stevebrum Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 You really still dont get it do you, its unreal ! Its not the loaning out which is the problem, its the tapping up of riders before parent clubs are approached, doing deals before that permission is sought. It is not allowed in any sport, and rightly so. And in Barker's case, he verbally acccepted terms, which in law is a contract although hard to prove. P'boro and Coventry have not broken the rules here, we all know the teams that have. I get it, i got it all along. I know there are `alleged` rumours of riders being tapped up. Unless you were in the room you dont know that Barker `verbally accepted terms` , he says not. My or your opinion is invalid as what we believe was or wasn't said. You must be saying also that Harkness `really doesnt get it` because i was agreeing his opinion on the simplicity of availability. Assets and tapping up are , to me, a seperate issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) Read the article in the Speedway Star. Certainly seems a common sense approach to me. If you arent planning to use your asset that season then he can go on loan. Nowt wrong with that. Forcing another to buy instead isnt anything other than trying to be awkward. Harkness is right, in todays economy its almost suicidal to expect all clubs to buy instead of loan - whatever the precedent set. Harkess would've been better advised to keep his nose out, at least at this stage and publicly. He states that Peterborough can't expect transfer fees for all the riders in question. So, presumably Peterborough can expect a transfer fee for some of them then. He also states that transfer fees would normally be paid in these rider movements. Not advisable in the circumstances. He goes on to state that you can't expect transfer fees for every rider. So, again, you can expect a transfer fee for some. Now, what's the criteria for which transfers will be full transfers? Does it depend on the buying club? The selling club? How far up the MC's collective jacksies a club promotion is? Whether a club feels it still merits freebies? If ever there was a victims' charter, this is it. And you join in with the addition of 'you can't expect all clubs...', which means you can expect some to. So, in your opinion,which clubs pay and which clubs don't? Edited January 10, 2013 by Vincent Blackshadow 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
champs99 Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 I get it, i got it all along. Assets and tapping up are , to me, a seperate issue. well thats sorted then........you just dont get it!!!!! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trap 1 Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Time to surrender panthers, you have lost the battle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) And about as much use as a chocolate teapot Nothing I haven't basically read on here which is quite sad really if all the main man can spout out is the same stuff. He ought to shut it and get it sorted based on their existing rules (not ones made up to suit the current situation) and the facts at hand. People tend to put out stories like this when they've made up their mind and are preparing the ground. There's enough in there to suggest he has so don't expect any surprises! Time to surrender panthers, you have lost the battle Are you saying that I read all that dross when it only required one line saying "BSPA chairman Alex Harkess called on Peterborough panthers to surrender, you have lost the battle " now you tell us Edited January 10, 2013 by Crump99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
champs99 Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Time to surrender panthers, you have lost the battle Im afraid its Speedway that has lost the Battle.... as a creditable sport, well in Britain anyway!. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Im afraid its Speedway that has lost the Battle.... as a creditable sport, well in Britain anyway!. No - definitely Peterborough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
essaitch Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 No - definitely Peterborough Yep, forget the rule book and do whatever you feel like is the way forward! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Yep, forget the rule book and do whatever you feel like is the way forward! You never know, he might reconsider over the weekend and come up with a proper decision! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester Hunter Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) You never know, he might reconsider over the weekend and come up with a proper decision! Are you going to hold your breath? I wouldn't advise it. Honestly, if that's the best Harkess can come up with, what hope is there? I do like his last line in the Speedway Star, though. 'If you don't like a BSPA decision, in theory, you can appeal to the SCB.' Gives you lots of confidence, doesn't it? Edited January 10, 2013 by Leicester Hunter 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Harkess would've been better advised to keep his nose out, at least at this stage and publicly. Quite possibly yes. However its nice to see someone involved on the inside putting a bit of sense to the ridiculous winter nonesense. well thats sorted then........you just dont get it!!!!! If you say. Obviously i do if you want to raise your head out of the protective box you might see the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Yep, forget the rule book and do whatever you feel like is the way forward! What rule has been broken by Swindon then? Peterborough not using either Hans or Batch (apparently) so the rules say they can go out on loan. Now, if either had been given an acceptable offer of a team place then you might have a case. Unfortunately, though, Poole set the precedent last year when it was deemed that a loan was acceptable for Miedzinski so I really don't know what panthers fans are bleating about! All I can see is Peterborough trying to offload some "assets" - and in these tough financial times, sellers are not in a strong position. So that's two members of the BSPA who have been talking sense this week - Patchett and Harkess 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) Are you going to hold your breath? I wouldn't advise it. Honestly, if that's the best Harkess can come up with, what hope is there? I do like his last line in the Speedway Star, though. 