Steve0 Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 If we discounted people speculating and assuming without facts then you'd not have much to post? Just like you me thinks 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 You seem to assume a lot though! Likewise many assume Troy will go on loan to Swindon after March 1st. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 Look at your post above where you said "As for the tapping up....." That looks like a comment to me! Lets just wait and see what happens with Batch and then we can all see if there is a rule or not. The rule I have mainly been referencing is the one that says if the parent club don't use a rider, he is available on loan! Aren't you a Lakeside fan? I'm just wondering why you are taking such an interest in this? I'm not a fan of any club due to not living within travelling distance of a track in my formative years but I got interested in the sport through my liking of classic road bikes, taking them to meetings and getting to know speedway riders because of it. For several years I made a point of visiting every track in the country but these last couple of years a track or two has been off of my Visiting list. The EOES is one of my favourite tracks as I've seen some tremendous meetings there and I got on their bandwagon when other promoters tried to close them down for merely leaving a meeting. As a neutral, I think they've had a raw deal just lately and this is just another attempted stitch-up. They were made to buy Batch when Batch wanted to ride for them so I don't see why Swindon shouldn't repay the favour now Batch wants to go back specially since he rode there last year. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester Hunter Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) They were made to buy Batch when Batch wanted to ride for them so I don't see why Swindon shouldn't repay the favour now Batch wants to go back specially since he rode there last year. And that's the whole point, isn't it? I for one am getting utterly sick and tired of reading nothing but cr*p about a sulky individual, who if left on his own in a lift for about two minutes would fall out with himself. Look, it's quite simple: A few weeks ago, Birmingham and Coventry were locked in a similar impasse over Ben Barker. Why not take a leaf out of Alan Philips and Mick Horton's book and start a dialogue, in a calm and civilised way. Agree a price and then get the commercial department to rustle up a little extra cash to make up the difference. Or are Swindon afraid that Batch will play his face again at the end of the season and become 'uncontactable' again? Because then, he really will be unsellable. And before anyone comments about other riders and clubs arrangements, let me say this: I'm not interested. Not in NKI going on loan for a third season, not on who's said what to whom, not on what happens after certain dates. That's for those self-interested clowns on the BSPA to sort out. If they don't understand now that supporters are completely peed off with them, they never will. Edited February 9, 2013 by Leicester Hunter 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) Likewise many assume Troy will go on loan to Swindon after March 1st. I don't know about many but I'm speculating that the qualifying criteria for that assumption is liking a SteveO post? Edited February 9, 2013 by Crump99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 (edited) I don't know about many but I'm speculating that the qualifying criteria for that assumption is liking a SteveO post? if you want to have selective reading you will think its only a few. Some of us don't only communicate on BSF you know! Edited February 10, 2013 by stevebrum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 (edited) if you want to be have selective reading you will think its only a few. Some of us don't only communicate on BSF you know! You mean you talk elsewhere, outrageous! ok so it's a mass assumption within the secret society of the Todgers but it's still an assumption all the same, unless you have the facts which I'm accused of missing? The only facts we know is that Patchett says that there is no March 1 rule and the BSPA haven't confirmed too much generally on these issues. Perhaps it'll become clearer after Feb 15? Edited February 10, 2013 by Crump99 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 You mean you talk elsewhere, outrageous! ok so it's a mass assumption within the secret society of the Todgers but it's still an assumption all the same, u No secret society assumption, just sensible folk who generally know how things are usually played out. The same folk who assumed that KK was coming in to replace AM before the 2012 season started , i hasten to add. