Reliant Robin Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) Rather than being abusive perhaps you can tell me what is different? Poole wanted Meidzinski. Swindon said they wanted to use him and so demanded a full transfer. The bspa said, rightly or wrongly that it should be a loan. So Peterborough said they wanted to use Hans but Swindon want him. So they ask for a full transfer. Swindon refuse and want a loan deal. Bspa rule it a loan. So what is the difference? Seriously? In fact this seems actually worse than the Meidzinski case because Poole could well have had to pay a full transfer fee for a rider that was only to be used until May. Teams with few or no assets will of course welcome such a directive as they can cherry pick without much expenditure other than loan fees. The main difference is that Miedzinski was an important part of Swindon's plans for 2012 and had a team place on offer to him, The same cannot be said for Batchelor at Boro as they had already signed Sundstrom and would not be looking to use both. Andersen has had a team place offered to him, but more of a gesture to force the issue rather than genuine, depending of course on which side of the story to believe. Kenny Bjerre has always been first choice there. As CR has pointed out, the other fundamental difference is the scope for improvement on a starting average. Edited January 11, 2013 by Reliant Robin 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) One thing to come out of this if a loan is agreed. Swindon fans can never again moan about Meidzinski to Poole. As this is exactly the same Rather than being abusive perhaps you can tell me what is different? Poole wanted Meidzinski. Swindon said they wanted to use him and so demanded a full transfer. The bspa said, rightly or wrongly that it should be a loan. So Peterborough said they wanted to use Hans but Swindon want him. So they ask for a full transfer. Swindon refuse and want a loan deal. Bspa rule it a loan. So what is the difference? Seriously? In fact this seems actually worse than the Meidzinski case because Poole could well have had to pay a full transfer fee for a rider that was only to be used until May. Teams with few or no assets will of course welcome such a directive as they can cherry pick without much expenditure other than loan fees. We know you are on the wind up, it is the only explanation for throwing your silly argument into the mix. Miedzinski was an 8 point heat leader in a 5 point plus riders clothing. You would have to have no brain to not understand that. You are right on one thing, the miedzinski to Poole farce should have set the precedent, and be rightly fined if proved to have tapped up the rider. Sometimes you really do get what you deserve. Edited January 11, 2013 by stevebrum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPanther Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 You know what has caused all this rubbish? The ruling by the BSPA last year that Poole could take someone elses asset on loan. That is very true, unfortunately it has caused this big mess. I would say two wrongs dont make a right, but the BSPA should have made sure these circumstances never happened again after the farce of AM. Im afraid thats not going to happen, the sport is run by clowns. Rules must be set in stone to prevent this happening again. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 That is very true, unfortunately it has caused this big mess. I would say two wrongs dont make a right, but the BSPA should have made sure these circumstances never happened again after the farce of AM. Im afraid thats not going to happen, the sport is run by clowns. Rules must be set in stone to prevent this happening again. There are rules. They're supposed to be set in stone. The fact somebody cocked up on the AM issue shouldn't prejudice the current situations. The BSPA has, after all, got form for backtracking, holding hands up to errors, and going back to the written rule book/card/fagpacket ignoring precedents. This is no different. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabbsjoe Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 most of this problem has come from p'boro jumping the gun and signing Sundstrom before the AGM. there is no way in my opinion they would have signed him for 2013 if they already knew about the 2 from 20 rule Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPEEDY69 Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 Rather than being abusive perhaps you can tell me what is different? Poole wanted Meidzinski. Swindon said they wanted to use him and so demanded a full transfer. The bspa said, rightly or wrongly that it should be a loan. So Peterborough said they wanted to use Hans but Swindon want him. So they ask for a full transfer. Swindon refuse and want a loan deal. Bspa rule it a loan. So what is the difference? Seriously? In fact this seems actually worse than the Meidzinski case because Poole could well have had to pay a full transfer fee for a rider that was only to be used until May. Teams with few or no assets will of course welcome such a directive as they can cherry pick without much expenditure other than loan fees. Blimey, an SS post I agree with! Interesting when the boot is on the other foot isn't it? Forget the average nonsense, that makes no difference to the principle and was simply astute work by the Poole promotion which nearly paid off It is also the same situation being faced by Cov/Birm over Barker. The original ruling last year has opened this can of worms and it'll be interesting to see how it's resolved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
