Vincent Blachshadow Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 But the alleged MC ruling is wrong - it is totally inconsistent with the "rules"! You Peterborough fans keep going on about the rules but those same rules say that a rider can go out on loan if not being used by their parent club! I use the word "alleged" because the only place where I have seen this ruling confirmed was from Julie Mahoney of Peterborough! FYI - the sport has no credibility anyway! If a decision made is clearly incorrect then the right thing to do is to overturn it! The decision may be correct though since we don't know the factors taken into account before the decision was made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Well I'll be surprised if any other rider wants to become an asset of Peterborough as all 3 of the riders concerned (PUK, Hans and Batch) have all said they have been mucked about. So rather than listen to the Peterborough fans - I'll listen to the riders and have total contempt for the way their parent promotion has behaved! The decision may be correct though since we don't know the factors taken into account before the decision was made. Genuine question - Can you show me where this MC ruling has been confirmed (outside of Julie Mahoney)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans fan Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) well if batch is declared in swindons team tomorrow on loan i can't wait till the 2014 season, how many teams will declare before march 1st Edited February 28, 2013 by hans fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) well if batch is declared in swindons team tomorrow on loan i can't wait till the 2014 season, how many teams will declare before march 1st As I have already said - I don't see what the problem is. A team will sign up their own riders they want to use, arrange loans to other clubs for the riders they don't want to use and arrange loans from other teams for the riders that club don't want to use. That is how it should work today so I don't see any problem at all. Unless you get a team (Peterborough) who buy a lot of assets they cannot possibly use in the same team and try and force other clubs to buy them! Edited February 28, 2013 by Steve0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 well if batch is declared in swindons team tomorrow on loan i can't wait till the 2014 season, how many teams will declare before march 1st Don't think it will matter so much, as without a major sponsor (Sky) I can't see there being an EL in 2014. NB> A good but alarming 4 pages on this in Speedy Star, which most people will probably decry 'cos it features the views of Matt Ford as well as Neil Machin and Julian Ryder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dump that clutch Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 We'll buy Batch...........at £5 week... plead poverty. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Robin Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 We'll buy Batch...........at £5 week... plead poverty. I'm sure Batch will be happy with that, at least he will be earning a living. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddyfivetoes Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) I like the way Swindon fans are blaming Peterborough for not only Troy Batchelor's possible unavailability, but Nick Morris as well. Isn't the root cause just a little closer to home? Edited February 28, 2013 by freddyfivetoes 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keef robin Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) Yes superb deserved award for Rosco and the Excalibur Communications Rockin Robins, beating the football club and their far more numerous support.Speedway on front page yet again! Has put the pride back into the Blunsdon outfit. Hopefully the west-country hordes and some of those 50000 Adver readers will turn out in force to honour Kilbs and the champions in 2 weeks, and get the crowds back to those pre-90s levels, when at times they had bigger crowds than football. Always been a top club because of their support but haven't always had the team to match. Look forward to press/practice day next week and the visit of Great Britain in 3 weeks at SN25. Edited February 28, 2013 by beefy keefy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noggin Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 The same old garbage being spouted on here I see, until the BSPA/MC whoever has a set of rules that applies to all, the speedway is dead, you cannot have different set of rules for PUK/Batch, that is blatant favouritism, Swindon were shafted over the AM fiasco, now have a new sponsor, so it seems its open season on shafting them again, yet PUK can spend forever and a day at KL. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) The MC have made a ruling, if that ruling is to be made redundant a few weeks later, then the sport will have lost all credibility. If MC rulings become toothless, domestic speedway can only suffer. Its a road to ruin... Rules are changed to suit all the time. Rules are applied to some clubs in one way and another club in another way too. If you were to say that the rules are always being applied fairly and have been the past 12 months the `ruling` argument may just hold its merit. There is nothing we would all like more than to see rules applied fairly and when a ruling is made be stuck to and applied to all. Already in the past 12 months we have seen AM going to Poole (despite his parent club wanting him) , NKI going on loan for another season despite protests from his parent club. 2 riders being refused to go on loan - the same loan deal that applies to NKI. All have no consistency and therein lies the problem. It is left to fans of rival clubs to debate the rights and wrongs of such moves - but then the BSPA are likely to bring in a rule/new rule/apply a rule to suit. This is what i expect to happen with Batchelor. At least AM was wanted by his parent club last year, Batchelor isn't even in the plans (or seriously in the plan i would imagine!) Whatever the rights and wrongs of this whole situation it is the governing body that is always being questioned, and rightly so. Edited March 1, 2013 by stevebrum 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LagutaRacingFan Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Rules are changed to suit all the time. Rules are applied to some clubs in one way and another club in another way too. If you were to say to we the rules are always being applied fairly and have been the past 12 months the `ruling` argument may just hold its merit. There is nothing we would all like more than to see rules applied fairly and when a ruling is made be stuck to and applied to all. Already in the past 12 months we have seen AM going to Poole (despite his parent club wanting him) , NKI going on loan for another season despite protests from his parent club. 2 riders being refused to go on loan - the same loan deal that applies to NKI. All have no consistency and therein lies the problem. It is left to fans of rival clubs to debate the rights and wrongs of such moves - but then the BSPA are likely to bring in a rule/new rule/apply a rule to suit. This is what i expect to happen with Batchelor. At least AM was wanted by his parent club last year, Batchelor isn't even in the plans (or seriously in the plan i would imagine!) Whatever the rights and wrongs of this whole situation it is the governing body that is always being questioned, and rightly so. At the end of the day, The BSPA make the decision... Swindon have the right to appeal the decision but if their appeal fails, They must respect and comply with the decision of the BSPA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Well I'll be surprised if any other rider wants to become an asset of Peterborough as all 3 of the riders concerned (PUK, Hans and Batch) have all said they have been mucked about. So rather than listen to the Peterborough fans - I'll listen to the riders and have total contempt for the way their parent promotion has behaved! Genuine question - Can you show me where this MC ruling has been confirmed (outside of Julie Mahoney)? I agree Bjerre ,Iversen,Batchelor, over a period have been messed about, also i would put Bach and L.Bjerre there to a lesser extend we will see? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPanther Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) I agree Bjerre ,Iversen,Batchelor, over a period have been messed about, also i would put Bach and L.Bjerre there to a lesser extend we will see? What a load of codswollop. When were Bjerre K, Bjerre L, and Bach ever messed about ? When did any of them ever say anything against P'boro ? Edited February 28, 2013 by blupanther Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) But the alleged MC ruling is wrong - it is totally inconsistent with the "rules"! You Peterborough fans keep going on about the rules but those same rules say that a rider can go out on loan if not being used by their parent club! I use the word "alleged" because the only place where I have seen this ruling confirmed was from Julie Mahoney of Peterborough! FYI - the sport has no credibility anyway! If a decision made is clearly incorrect then the right thing to do is to overturn it! That's a valid point (the bold text) but can't a verbal agreement be legally binding, not that I'd imagine that the BSPA would wish to test it out? If a decision is incorrect then of course it should be overturned but they clearly arrived at their decision for a reason. Well I'll be surprised if any other rider wants to become an asset of Peterborough as all 3 of the riders concerned (PUK, Hans and Batch) have all said they have been mucked about. So rather than listen to the Peterborough fans - I'll listen to the riders and have total contempt for the way their parent promotion has behaved! Genuine question - Can you show me where this MC ruling has been confirmed (outside of Julie Mahoney)? Funnily enough Iversen was happy to return after Horton called him a disgrace and seems somewhat ungrateful after Frost fixed him up at Lynn and called him a loyal servant to Panthers. As for Batchelor "“Right from day one this winter Troy has maintained that he is not interested in riding anywhere other than at Peterborough and that has never changed." http://www.peterboro...thers-1-2464546 Andersen would be at Panthers now if the deal suited and he'd return again if the deal suited. As your mate brum says, riders ride where they want and if any of those 3 or anyone else got a deal that they were happy with then they'd be at Peterborough. Edited February 28, 2013 by Crump99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Well I'll be surprised if any other rider wants to become an asset of Peterborough as all 3 of the riders concerned (PUK, Hans and Batch) have all said they have been mucked about. So rather than listen to the Peterborough fans - I'll listen to the riders and have total contempt for the way their parent promotion has behaved! We'll see if Peterborough sign any more riders as assets - they might take Swindon's tack, plead poverty, wait for March 1st to come along and get them on loan now even if ordered or advised to buy them. Personally, I think Swindon may have more trouble getting them now, specially from PL clubs. I expect they'll want cash up front or wait for a cheque to clear before signing their riders over in the future. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trubruv Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 We'll see if Peterborough sign any more riders as assets - they might take Swindon's tack, plead poverty, wait for March 1st to come along and get them on loan now even if ordered or advised to buy them. Personally, I think Swindon may have more trouble getting them now, specially from PL clubs. I expect they'll want cash up front or wait for a cheque to clear before signing their riders over in the future. Thats normally what happens in business anyway! unless its on the never never Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans fan Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 well if batch is on loan, lets hope that they have more success stumping up the dough for the kid than T.H.J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
500cc Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) I very much doubt Swindon will get away with this. I fully expect them to be charged with: 1) An illegal approach to Batchelor 2) For bringing the sport into disrepute 3) .. and possibly failing to submit a valid 1-7 in required time frames. Whatever the rights or wrongs (and there are many of the latter), Swindon's biggest mistake has been publicly announcing how they were going to get around a situation they were aggrieved with. By dragging Glasgow and Morris into this, they have lost all credibility. Whoever has been advising Swindon would be well advised to keep a low profile. They have stupidly given the BSPA ammunition to fight back when initially they had a reasonable case to argue. I don't think this one will end here. In the first instant I'd expect their submitted team to be rejected. And while they are fighting that, they'd better hope an opening at another team doesn't become available, as you could quickly see Glasgow and that team doing a deal over Morris. Edited March 1, 2013 by 500cc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 I very much doubt Swindon will get away with this. I fully expect them to be charged with: 1) An illegal approach to Batchelor 2) For bringing the sport into disrepute 3) .. and possibly failing to submit a valid 1-7 in required time frames. Whatever the rights or wrongs (and there are many of the latter), Swindon's biggest mistake has been publicly announcing how they were going to get around a situation they were aggrieved with. By dragging Glasgow and Morris into this, they have lost all credibility. Whoever has been advising Swindon would be well advised to keep a low profile. They have stupidly given the BSPA ammunition to fight back when initially they had a reasonable case to argue. I don't think this one will end here. In the first instant I'd expect their submitted team to be rejected. And while they are fighting that, they'd better hope an opening at another team doesn't become available, as you could quickly see Glasgow and that team doing a deal over Morris. What a load of tosh! 3 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.