orion Posted February 25, 2013 Report Share Posted February 25, 2013 I thinks its 50/50 which way it will go with the loan looking streets ahead. Vintage Brum 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted February 25, 2013 Report Share Posted February 25, 2013 Vintage Brum Good to see your spelling has improved for a 2 word response Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted February 26, 2013 Report Share Posted February 26, 2013 I've made a number of posts this off season stating I was supportive of Swindons position on the Andersen/Batchelor issue. I also said I'd have no problem supporting Peterborough if they were screwed. Well I now think Swindon have abused the whole process. I find their stance on Morris disgusting. He is irrelevant to the Batchelor situation. Yet the promotion are directly linking the two. So they had budget for one purchase who was Morris. Yet still made an offer to Peterborough to screw the Panthers. Yet now they wait on the Batchelor resolution. And the plan is obvious. If they are forced to buy Batchelor they will renegade on the Morris deal. Because you see there are no spots left for Morris, so Glasgow won't be able to prevent his loan. What would be hilarious is if Peterborough used the proceeds of a Batchelor sale to purchase Morris and then loan him to Swindon. The issue I think most people are missing is that the BSPA don't have hard and fast regulations. They appear to work on a fairness give and take approach. Which is fine until clubs stop playing ball. It seems Batchelor is being force sold to balance the situation from a few years back. And that's where it gets messy. It's a bit like trying to be equally fair to your kids. That is only achievable by subtlety moving the goalposts to maintain the status quo. By dragging Morris into this, Swindon have shown their true colours That's well put, and I agree with everything you've said. My bigger concern, is if Swindon are that strapped for cash after a wonderful season last year , what does the future hold for the rest. We all know speedway costs too much, whether it be too ride, too promote, or just to watch, but the alarm bells are ringing louder each day. Its alright having a fairy godfather, with deep pockets like Frost, but the sport has to be viable . If Swindon cant pay their dues there's little hope left...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rabbit Posted February 26, 2013 Report Share Posted February 26, 2013 That's well put, and I agree with everything you've said. My bigger concern, is if Swindon are that strapped for cash after a wonderful season last year , what does the future hold for the rest. We all know speedway costs too much, whether it be too ride, too promote, or just to watch, but the alarm bells are ringing louder each day. Its alright having a fairy godfather, with deep pockets like Frost, but the sport has to be viable . If Swindon cant pay their dues there's little hope left...... So what do we do? Sting the fairy godfather because he's prepared to put some cash into the sport but let the supposedly cash-strapped off with cut-price deals? Whether we agree with them or not there are rules in place and, to my mind, everybody gets treated equally. If one is made to purchase, the other should be too. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malcolm_31 Posted February 26, 2013 Report Share Posted February 26, 2013 But I think that is where the problem lies...One maybe made to purchase where another isn't. Batchelor and Iversen...What is the difference ? Both said they didn't want to go to Peterborough and both went on loan last season yet Iversen can go on loan and Batch cannot. Before I say anymore let me just say I think both clubs should be made to purchase the riders. It is not fair to Peterborough to spend money on assets for other clubs to hold them to ransom forcing loan deals. For things like this to be resolved there needs to be consistency, some black and white rules not various different shades of grey. Not wanting to go into history but trying to be fair. It happened to Swindon last year regarding Miedzinski 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted February 26, 2013 Report Share Posted February 26, 2013 (edited) But I think that is where the problem lies...One maybe made to purchase where another isn't. Batchelor and Iversen...What is the difference ? Both said they didn't want to go to Peterborough and both went on loan last season yet Iversen can go on loan and Batch cannot. Before I say anymore let me just say I think both clubs should be made to purchase the riders. It is not fair to Peterborough to spend money on assets for other clubs to hold them to ransom forcing loan deals. For things like this to be resolved there needs to be consistency, some black and white rules not various different shades of grey. Not wanting to go into history but trying to be fair. It happened to Swindon last year regarding Miedzinski As already stated, take the issue to SCB tribunal like the Miedzinski situation was, where all the facts were made available!!!! (but maybe as the BSPA have already stated their decision, everyone knows what the result is likely to be!) Edited February 26, 2013 by Skidder1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted February 26, 2013 Report Share Posted February 26, 2013 So what do we do? Sting the fairy godfather because he's prepared to put some cash into the sport but let the supposedly cash-strapped off with cut-price deals? Whether we agree with them or not there are rules in place and, to my mind, everybody gets treated equally. If one is made to purchase, the other should be too. There are rules in place but they have hardly been follow have they ? and that is the problem . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted February 26, 2013 Report Share Posted February 26, 2013 So what do we do? Sting the fairy godfather because he's prepared to put some cash into the sport but let the supposedly cash-strapped off with cut-price deals? Whether we agree with them or not there are rules in place and, to my mind, everybody gets treated equally. If one is made to purchase, the other should be too. I'm not arguing with you, and no these clubs should not be let off the hook. But the sport needs to be re-addressed. Most of the ideas and rules were implemented at a time when the speedway prospered and money was plentiful, now is a different story. For the sport to stand a chance of survival, changes need to be addressed now. We cannot carry on as thing were years ago. today , its different. They're not many teams left. We lose a few more and we're had it. Then it won't make much different if the rider is for sale or loaned out, there won't be enough teams to argue about it...... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabbsjoe Posted February 26, 2013 Report Share Posted February 26, 2013 is the issue with Batchelor having to be bought by Swindon because Swindon sold him to Peterborough 2 / 3 years ago after he fell out with Swindon ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted February 26, 2013 Report Share Posted February 26, 2013 It is not fair to Peterborough to spend money on assets for other clubs to hold them to ransom forcing loan deals. Isn't it more to do with Peterborough holding other clubs (primarily Swindon) to ransom, and their assets?! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted February 26, 2013 Report Share Posted February 26, 2013 So what do we do? Sting the fairy godfather because he's prepared to put some cash into the sport but let the supposedly cash-strapped off with cut-price deals? Whether we agree with them or not there are rules in place and, to my mind, everybody gets treated equally. If one is made to purchase, the other should be too. And if a rider goes out on loan for a third season, so can a rider for a second season! is the issue with Batchelor having to be bought by Swindon because Swindon sold him to Peterborough 2 / 3 years ago after he fell out with Swindon ? That's not the issue at all. Swindon wanted to use Batch and that's why Peterborough had to purchase him. This time, Peterborough do not want to use Batch so why should any club have to purchase him as the rules state that if the parent club don't intend to use a rider then they are available on loan to other clubs! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noggin Posted February 26, 2013 Report Share Posted February 26, 2013 Everyone can debate the wrongs & rights of their clubs stance, but as far as I'm concerned, this whole problem lies at the door of the the BSPA for their mis management & blatant inability to follow their own rules. Anyone with an ounce of brains knew that the AM fiasco last winter would open a can of worms, and hey presto that's what we have. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rabbit Posted February 26, 2013 Report Share Posted February 26, 2013 I'm not arguing with you, and no these clubs should not be let off the hook. But the sport needs to be re-addressed. Most of the ideas and rules were implemented at a time when the speedway prospered and money was plentiful, now is a different story. For the sport to stand a chance of survival, changes need to be addressed now. We cannot carry on as thing were years ago. today , its different. They're not many teams left. We lose a few more and we're had it. Then it won't make much different if the rider is for sale or loaned out, there won't be enough teams to argue about it...... I'm not disputing your point that rules regarding assets need changing but the time to do that is at an AGM with all interested parties present or represented not mid-stream once team-building has begun. Since they weren't altered last November then those that remain in place should be followed by all teams and if they state circumstances in which riders should be purchased rather than loaned then so be it. Since I can't recall any promoter complaining about these rules per se, I can't imagine a change being high on the agenda at forthcoming meetings. That's not the issue at all. Swindon wanted to use Batch and that's why Peterborough had to purchase him. This time, Peterborough do not want to use Batch so why should any club have to purchase him as the rules state that if the parent club don't intend to use a rider then they are available on loan to other clubs! This is a complex issue, I believe, and goes back further than last September or whenever it was Swindon had a chat with Batch re next season. Peterborough are on record as saying they wanted Batch last year but he never answered their calls. Why was that, I (and possibly the MC) wonder? And to answer another poster's point, yes, they did put a team together quickly but how many times do you see your calls being cut off or going immediately to voice-mail before you realise the intended recipient has no wish to talk to you? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinny Posted February 26, 2013 Report Share Posted February 26, 2013 I had to refresh the page to make sure i was seeing that correctly. 50/50 yet one is streets ahead? Christ almighty. Only a plank like brum could come up with that then try talking his way out of it! And he says king kenneths post make no sense The guy has about as many brain cells as a toffee crisp chocolate bar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPanther Posted February 26, 2013 Report Share Posted February 26, 2013 I had to refresh the page to make sure i was seeing that correctly. 50/50 yet one is streets ahead? Christ almighty. Only a plank like brum could come up with that then try talking his way out of it! And he says king kenneths post make no sense The guy has about as many brain cells as a toffee crisp chocolate bar That would be a toffee crisp chocolate bar without the toffee and with minimal chocolate ... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted February 26, 2013 Report Share Posted February 26, 2013 That would be a toffee crisp chocolate bar without the toffee and with minimal chocolate ... aaah look at the pair of you, comparing dullness. Not surprised to still see pinstripe desperate for stevebrum attention. Bless.It`s posts are always best when read in quote. I am sure i must miss so many others. Think i can live with that. Shame the attitude is still poor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinny Posted February 26, 2013 Report Share Posted February 26, 2013 I think the actual chances of you having me on block are 50/50 with me not being on block streets ahead. And you wonder where the name stevedumb comes from... Unbelievable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
500cc Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 And if a rider goes out on loan for a third season, so can a rider for a second season! That's not the issue at all. Swindon wanted to use Batch and that's why Peterborough had to purchase him. This time, Peterborough do not want to use Batch so why should any club have to purchase him as the rules state that if the parent club don't intend to use a rider then they are available on loan to other clubs! So presumably you agree that Swindon should purchase Hans Andersen this season if Peterborough want to sell him. Peterborough offered him a contract, but Andersen turned them down. No we can argue whether it was a reasonable offer and whether they would have actually given him the spot had he agreed, but it still stands that he was offered a place and rejected it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
internetman Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) I had to refresh the page to make sure i was seeing that correctly. 50/50 yet one is streets ahead? Christ almighty. Only a plank like brum could come up with that then try talking his way out of it! And he says king kenneths post make no sense The guy has about as many brain cells as a toffee crisp chocolate bar aaah look at the pair of you, comparing dullness. Not surprised to still see pinstripe desperate for stevebrum attention. Bless.It`s posts are always best when read in quote. I am sure i must miss so many others. Think i can live with that. Shame the attitude is still poor. My apologies to Swindon fans that this thread has gone off topic but someone should advise stevebrum that talking about yourself in the third person mode is generally considered to be a sign of megalomania and self-importance I can't, because apparently I am also on his very long ignore list? Perhaps people are trying to tell him something or more likely, he doesn't like reading the truth! Edited February 27, 2013 by internetman 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 Everyone can debate the wrongs & rights of their clubs stance, but as far as I'm concerned, this whole problem lies at the door of the the BSPA for their mis management & blatant inability to follow their own rules. Anyone with an ounce of brains knew that the AM fiasco last winter would open a can of worms, and hey presto that's what we have. Well at least Rick Frost and Peterborough can't be blamed for that. Also if some of the winter of discontent was about a stronger, more competent and transparent speedway administration them more fool those who didn't back him. The AM fiasco may not have happened? Now it looks like Swindon are hoping that two wrongs make a right whilst opening another can of worms, so well done for that. During the next few days we should find out whether the BSPA know their own mind and stick to what they've said or whether it's more of the same? 1 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.