YerRopes Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Quick to bite there yerropes I did indeed Blupanther... Sometimes I just can't resist 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Do Swindon really think they've been clever and found a way around this one? There is no way after declaring he had to leave on a full transfer the BSPA will back down! And if they do, next year will be a farce, clubs will illegally talk to riders and sign them on March 1st. Yup! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Yup! Bless them then. Because even the rules are against them, the rule that says the BSPA will moniter all singings for the good of the sport. Sadly, however right you may be, the BSPA will always be more right. As Coventry and Jordan Frampton discovered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rabbit Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Bless them then. Because even the rules are against them, the rule that says the BSPA will moniter all singings for the good of the sport. Sadly, however right you may be, the BSPA will always be more right. As Coventry and Jordan Frampton discovered. So is it now a done deal or are we still waiting for MC approval? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) Bless them then. Because even the rules are against them, the rule that says the BSPA will moniter all singings for the good of the sport. Sadly, however right you may be, the BSPA will always be more right. As Coventry and Jordan Frampton discovered. It's a bit late in the day to be saying that now. The BSPA have backed themselves into a corner and can't do anything else but ratify Swindon's side. If they were serious about Swindon buying Batchelor then surely we wouldn't be at this situation now. I'm sure that there will be consequences but that's for another day? Edited March 4, 2013 by Crump99 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 It's a bit late in the day to be saying that now. The BSPA have backed themselves into a corner and can't do anything else but ratify Swindon's side. If they were serious about Swindon buying Batchelor then surely we wouldn't be at this situation now. I'm sure that there will be consequences but that's for another day? I don't see why? The BSPA said Swindon had to buy Troy, so that what they have to do. Just announcing you have signed someone doesn't mean anything. As I mentioned in the last post, Coventry once announced Scott Nicholls was replacing Olly Allen but the BSPA made up a rule that week and the team was declared illegal and Scotts points were removed from the next meeting and Coventry had to re-declare. So just because Swindon have announced the signing the BSPA can still veto it. I can't see how the BSPA can possibly allow this one without looking like push overs and cannot run the sport and it need someone independent running it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 I don't see why? The BSPA said Swindon had to buy Troy, so that what they have to do. Just announcing you have signed someone doesn't mean anything. As I mentioned in the last post, Coventry once announced Scott Nicholls was replacing Olly Allen but the BSPA made up a rule that week and the team was declared illegal and Scotts points were removed from the next meeting and Coventry had to re-declare. So just because Swindon have announced the signing the BSPA can still veto it. I can't see how the BSPA can possibly allow this one without looking like push overs and cannot run the sport and it need someone independent running it. But, as has been pointed out, nobody but Julie Mahoney has mentioned the ruling ever being made. The MC also don't really care if they do make themselves look incompetent as in the JBJ/M affair when they merely said a mistake had been made the previous year but, hey, there you go, tough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 It's a bit late in the day to be saying that now. The BSPA have backed themselves into a corner and can't do anything else but ratify Swindon's side. If they were serious about Swindon buying Batchelor then surely we wouldn't be at this situation now. I'm sure that there will be consequences but that's for another day? I don't think they have backed themselves into any corner. The rules/counter rule/invented to suit rules will always mean they find a way out of it, no matter how daft it looks to the educated speedway public. The ruling at that time was (in my eyes) that if Swindon wanted to declare Batchelor in their line up then they needed to buy him. Now that March 1st has come riders not in clubs can (and should) be allowed to go on loan. Of course there apparently is no rule (according to some) that exists - yet it appears to have happened - assuming it is ratified! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuzzCagney Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 Excellent! If you could stop quoting and/or replying to my posts as well then it'll be job done. Don't believe him Steve. I regularly ignore Crump99, well as much as is humanly possible, but it doesn't stop him dribbling forth his blatherings. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 I totally agree with you as thought the same when I read that Darcy Ward was going to stay out of trouble in future & how un-realistic is that?? There is more chance of that than one of your reserves becoming a heat leader, I cant see either of them improving much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 (edited) Don't believe him Steve. I regularly ignore Crump99, well as much as is humanly possible, but it doesn't stop him dribbling forth his blatherings. That's another result then I don't think they have backed themselves into any corner. The rules/counter rule/invented to suit rules will always mean they find a way out of it, no matter how daft it looks to the educated speedway public. The ruling at that time was (in my eyes) that if Swindon wanted to declare Batchelor in their line up then they needed to buy him. Now that March 1st has come riders not in clubs can (and should) be allowed to go on loan. Of course there apparently is no rule (according to some) that exists - yet it appears to have happened - assuming it is ratified! Perhaps! In fact the BSPA could have played a blinder in that Swindon have nowhere to go but buy Batchelor if they want their preferred side ratified. If there's an existing ruling in place then that would trump your ficticious Mar 1 rule anyway. if the loan agreement is wrong why are the BSPA sooooo slow in counter-acting against it by putting out a statement saying otherwise..... this could run and run just like the AM affair.. I think we said the same during the winter of discontent. If the BSPA have something to say then you'll know about it. Edited March 5, 2013 by Crump99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dump that clutch Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 if the loan agreement is wrong why are the BSPA sooooo slow in counter-acting against it by putting out a statement saying otherwise..... this could run and run just like the AM affair.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YerRopes Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 if the loan agreement is wrong why are the BSPA sooooo slow in counter-acting against it by putting out a statement saying otherwise..... this could run and run just like the AM affair.. It would appear so... http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/sport/10266149.Robins_wait_on_BSPA_s_Batchelor_ruling/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dj350z Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 It would appear so... http://www.swindonad...tchelor_ruling/ Oh!!! The article seems to be more about Nick Morris though than Troy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rabbit Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 Oh!!! The article seems to be more about Nick Morris though than Troy. Quite. If you don't ratify Batch on loan.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 (edited) It would appear so... http://www.swindonad...tchelor_ruling/ Surprise surprise!! So NOT confirmed then!! As I said on Saturday - a 'cleverly worded announcement from the Swindon Promoter' - probably designed to back the BSPA MC into a corner! It will be interesting to see if this is all sorted before Thursday's P&P day and whether Batch will be 'officially' introduced and allowed on the track?! Edited March 5, 2013 by Skidder1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy swindon pete Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 Surprised no one else heard patch on the radio on Saturday after the town match....he said then the BSPA still had to ratify the signing. This is so incredibly tedious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 Don't believe him Steve. I regularly ignore Crump99, well as much as is humanly possible, but it doesn't stop him dribbling forth his blatherings. Some people just protest too much Perhaps! In fact the BSPA could have played a blinder in that Swindon have nowhere to go but buy Batchelor if they want their preferred side ratified. If there's an existing ruling in place then that would trump your ficticious Mar 1 rule anyway. The fictitious rule that others have mentioned and that Swindon appear to have used you mean?? It wasn't a rule I made up. It has been mentioned by others. As i have said, the BSPA will adapt the rules to suit anyway. Many other have been caught up (for and against) in the past and recent times. But all we have for now is that Swindon have declared straight after 1st March so the rule you say is fictitious seems the only believable thing at this moment in time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noggin Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 TBH I don't think the BSPA/MC can stop this, without making themselves look like a bunch of two faced hypocrites, you can't have essentially the same thing of PUK/Batch being treated differently, like I have said before, they had all last season after the AM fiasco to make a rule, ratify it and have it in place for team building this winter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 Don't believe him Steve. I regularly ignore Crump99, well as much as is humanly possible, but it doesn't stop him dribbling forth his blatherings. you only need a "like" from SteveO and you've got the treble 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.