500cc Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 Rather than being abusive perhaps you can tell me what is different? Poole wanted Meidzinski. Swindon said they wanted to use him and so demanded a full transfer. The bspa said, rightly or wrongly that it should be a loan. So Peterborough said they wanted to use Hans but Swindon want him. So they ask for a full transfer. Swindon refuse and want a loan deal. Bspa rule it a loan. So what is the difference? Seriously? In fact this seems actually worse than the Meidzinski case because Poole could well have had to pay a full transfer fee for a rider that was only to be used until May. Teams with few or no assets will of course welcome such a directive as they can cherry pick without much expenditure other than loan fees. Well you asked. Poole named AM in their team. They then awaited the BSPA arbitration on whether it would be a loan or a purchase. AM refused to communicate with Swindon and they had no option to actually name him in their team. Poole had already illegally approached and signed him. Peterborough still have the option to offer Andersen a place in their team. They have a spot available and Andersen doesn't have a club. Hearsay, but I suspect correct, is that Peterborough haven't offered him a reasonable wage for next season. They still have the opportunity to negotiate. The BSPA will ask them next week who they want as their Number One. If they select Andersen but he turns them down we'll see what happens. I suspect Swindon will be required to purchase him. Furthermore, at this stage it does not appear that Swindon have been charged for an illegal approach. I love your mention of May. Wasn't that exactly the situation, he will only ride until the end of May, therefore its unfair to purchase him. So what do Poole do, they decide to abuse the agreement and he continues to ride into June. And why, so that he gets a new average, so that Poole can convert a second string average to a heat leader average. And at the same time de-value the future usefulness of a Swindon asset. As some Poole fans said, if he stays on later then they agree he should then be bought. But he wasn't. And then we have the BSPA front man Harkness re-writing history by refering to June in one of his 'many' unhelpful recent comments explaining how the decision was originally reached. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Shovlar Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 The main difference is that Miedzinski was an important part of Swindon's plans for 2012 and had a team place on offer to him, The same cannot be said for Batchelor at Boro as they had already signed Sundstrom and would not be looking to use both. Andersen has had a team place offered to him, but more of a gesture to force the issue rather than genuine, depending of course on which side of the story to believe. Kenny Bjerre has always been first choice there. As CR has pointed out, the other fundamental difference is the scope for improvement on a starting average. The improvement in Meidzinski's average has nothing to do with this and is nothing more than a distraction on the issue. Peterborough wanted to use Andersen and like Meidzinski. Wanted to ride elsewhere. The Meidzinski to Poole/ Andersen to Swindon are identical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reliant Robin Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 The improvement in Meidzinski's average has nothing to do with this and is nothing more than a distraction on the issue. Peterborough wanted to use Andersen and like Meidzinski. Wanted to ride elsewhere. The Meidzinski to Poole/ Andersen to Swindon are identical. Peterborough are still free to use Andersen as he has not been named in a side, it is their call as to whether they seriously want him or not. If they do then they offer him serious terms. Would Swindon then get permission to talk to Bjerre? The above was not the case with Miedzinski - he was just named in the Poole side and to hell with the consequences. Those consequences are what has brought about this current mess. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Shovlar Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 Peterborough are still free to use Andersen as he has not been named in a side, it is their call as to whether they seriously want him or not. If they do then they offer him serious terms. Would Swindon then get permission to talk to Bjerre? The above was not the case with Miedzinski - he was just named in the Poole side and to hell with the consequences. Those consequences are what has brought about this current mess. The two situations are identical. Nothing to do with averages, just a rider wanting to not ride for his parent club against their wishes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans fan Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 most of this problem has come from p'boro jumping the gun and signing