Steve0 Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 "open it anyway" - usual mistake! What are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
500cc Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) I should think once the team declarations have been approved they will appear on the BSPA web site as per the 2012 versions, out of interest issue 1 of 2012 is dated the 23rd March 2012. I still don't believe there is any issue over the declared team. Batchelor will ride whatever. The only issue left is whether Swindon are required to loan or purchase him. The 1st March date is only relevant if the BSPA haven't already dictated a purchase must be made. If they have then that will override any other rule. As I've stated before, this simply comes down to how the BSPA want to play it. Whether Swindon believe there is a 1st March rule is irrelevant, because NOTHING changed in February. If they were entitled to loan Batchelor on 1st March, then they were entitled to loan him in February. The fact that Swindon felt unable to take Batchelor on loan in February strongly suggests the BSPA had ruled that they would have to purchase him. All looks very simple to me. Just up to the BSPA what they want to do. I suspect the difficulty they have is that they have promised/ruled in Peterborough's favour. The BSPA would look very weak if they allowed Swindon to bully them. I suspect the outcome is dependant on Peterborough compromising. I suspect if they do, the BSPA will publicly criticise the Swindon promotion. Edited March 18, 2013 by 500cc 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnglishRoundabout Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 I still don't believe there is any issue over the declared team. Batchelor will ride whatever. The only issue left is whether Swindon are required to loan or purchase him. The 1st March date is only relevant if the BSPA haven't already dictated a purchase must be made. If they have then that will override any other rule. As I've stated before, this simply comes down to how the BSPA want to play it. Whether Swindon believe there is a 1st March rule is irrelevant, because NOTHING changed in February. If they were entitled to loan Batchelor on 1st March, then they were entitled to loan him in February. The fact that Swindon felt unable to take Batchelor on loan in February strongly suggests the BSPA had ruled that they would have to purchase him. All looks very simple to me. Just up to the BSPA what they want to do. I suspect the difficulty they have is that they have promised/ruled in Peterborough's favour. The BSPA would look very weak if they allowed Swindon to bully them. I suspect the outcome is dependant on Peterborough compromising. I suspect if they do, the BSPA will publicly criticise the Swindon promotion. Welcome back to Vincentblackshadow, crump99, and Bigcatdiary...... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theblueboy Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 I still don't believe there is any issue over the declared team. Batchelor will ride whatever. The only issue left is whether Swindon are required to loan or purchase him. The 1st March date is only relevant if the BSPA haven't already dictated a purchase must be made. If they have then that will override any other rule. As I've stated before, this simply comes down to how the BSPA want to play it. Whether Swindon believe there is a 1st March rule is irrelevant, because NOTHING changed in February. If they were entitled to loan Batchelor on 1st March, then they were entitled to loan him in February. The fact that Swindon felt unable to take Batchelor on loan in February strongly suggests the BSPA had ruled that they would have to purchase him. All looks very simple to me. Just up to the BSPA what they want to do. I suspect the difficulty they have is that they have promised/ruled in Peterborough's favour. The BSPA would look very weak if they allowed Swindon to bully them. I suspect the outcome is dependant on Peterborough compromising. I suspect if they do, the BSPA will publicly criticise the Swindon promotion are Swindon bullying? as you have stated the issue here is the BSPA. They continue to make poor decisions and lack consistency. Nothing changes. All that is required is a backbone (not to difficult really...we are dealing with speedway promoters not mass murderers) and for them to make firm, transparent and consistent decsions that can be evenly applied to any given scenario. It really is that simple. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noggin Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 I would say the BSPA are bullying, by not treating Swindon the same as KL. Until the BSPA have a rule and stick to it, without any favouritism or some personal agenda, depending on who's asking, you will have this debate forever and a day. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 Welcome back to Vincentblackshadow, crump99, and Bigcatdiary...... You forgot Blupanther - which is probably why he liked your post 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irk Deflector Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 You forgot Blupanther - which is probably why he liked your post *YAWN* Bored!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 I would say the BSPA are bullying, by not treating Swindon the same as KL. Until the BSPA have a rule and stick to it, without any favouritism or some personal agenda, depending on who's asking, you will have this debate forever and a day. Probably they are treating both clubs the same but the sticking point could be issues surrounding the individuals involved which we are not privy to? Iversen doesn't appear to have given anyone any managerial grief before whereas Batchelor has something of a track record of it! Whoever thought that we'd get to March the 18th and still be waiting to see who has played the blinder? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 I would say the BSPA are bullying, by not treating Swindon the same as KL. Until the BSPA have a rule and stick to it, without any favouritism or some personal agenda, depending on who's asking, you will have this debate forever and a day. Swindon are being treated the same as KL - they've got Andersen on loan just as KL have got PUK. Batchelor is an extra issue. Buy one get the other on loan seemed an acceptable compromise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TesarRacing Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) Welcome back to Vincentblackshadow, crump99, and Bigcatdiary...... Just waiting for Bigcatdiary now!!! You got them in the wrong order by the way!! On a serious note, anyone tell me the admission price for the British Lions challenge - can't find it on the Robins website. Edit: I must be going blind!!! £17 Doh! Edited March 19, 2013 by TesarRacing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigcatdiary Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 The BSPA could have put this whole matter to bed months ago but yet again they have shown themselves to be completely incapable, one small press release that's all it will take, we all know Batchelor will be riding for Swindon, it was obvious at Christmas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 Swindon are being treated the same as KL - they've got Andersen on loan just as KL have got PUK. Batchelor is an extra issue. Buy one get the other on loan seemed an acceptable compromise. Not really, you must treat all 3 riders the same it's that's simple . Batchelor has not been teated the same way as Hans and Puk . 