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 (edited) No secret society assumption, just sensible folk who generally know how things are usually played out. The same folk who assumed that KK was coming in to replace AM before the 2012 season started , i hasten to add. How are thing played out then? Surely if they were that in the know then they wouldn't be assuming in the first place? Anyway, how do the sensible people say this will end? If you could tell us then we could all get on and it would save Mr Harkess making a statement prior to Friday's meeting, if that's still on of course? Edited February 10, 2013 by Crump99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 How are thing played out then? Surely if they were that in the know then they wouldn't be assuming in the first place? Anyway, how do the sensible people say this will end? If you could tell us then we could all get on and it would save Mr Harkess making a statement prior to Friday's meeting, if that's still on of course? You have a hang up on `being in the know`. Where did i ever say that by assuming something that it is in the know? I think most people assume that Troy will be at Swindon in 2013, and on loan. If they go for purchase then they will have been forced. The assumptions i make on speedway matters relates to what usually happens in the sport. Maybe Peterborough fans are too blinded to see beneath all the politics of the matter. The rider usually rides where he wants to, despite the politics. Perfect examples are troy to peterborough in 2010 and Judas Miedzinski in 2012. Of course both methods of movement were different however the the one constant was that riders went where they wanted. I'm just saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 (edited) You have a hang up on `being in the know`. Where did i ever say that by assuming something that it is in the know? I think most people assume that Troy will be at Swindon in 2013, and on loan. If they go for purchase then they will have been forced. The assumptions i make on speedway matters relates to what usually happens in the sport. Maybe Peterborough fans are too blinded to see beneath all the politics of the matter. The rider usually rides where he wants to, despite the politics. Perfect examples are troy to peterborough in 2010 and Judas Miedzinski in 2012. Of course both methods of movement were different however the the one constant was that riders went where they wanted. I'm just saying. When Batch rode for Peterborough he had been bought, Peterborough were forced to buy. AM wasn't bought, he went on loan. So we now have a slight hitch in this 'rider rides where he wants' thing. If the BSPA/MC uphold their ruling that Batch has to be bought (and I see no reason why they shouldn't) but Swindon insist they won't buy what happens then? And, out of interest, what politics exactly are blinding Panthers' fans. Like you post, they were forced into buying Batch so why are they wrong in expecting Swindon to buy the same rider now they want him back? After all, if YOU were forced into buying something and the original owner wanted it back, wouldn't YOU want them to buy it back? Would YOU be happy for the original owner to use the item on the cheap, to your cost? Edited February 10, 2013 by Vincent Blackshadow 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 When Batch rode for Peterborough he had been bought, Peterborough were forced to buy. AM wasn't bought, he went on loan. So we now have a slight hitch in this 'rider rides where he wants' thing. If the BSPA/MC uphold their ruling that Batch has to be bought (and I see no reason why they shouldn't) but Swindon insist they won't buy what happens then? And, out of interest, what politics exactly are blinding Panthers' fans. Like you post, they were forced into buying Batch so why are they wrong in expecting Swindon to buy the same rider now they want him back? After all, if YOU were forced into buying something and the original owner wanted it back, wouldn't YOU want them to buy it back? Would YOU be happy for the original owner to use the item on the cheap, to your cost? Yes yes, we ALL know the politics of it all. It doesn't really matter whether i believe what is right or wrong. That is the politics of the whole situation. From a simplistic level however a rider usually rides where he wants to - and that is irregardless of the politics - as perfectly demonstrated by Troy(2010) and judas (2012). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 When Batch rode for Peterborough he had been bought, Peterborough were forced to buy. AM wasn't bought, he went on loan. So we now have a slight hitch in this 'rider rides where he wants' thing. If the BSPA/MC uphold their ruling that Batch has to be bought (and I see no reason why they shouldn't) but Swindon insist they won't buy what happens then? And, out of interest, what politics exactly are blinding Panthers' fans. Like you post, they were forced into buying Batch so why are they wrong in expecting Swindon to buy the same rider now they want him back? After all, if YOU were forced into buying something and the original owner wanted it back, wouldn't YOU want them to buy it back? Would YOU be happy for the original owner to use the item on the cheap, to your cost? The missing piece of your jigsaw is that Swindon planned on using Batch in 2010. This meant that if Peterborough wanted him they had to buy him - this is a "rule" that has been in existence for a long time but was thrown out the window with Miedzinski last year - BSPA consistency again! Last year (and this), Peterborough had not planned on using Batch which means, like NKI, he should be available for loan. Why the MC saw fit (according to Peterborough promoters) to rule otherwise again shows BSPA consistency!! As has been pointed out several times, a loan deal over several years is NOT "on the cheap" as you put it! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trubruv Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 Surely its in Peter boroughs interest to to get some financial benefit from an asset! rather than nothing! Another years loan and Swindon would have bout him outright anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester Hunter Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 Surely its in Peter boroughs interest to to get some financial benefit from an asset! rather than nothing! Another years loan and Swindon would have bout him outright anyway That would be right if you'd have signed a hire purchase agreement or agreed a 'buy as you ride' scheme between the two clubs, but you haven't! Anyway, anyone would think this thread now is just about Batch, just look at the amount of bandwidth that's been expended on him. On a more positive note, good luck with the Bob Kilby meeting, hope all goes well. On an earlier post, I noticed that someone asked about a Malcolm Holloway themed meeting. Certainly, one would be welcome for an individual who wasn't an out and out star, but the sort of character the sport can't do without. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dump that clutch Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 That would be right if you'd have signed a hire purchase agreement or agreed a 'buy as you ride' scheme between the two clubs, but you haven't! Anyway, anyone would think this thread now is just about Batch, just look at the amount of bandwidth that's been expended on him. On a more positive note, good luck with the Bob Kilby meeting, hope all goes well. On an earlier post, I noticed that someone asked about a Malcolm Holloway themed meeting. Certainly, one would be welcome for an individual who wasn't an out and out star, but the sort of character the sport can't do without. well said.... Good ol' Wellie good mate he was... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPanther Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 Last year (and this), Peterborough had not planned on using Batch Yet again your knowledge of the facts lets you down again, he was in Pboro team plans last year and the MC are aware that he went 'missing'. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rabbit Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 The missing piece of your jigsaw is that Swindon planned on using Batch in 2010. This meant that if Peterborough wanted him they had to buy him - this is a "rule" that has been in existence for a long time but was thrown out the window with Miedzinski last year - BSPA consistency again! Last year (and this), Peterborough had not planned on using Batch which means, like NKI, he should be available for loan. Why the MC saw fit (according to Peterborough promoters) to rule otherwise again shows BSPA consistency!! As has been pointed out several times, a loan deal over several years is NOT "on the cheap" as you put it! And Peterborough fully intended to use Batch last year too, remember? He went missing until Peterborough gave up trying to contact him and built a team without him. He then resurfaced and signed for Swindon. So this current situation, taking last year into account, is exactly the same. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 The missing piece of your jigsaw is that Swindon planned on using Batch in 2010. This meant that if Peterborough wanted him they had to buy him - this is a "rule" that has been in existence for a long time but was thrown out the window with Miedzinski last year - BSPA consistency again! Last year (and this), Peterborough had not planned on using Batch which means, like NKI, he should be available for loan. Why the MC saw fit (according to Peterborough promoters) to rule otherwise again shows BSPA consistency!! As has been pointed out several times, a loan deal over several years is NOT "on the cheap" as you put it! Of course it is. How many years do you think he'd have to be loaned out (as a heat leader) to get in his current heat leader value? Four? Five? Six, even? Are Swindon going to have him on loan the next however many years? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
500cc Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 And Peterborough fully intended to use Batch last year too, remember? He went missing until Peterborough gave up trying to contact him and built a team without him. He then resurfaced and signed for Swindon. So this current situation, taking last year into account, is exactly the same. Which may be true. So once again the BSPA MC was asleep on its watch. Why weren't Swindon required to purchase Batchelor last year? Oh they forgot, so they'll try again this year. Its worth noting that arrangements between clubs and the organisation are different to a rider's employment rights. It's irrelevant that the majority (or even all) promoters vote to retain the asset system. If the system itself is proven to unfairly prevent a rider gaining employment, then that rider could legally challenge the outcome. Non-EU riders are a different issue, but an EU rider could easily launch a challenge, especially if he doesn't care about his longterm future in the UK 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.