Sundstrom before the AGM. there is no way in my opinion they would have signed him for 2013 if they already knew about the 2 from 20 rule thats codswallop he would have been 1st on the teamsheet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reliant Robin Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) The two situations are identical. Nothing to do with averages, just a rider wanting to not ride for his parent club against their wishes. I've explained how the situations are different without mentioning averages. I think Hans is holding out for more than he was on when he rode for them in 2003 if his parent club are serious about signing him For what it is worth, I don't believe any Club is whiter than white, including Swindon. If Peterborough can prove that they have made a 'realistic attempt' to sign Hans up on 'realistic terms' and he has turned them down then either Swindon should buy him or he sits the season out (same as what should have happened with Miedzinski). If Hans accepts an offer from Boro then I assume we will end up with Bjerre on loan. Edited January 11, 2013 by Reliant Robin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 The Meidzinski to Poole/ Andersen to Swindon are identical. Think you meant to say are NOT identical. Only a Poole fan would be that blinkered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 I've explained how the situations are different without mentioning averages. I think Hans is holding out for more than he was on when he rode for them in 2003 if his parent club are serious about signing him For what it is worth, I don't believe any Club is whiter than white, including Swindon. If Peterborough can prove that they have made a 'realistic attempt' to sign Hans up on 'realistic terms' and he has turned them down then either Swindon should buy him or he sits the season out (same as what should have happened with Miedzinski). If Hans accepts an offer from Boro then I assume we will end up with Bjerre on loan. STILL doesn't take into account the fact that if they don't have a current and valid contract with Andersen they have no right to stop him signing for whomever he pleases. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reliant Robin Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 STILL doesn't take into account the fact that if they don't have a current and valid contract with Andersen they have no right to stop him signing for whomever he pleases. Until a rider wants to put that to the test through the courts, potentially blowing the whole system away, we're not going to know that. Will that rider be Andersen with a testemonial coming up? Assuming if the system is done away with and they are free to sign for whoever they want year on year then there will be a lot less of those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 You know what has caused all this rubbish? The ruling by the BSPA last year that Poole could take someone elses asset on loan. And! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy robin Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) The two situations are identical. Nothing to do with averages, just a rider wanting to not ride for his parent club against their wishes. Come on Steve you really can't be serious that they are the same as Adrian was offered a contract by Swindon & Hans has been offered a contract that was the same as in 2003. Hans has become a better rider since then & it just shows that they don't really want him. As others have said Swindon are no whiter than the rest but you posted on a Swindon thread & was the poster who keeps mentioning Adrian in comparison when that simply isn't the case. Hans also is talking to Peterborough where Adrian refused all contact, again its different. We all have bias to our own club but all you want to do is justify Poole's dealing with Adrian by saying Swindon have done the same. Simply not true. Edited January 11, 2013 by Crazy robin 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPanther Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 Come the start of the season, im sure you raging robins will be able to cheer on your favourite panthers. and comments will be aimed back on the track. At least you never stooped so low as to change your race night to include someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sully Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 most of this problem has come from p'boro jumping the gun and signing Sundstrom before the AGM. there is no way in my opinion they would have signed him for 2013 if they already knew about the 2 from 20 rule who would they have dropped him for?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 Rather than being abusive perhaps you can tell me what is different? Poole wanted Meidzinski. Swindon said they wanted to use him and so demanded a full transfer. The bspa said, rightly or wrongly that it should be a loan. So Peterborough said they wanted to use Hans but Swindon want him. So they ask for a full transfer. Swindon refuse and want a loan deal. Bspa rule it a loan. So what is the difference? Seriously? Boro never really wanted to used Hans ( His Manager has already confirmed that ) is was a just a plan in an attempt to get a transfer fee . 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.