sancho Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 if Swindon can only buy 1 rider why cant they buy Batch & loan Morris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woz01 Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 (edited) if Swindon can only buy 1 rider why cant they buy Batch & loan Morris Because they have agreed a deal to buy Morris, why should Glasgow lose out? Edited March 5, 2013 by woz01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy robin Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 There is more chance of that than one of your reserves becoming a heat leader, I cant see either of them improving much I agree with you & am still puzzled at why the team was put together with so little points left for the reserves. Gonna be a lot of home 5-1 in heat 2 this season though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sancho Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 By the same token why should Peterborough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeletor Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 By the same token why should Peterborough. Because they argreed to buy Morris but never Batchelor . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 you only need a "like" from SteveO and you've got the treble Here we go again, the self obsessed `like` monitor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
500cc Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 if Swindon can only buy 1 rider why cant they buy Batch & loan Morris It's all part of the propaganda. In attempt to prevent the BSPA insisting on Batchelor being sold, they've drawn Glasgow into the issue. The insinuation is if you don't back down on dictating Batchelor must be bought, then we'll renegade on the Morris deal. As there is no enforced sale notice on Morris and no spots available (note the timing of the issue), then Morris will have to be loaned. Force us into purchasing Batchelor, and then we won't purchase Morris. I still think dragging Glasgow into this has been a big mistake. Nobody is sure that the BSPA have insisted on a Batchelor sale. However, if this weren't the case, why would Swindon's purchase of Morris be dependant on the resolution of the Batchelor affair and the we only budgeted for one purchase. Its worth noting that Peterborough are very quiet now awaiting the outcome of the Swindon game. Assuming that a decision was made by the BSPA that Batchelor must be purchased (and Swindon seem to be suggesting this is the case by their press releases), then await Peterborough's demands for compensation from the BSPA. At the moment the Peterborough press say Swindon claim to have signed Batchelor. Swindon are awaiting ratification from the BSPA, and Peterborough await that same decision. For what its worth I expect the Swindon 1-7 to be ratified, but also I expect the Swindon promotion to be disciplined again. Last year it was a technicality based on Swindon not understanding the regulations. Not so sure this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hagonshocker Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 you only need a "like" from SteveO and you've got the treble No need to wait..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 (edited) Because they argreed to buy Morris but never Batchelor . But did they check with Peterborough first whether they were happy to loan Batchelor out again? If they had then they might have realised that they might need the cash and therefore got their priorities right. How can they be hard up anyway given a successful season and a five figure sponorship deal, surely they can afford both. Edited March 5, 2013 by Crump99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeletor Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 But did they check with Peterborough first whether they were happy to loan Batchelor out again? If they had then they might have realised that they might need the cash and therefore got their priorities right. How can they be hard up anyway given a successful season and a five figure sponorship deal, surely they can afford both. Who said it was a successful season in terms of money ? five figures could only be 10 k . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baldinhio Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 But did they check with Peterborough first whether they were happy to loan Batchelor out again? If they had then they might have realised that they might need the cash and therefore got their priorities right. How can they be hard up anyway given a successful season and a five figure sponorship deal, surely they can afford both. Looking at Companies House I am not sure they can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 (edited) Some people just protest too much 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. Then why have the MC not ratified the declaration yet? if Swindon can only buy 1 rider why cant they buy Batch & loan Morris Because they're playing the percentages game. I'd have thought Morris would have got a place elsewhere but Batch 'only wants to ride for Peter Swindon' so you buy the one you might not get. Swindon can then hold a shotgun to the MC's head by pointing out they'd have to renege on their deal with Glasgow if the directive to buy Batch isn't rescinded. 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. Swindon's 'Puk' is Andersen. He's on loan as is Puk. Edited March 5, 2013 by Vincent Blackshadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 Who said it was a successful season in terms of money ? five figures could only be 10 k . Horton made a shedful in 2006 allegedly so I assumed that Swindon also made a few quid? Five figures could also be £99,999 if you want to play that game. The way that it was bigged up in the press article I doubt that it was 10k? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeletor Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 Horton made a shedful in 2006 allegedly so I assumed that Swindon also made a few quid? Five figures could also be £99,999 if you want to play that game. The way that it was bigged up in the press article I doubt that it was 10k? Bar the cup that they won i doubt Swindon have a pot to piss in . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Know Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 (edited) If there that hard up i will loan them the money Have they tried Wonga Then again cash bussness, say no more Edited March 5, 2013 by The Know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noggin Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 Then why have the MC not ratified the declaration yet? Because they're playing the percentages game. I'd have thought Morris would have got a place elsewhere but Batch 'only wants to ride for Peter Swindon' so you buy the one you might not get. Swindon can then hold a shotgun to the MC's head by pointing out they'd have to renege on their deal with Glasgow if the directive to buy Batch isn't rescinded. Swindon's 'Puk' is Andersen. He's on loan as is Puk. What's the differnce between HA & TB both would only be on 2nd season loan, where as PUK is loaned ad infinitum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 (edited) What's the differnce between HA & TB both would only be on 2nd season loan, where as PUK is loaned ad infinitum. You're the one that said Puk and Batch is the same thing and the BSPA can't treat them differently 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. I'm saying that Swindon got Andersen on loan whereas Peterborough were looking for a sale as with Puk so Swindon and KL were both treated the same. Batchelor is, essentially, a different, additional, issue. Edited March 5, 2013 by Vincent Blackshadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 Bar the cup that they won i doubt Swindon have a pot to piss in . That'd explain why they got a nosebleed when they offered 8k for Andersen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noggin Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 You're the one that said Puk and Batch is the same thing and the BSPA can't treat them differently I'm saying that Swindon got Andersen on loan whereas Peterborough were looking for a sale as with Puk so Swindon and KL were both treated the same. Batchelor is, essentially, a different, additional, issue. Yes we all know that, but why? The BSPA need to explain their reasoning, because it smacks of blatant favouritism and the usual it depends on who's asking, ie: Poole get AM when Swindon had offered terms, yet Batch isn't wanted by P'boro, yet low andf behold, you want you buy! Why clubs can't work together for the better of the sport, god only knows, and don't say well Swindon only want loans, maybe but are they not loaning Doyle & Zengota? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 Yes we all know that, but why? The BSPA need to explain their reasoning, because it smacks of blatant favouritism and the usual it depends on who's asking, ie: Poole get AM when Swindon had offered terms, yet Batch isn't wanted by P'boro, yet low andf behold, you want you buy! Why clubs can't work together for the better of the sport, god only knows, and don't say well Swindon only want loans, maybe but are they not loaning Doyle & Zengota? Not forgetting Mads and Stead 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.