one a few years ago and Puk and Hans were bought and paid for in that period. Batch was purchased because Mr Frost was told to buy him if he wanted to use him. Now you seem to want swingeing changes to that system all to Mr Frost's (and a couple of others') financial disadvantage. Why should they lose (in speedway terms) a considerable amount of their cash to suit some of the others?

We all know the asset system is flawed but it is the current system and it's not going to be changed anytime soon just because some on here want it to be. I've yet to hear any promoter complain about the system per se (and your team's promotion agree with it, as shown by their recent purchase of a rider) only about the way they see their team to have been disadvantaged by it. If it is to be changed then it should be a gradual change and those that have acquired riders by paying for them should be indemnified against their losses - no way should they just lose everything in one fell swoop.

I make a point of the illegal approach because that was the catalyst. Had the Panthers' management been approached in the proper manner, an amicable deal may well have been struck, Puk would now be a Stars' rider this coming season, an asset even, and all could have been well. Instead, you found out Puk was in the team before Mr Frost knew when it was announced at a fans' meeting last year. I ask you, is that the way you'd like to find out if he was your asset (allbeit in a flawed system)?

[500cc]

Maybe Gary Patchett has been away on holiday and has'nt opened his post from the BSPA yet .....

Three points here.

 

1) I doubt the BSPA have sent this letter to anybody but Peterborough. Swindon are just one of nine other clubs. Peterborough are claiming that the BSPA have overridden their own rules on rider transfers. Perhaps they are allowed to do that. But a little tip BSPA, if you do that you inform all of your members. One day a club or rider will have nothing to lose by making a legal challenge against unfair financial loss

 

2) Well the wording quoted by Peterborough doesn't exactly state what they are claiming. It says he should be made available on a full transfer. It doesn't state that no club can take him on loan. Dodgy one BSPA. If you haven't taken disciplinary action against Batchelor, and prevent him from getting a job based on a conduct breach then your on very dodgy ground. And before anyone asks, Swindon will employ him on a loan. The loan is being prevented due to the conduct of Batchelor. If he hasn't be informed/charged or given a right of appeal its meaningless.

 

3) Peterborough are making accusations in the press, that to my knowledge have not been revealed elsewhere. The apparent conduct of Batchelor, the illegal approach to Inversen, the illegal approach to Schlien (that has nothing to do with them) and suggesting another promoter has branded them liars. You have to trust they have got their facts right or even that they have the right to make any of these things public.

 

.

I make a point of the illegal approach because that was the catalyst. Had the Panthers' management been approached in the proper manner, an amicable deal may well have been struck, Puk would now be a Stars' rider this coming season, an asset even, and all could have been well. Instead, you found out Puk was in the team before Mr Frost knew when it was announced at a fans' meeting last year. I ask you, is that the way you'd like to find out if he was your asset (allbeit in a flawed system)?

Nothing recently suggests that would have happened. The BSPA have ruled on a loan. That's the issue. If its a proven illegal approach its a fine. Peterborough don't want to loan him, they've made that clear.

 

Peterborough are painting themselves whiter than white. But how many riders are they upsetting. Andersen, Batchelor and Inversen don't want to ride for them. The Peterborough press is awash with disputes, be it with riders or promoters. The latest is the disagreement with William Lawson. Peterborough dispute his views.

 

So will the BSPA support all the claims Peterborough are publicising?

Edited January 9, 2013 by 500cc

[racers and royals]

Three points here.

 

1) I doubt the BSPA have sent this letter to anybody but Peterborough. Swindon are just one of nine other clubs. Peterborough are claiming that the BSPA have overridden their own rules on rider transfers. Perhaps they are allowed to do that. But a little tip BSPA, if you do that you inform all of your members. One day a club or rider will have nothing to lose by making a legal challenge against unfair financial loss

 

2) Well the wording quoted by Peterborough doesn't exactly state what they are claiming. It says he should be made available on a full transfer. It doesn't state that no club can take him on loan. Dodgy one BSPA. If you haven't taken disciplinary action against Batchelor, and prevent him from getting a job based on a conduct breach then your on very dodgy ground. And before anyone asks, Swindon will employ him on a loan. The loan is being prevented due to the conduct of Batchelor. If he hasn't be informed/charged or given a right of appeal its meaningless.

 

3) Peterborough are making accusations in the press, that to my knowledge have not been revealed elsewhere. The apparent conduct of Batchelor, the illegal approach to Inversen, the illegal approach to Schlien (that has nothing to do with them) and suggesting another promoter has branded them liars. You have to trust they have got their facts right or even that they have the right to make any of these things public.

 

 

Nothing recently suggests that would have happened. The BSPA have ruled on a loan. That's the issue. If its a proven illegal approach its a fine. Peterborough don't want to loan him, they've made that clear.

 

Peterborough are painting themselves whiter than white. But how many riders are they upsetting. Andersen, Batchelor and Inversen don't want to ride for them. The Peterborough press is awash with disputes, be it with riders or promoters. The latest is the disagreement with William Lawson. Peterborough dispute his views.

 

So will the BSPA support all the claims Peterborough are publicising?

Or could that be Richard Lawson ?

[DC2]

Or could that be Richard Lawson ?