'If you don't like a BSPA decision, in theory, you can appeal to the SCB.' Gives you lots of confidence, doesn't it? Not really, been there and done that with the usual Panthers response "In the 1995 KO Cup clash v Ipswch in which Panthers got the verdict on aggregate only for the result to be overturned on appeal to the SCB" - say no more! And http://www.peterboro...verage-1-121191 "The SCB are guardians of the rulebook and we are confident that we will get this ludicrous ruling from the BSPA overturned." What rule has been broken by Swindon then? Peterborough not using either Hans or Batch (apparently) so the rules say they can go out on loan. Now, if either had been given an acceptable offer of a team place then you might have a case. Unfortunately, though, Poole set the precedent last year when it was deemed that a loan was acceptable for Miedzinski so I really don't know what panthers fans are bleating about! All I can see is Peterborough trying to offload some "assets" - and in these tough financial times, sellers are not in a strong position. So that's two members of the BSPA who have been talking sense this week - Patchett and Harkess Two wrongs make a right and your promoter and Harkness singing from the same hymn sheet, tells us all we need to know really. Edited January 10, 2013 by Crump99 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Two wrongs make a right and your promoter and Harkness singing from the same hymn sheet, tell us all we need to know really. Yes - they are in agreement Anything else you make out of it is in your own head. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Yes - they are in agreement Anything else you make out of it is in your own head. I'm well known for looking for a story which isn't there, problem is I'm not always wrong although you'd say that I am this time from behind your Robin's brand spectacles. Have you ever met Buzz Cagney? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester Hunter Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) All I can see is Peterborough trying to offload some "assets" - and in these tough financial times, sellers are not in a strong position. That's a good point, but I'm trying to see this from all sides here. I can see what you are talking about with regards to Miedzinski. Of course a precedent was set there, but it isn't being consistantly adhered to. What Harkess has said is so open ended, you'd be hard pressed to get more than two people on this forum to come to the same conclusion. As a result of all this, if Rick Frost wants to walk away from the sport, who could honestly blame him? Now I'm not his biggest fan by a long way, but if (and it's a big if) he walks and wants to see a profit out of it, who are we to argue? The big problem here is lack of leadership from those who should really matter. Why on earth can't this small group of people (the BSPA) actually make a decision and stick to it? Why does every transfer have to be looked at separately? All the BSPA have to say is that as a result of the Miedzinski ruling last year, and with the current economic climate, loans no matter how long, whether they be for two years, two months, two weeks, two days or even two minutes are here to stay and transfers are suspended for the time being and will be reviewed at the next AGM. It's not perfect, I know. It's a compromise, compromises don't please everyone, but at least it would be a binding decision and everyone would know where they stood. The sport has staggered along with a 'vested interest' approach for too long now. That, combined with the prospect of the Sky safety net being withdrawn and financial armageddon in the world generally could spell the end of our great sport. And do any of us on here really want that? Edited January 10, 2013 by Leicester Hunter 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) Quite possibly yes. However its nice to see someone involved on the inside putting a bit of sense to the ridiculous winter nonesense. Have you actually read what he's written? He's said some have to be transfers, some have to be loans. Where's the consistency and sense in that? Who makes the decision on which have to be bought (Schlein) and who has to be loaned (Panthers' three)? And here we have the judge giving his summing-up before the trial/appeal whatever stage this is has been held. You think that's sense? Edited January 10, 2013 by Vincent Blackshadow 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemini Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 In Stevebrum's world of course it's sense. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mini Jack Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 it is in your own head. I'm pretty sure it's all in Mick Horton's head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) Have you actually read what he's written? He's said some have to be transfers, some have to be loans. Where's the consistency and sense in that? Who makes the decision on which have to be bought (Schlein) and who has to be loaned (Panthers' three)? And here we have the judge giving his summing-up before the trial/appeal whatever stage this is has been held. You think that's sense? The consistency is that its consistently how the BSPA works, makes it up as they go along interpeting their guidelines (working title is "The Rules") to any given situation. It's unusual for them to publically give the ruling before the jury retires to consider its verdict but they've been left little option as this has been played out so publically. However, it's kind of Harkness to tell us our next step, 3rd time lucky perhaps: "The SCB are guardians of the rulebook and we are confident that we will get this ludicrous ruling from the BSPA overturned." - you never know, there might be a sting in the tail Edited January 11, 2013 by Crump99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.