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) Not really, you must treat all 3 riders the same it's that's simple . Batchelor has not been teated the same way as Hans and Puk . That's where we differ. I see this as a club thing and both clubs have been treated equally. Both wanted to sign riders on loan which the parent club wanted a full transfer for and both have one on loan. Batch is an extra here and, taking pre-last season into account (here again, we differ) having to buy him is, IMO, reasonable. We could even take club equality a step further. KL were told they would have to buy a rider too (Rooboy). They complied. Edited March 19, 2013 by Vincent Blackshadow 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 *YAWN* Bored!! Thats original! That's where we differ. I see this as a club thing and both clubs have been treated equally. Both wanted to sign riders on loan which the parent club wanted a full transfer for and both have one on loan. Batch is an extra here and, taking pre-last season into account (here again, we differ) having to buy him is, IMO, reasonable. We could even take club equality a step further. KL were told they would have to buy a rider too (Rooboy). They complied. Thats a surprise - you disagreeing! Explain to everyone why it is reasonable! You have a rider who you do not want to use - why should any club purchase him when the rules state that he should be available on a loan? When Peterborough stop playing silly beggars then we will comply with buying Nick Morris I'm sure but the Peterborough bully boy tactics are delaying this! : rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baldinhio Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 That's where we differ. I see this as a club thing and both clubs have been treated equally. Both wanted to sign riders on loan which the parent club wanted a full transfer for and both have one on loan. Batch is an extra here and, taking pre-last season into account (here again, we differ) having to buy him is, IMO, reasonable. We could even take club equality a step further. KL were told they would have to buy a rider too (Rooboy). They complied. I guess the real problem is Swindon do not have the funds to purchase and Mr Patchett has possibly made that point in one of his private conversations with his BSPA contact(s). With no accounts filed for two years and an application to strike SRSL off and Edge Logistics going into liquidation the future does not on the face of it look particularly bright. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noggin Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) Swindon are being treated the same as KL - they've got Andersen on loan just as KL have got PUK. Batchelor is an extra issue. Buy one get the other on loan seemed an acceptable compromise. So because we want two riders from same parent club, we have to buy one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Poole have three riders from Ipswich, how many are they being forced to buy? Edited March 19, 2013 by noggin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 Thats original! Thats a surprise - you disagreeing! Explain to everyone why it is reasonable! You have a rider who you do not want to use - why should any club purchase him when the rules state that he should be available on a loan? When Peterborough stop playing silly beggars then we will comply with buying Nick Morris I'm sure but the Peterborough bully boy tactics are delaying this! : rolleyes: Batch was bought, paid for and became an asset of Peterborough Speedway and, as with any other asset owned by any other person, how that asset is used is down to the owner. Mr Frost has his own reasons for wishing a sale rather than a loan and, at the time the ruling was made for Batch to be bought by Swindon, the MC had every right to make that ruling. This should have been done and dusted well before this supposed March 1st agreement so this available to loan bit doesn't come into it. As for bully boy tactics, I can only see one lot using them. What else does 'we won't honour our agreement with Glasgow if we don't get our own way with the Batch signing' come under? So because we want two riders from same parent club, we have to buy one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Poole have three riders from Ipswich, how many are they being forced to buy? Ipswich may want to keep them all as assets, as is their prerogative. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 Not really, you must treat all 3 riders the same it's that's simple . Batchelor has not been teated the same way as Hans and Puk . Exactly. Batchelor SHOULD be treated the same way as Hans and Puk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 That's where we differ. I see this as a club thing and both clubs have been treated equally. Both wanted to sign riders on loan which the parent club wanted a full transfer for and both have one on loan. Batch is an extra here and, taking pre-last season into account (here again, we differ) having to buy him is, IMO, reasonable. We could even take club equality a step further. KL were told they would have to buy a rider too (Rooboy). They complied. i Think they got it all wrong ....Going on so call rules ( joke i know ) Kings Lynn should have brought Puk and been able to loan Roo and Swindon should have been able to loan Batch and Hans . The bottom line is that i don't blame any of the clubs but the fault yet again lies at the people who just make the rules up as go along . 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Know Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 I guess the real problem is Swindon do not have the funds to purchase and Mr Patchett has possibly made that point in one of his private conversations with his BSPA contact(s). With no accounts filed for two years and an application to strike SRSL off and Edge Logistics going into liquidation the future does not on the face of it look particularly bright. sounds familar, just like happened at pboro few years back. 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.