 

 

No, William too. Apparently Boro are saying he can't retire - he has to be bought by an old people's home!

[Barney Rabbit]

Three points here.

 

1) I doubt the BSPA have sent this letter to anybody but Peterborough. Swindon are just one of nine other clubs. Peterborough are claiming that the BSPA have overridden their own rules on rider transfers. Perhaps they are allowed to do that. But a little tip BSPA, if you do that you inform all of your members. One day a club or rider will have nothing to lose by making a legal challenge against unfair financial loss

 

2) Well the wording quoted by Peterborough doesn't exactly state what they are claiming. It says he should be made available on a full transfer. It doesn't state that no club can take him on loan. Dodgy one BSPA. If you haven't taken disciplinary action against Batchelor, and prevent him from getting a job based on a conduct breach then your on very dodgy ground. And before anyone asks, Swindon will employ him on a loan. The loan is being prevented due to the conduct of Batchelor. If he hasn't be informed/charged or given a right of appeal its meaningless.

 

3) Peterborough are making accusations in the press, that to my knowledge have not been revealed elsewhere. The apparent conduct of Batchelor, the illegal approach to Inversen, the illegal approach to Schlien (that has nothing to do with them) and suggesting another promoter has branded them liars. You have to trust they have got their facts right or even that they have the right to make any of these things public.

 

 

Nothing recently suggests that would have happened. The BSPA have ruled on a loan. That's the issue. If its a proven illegal approach its a fine. Peterborough don't want to loan him, they've made that clear.

 

Peterborough are painting themselves whiter than white. But how many riders are they upsetting. Andersen, Batchelor and Inversen don't want to ride for them. The Peterborough press is awash with disputes, be it with riders or promoters. The latest is the disagreement with William Lawson. Peterborough dispute his views.

 

So will the BSPA support all the claims Peterborough are publicising?

 

We have no way of knowing how Mr Frost would have reacted had he been approached by KL in the first instance. How would you react if you were to find out that one of your assets was in a rival team as a result of it being announced at a meeting for that club's fans? I'm not surprised Mr Frost has reacted in the way he has - I'm pretty sure most of us would too!!

Edited January 9, 2013 by Barney Rabbit

[Vincent Blachshadow]

We have no way of knowing how Mr Frost would have reacted had he been approached by KL in the first instance. How would you react if you were to find out that one of your assets was in a rival team as a result of it being announced at a meeting for that club's fans? I'm not surprised Mr Frost has reacted in the way he has - I'm pretty sure most of us would!!

 

Quite.

 

The way you discover something usually has a direct influence on how you handle the situation. Nobody knows how this would have panned out had KL sought permission in the first place.

[500cc]

Quite.

 

The way you discover something usually has a direct influence on how you handle the situation. Nobody knows how this would have panned out had KL sought permission in the first place.

So what does this approach gain.

 

If Iversen was illegally approached report him.

 

So if a legal approach were made all would be fine? An agreement would have been reached. Except KL don't want to buy and Peterborough don't want to loan. So we are in exactly the same position as whether it was legal or not. Unless ofcourse somebody has decided to throw a paddy and change their position.

 

Which means the argument is now over principle rather than substance. And its just coincidence that the Bjerre/Andersen/Batchelor scenario is also caught up in acrimony.

 

The BSPA have ruled Iversen can go on loan. So nothing has changed. Pre alleged illegal approach, the clubs could agree a loan or purchase. Today they can do EXACTLY the same. But Peterborough want to force a purchase because KL upset them.

 

I really think Peterborough should be picking their battles better. There is an issue about their treatment within the asset system, but they don't want to negotiate. They only want to raise things with the BSPA and get a ruling in their favour. If it goes against them, they go to the press and complain about the inconsistency of other (until then) confidential decisions, and then appeal.

[BluPanther]

If P'boro are forced to rethink team plans due to the new 2/20 rule, why is it anyone else's business. Im sure a few teams had to rethink after that. Im pretty sure Poole planned to use Pawlicki and probably told him so, but new regs put paid to that. Richard {william] Lawson is still free to get an elite slot elsewhere.

[Crump99]

I really think Peterborough should be picking their battles better. There is an issue about their treatment within the asset system, but they don't want to negotiate. They only want to raise things with the BSPA and get a ruling in their favour. If it goes against them, they go to the press and complain about the inconsistency of other (until then) confidential decisions, and then appeal.

 

 

If there's an issue then you go to the organ grinder and not the monkey. If the ruling is fair then shut up and live with it I agree but if it isn't then what do you do? Allow them to hide behind alleged confidential decisions! Probably how we've arrived at this mess and what seems to be keeping it going!

Edited January 9, 2013 by Crump99

[Trap 1]

If the deal to bring nki back to kings lynn was talk about before last season ended {as it more than likely was} then there was no illegall approach!!!!.The next thing will be pboro pulling out of league AGAIN because they cant get there own way........

[Barney Rabbit]

If the deal to bring nki back to kings lynn was talk about before last season ended {as it more than likely was} then there was no illegall approach!!!!.The next thing will be pboro pulling out of league AGAIN because they cant get there own way........

 

Again? When was the last time they pulled out?