Belle Vue Aces Vs Poole Pirates 29/4/2013

[E I Addio]

'But the Hammers chief added: “There has been a little bit of confusion created by the use of the word agreed. We didn’t agree, yet we didn’t object.” 'Surely you either agree or you don't!!

That assumes that what was published in the local Poole -supporting rag was an accurate comment and not something Ford or his cronies has fed them.

 

Poole are desperate to try to implicate Lakeside in this and have issued a number of misleading statements. Cook seems to be getting brassed off with Poole and included the following statement in last Fridays programme:-

 

"A day before we announced our new team we should have been racing at Poole but that meeting was postponed by the Poole promotion after they were told to rename their team because of injury to Pawlicki. We have made our views on this public and again re-iterate we had no power to make Poole run this meeting and had no say in it being called off."

 

Plain English that only the usual stirrers and Ford disciples will fail to grasp.

 

Must agree, Mr Cook appears to be sitting on a big wide fence...

Cook had no power under the rules to object.

[SCB]

So Matt Ford has twisted the truth then, hmmmm.

[Pirate Nick]

That assumes that what was published in the local Poole -supporting rag was an accurate comment and not something Ford or his cronies has fed them.

 

Poole are desperate to try to implicate Lakeside in this and have issued a number of misleading statements. Cook seems to be getting brassed off with Poole and included the following statement in last Fridays programme:-

 

"A day before we announced our new team we should have been racing at Poole but that meeting was postponed by the Poole promotion after they were told to rename their team because of injury to Pawlicki. We have made our views on this public and again re-iterate we had no power to make Poole run this meeting and had no say in it being called off."

 

Plain English that only the usual stirrers and Ford disciples will fail to grasp.

 

 

Cook had no power under the rules to object.

 

So says Cook, must be true then lol

[Vincent Blachshadow]

Cook had no power under the rules to object.

 

I've yet to see anything saying he didn't agree with the calling off at the time and told Ford so, that he wanted to run the meeting and, as an MC member, he could see no reason for the meeting to be postponed.

 

Surely, since the reason for the call-off was not that racing was impossible it could not be an unilateral postponement and Cook should have known that.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Vincent Blackshadow

[E I Addio]

 

Surely, since the reason for the call-off was not that racing was impossible it could not be an unilateral postponement and Cook should have known that.

 

Can you point us to the rule that says the visiting promoter has any say in the postponement of a meeting ? In fact, can you point us to a rule that gives a visiting promoter any say at all in the running of another promoters meeting ? SCB has made several posts on this and another thread that explain the position perfectly clearly.

 

 

 

So says Cook, must be true then lol

 

Well, perhaps you can point out the rule that the rest of us including Jon Cook can't find, which says the visiting promoter has any say in the matter. Or perhaps its just that a 60-32 tonking last Friday has turned the grapes a bit sour ?

[Vincent Blachshadow]

Can you point us to the rule that says the visiting promoter has any say in the postponement of a meeting ? In fact, can you point us to a rule that gives a visiting promoter any say at all in the running of another promoters meeting ? SCB has made several posts on this and another thread that explain the position perfectly clearly.

 

The rule states (so we're told) that the only reason a home promoter can call a meeting off is if racing will be dangerous. That implies one of two things:-

 

1) That any other reason requires permission from the MC, the other promoter, or both.

 

or

 

11) That the match cannot be called off at all for any other reason.

 

This was not called off because of a dangerous track so how was it called off at all? Cook should know that so could and should have insisted the match went ahead

Edited June 9, 2013 by Vincent Blackshadow

[Kester]

Maybe Ford had got permission from another member of the mc? If this had happened Cook wouldn't really be in a position to go against it.

[Starman2006]

'But the Hammers chief added: “There has been a little bit of confusion created by the use of the word agreed. We didn’t agree, yet we didn’t object.” 'Surely you either agree or you don't!!

 

 

Must agree, Mr Cook appears to be sitting on a big wide fence...

 

Almost as Wide as the Chair at Aintree!!!

[Pirate Nick]

 

 

Can you point us to the rule that says the visiting promoter has any say in the postponement of a meeting ? In fact, can you point us to a rule that gives a visiting promoter any say at all in the running of another promoters meeting ? SCB has made several posts on this and another thread that explain the position perfectly clearly.

 

 

 

 

 

Well, perhaps you can point out the rule that the rest of us including Jon Cook can't find, which says the visiting promoter has any say in the matter. Or perhaps its just that a 60-32 tonking last Friday has turned the grapes a bit sour ?

 

My point was that just because Cook has made a statement doesn't make it necessarily true. My opinion is, as I've said before, is that Cook is just muddying the waters. I believe that Poole did contact him and he did agree otherwise he would have forced Poole to run. If the BSPA had been asked to rule I believe they would have made Poole run the meeting.

 

Enjoy the 60-32 tonking (you don't get many ) takes me back to the days when I used go on the coach to away meetings and if we scored more than 30 we called it a win, so no sour grapes we've had bigger hidings in the past from better teams and for what it's worth if we can't win it I'd love to see Vatch come away with the trophy.

[E I Addio]

 

 

The rule states (so we're told) that the only reason a home promoter can call a meeting off is if racing will be dangerous. That implies one of two things:-

 

1) That any other reason requires permission from the MC, the other promoter, or both.

 

or

 

11) That the match cannot be called off at all for any other reason.

 

This was not called off because of a dangerous track so how was it called off at all? Cook should know that so could and should have insisted the match went ahead

 

So if the scenario was :

"Jon I am calling the match off"

"Matt, I insist it goes ahead"

"Jon get stuffed the match is off "

 

Then what? How does Cook then make Ford go ahead ?

 

. Once it was called off it became an SCB matter, not something for Cook to become involved in. Obviously Cook will not be involved in the SCB investigation so the less he says about it the better, Its only Ford that keeps dredging it up.

 

Maybe Ford had got permission from another member of the mc? If this had happened Cook wouldn't really be in a position to go against it.

 

That may or may not be the case, but its something that will not be known until the SCB enquiry if at all.

[Starman2006]

So if the scenario was :

"Jon I am calling the match off"

"Matt, I insist it goes ahead"

"Jon get stuffed the match is off "

 

 

You ought to become a Journalist with statements like that..

[E I Addio]

 

 

My point was that just because Cook has made a statement doesn't make it necessarily true. My opinion is, as I've said before, is that Cook is just muddying the waters. I believe that Poole did contact him and he did agree otherwise he would have forced Poole to run. If the BSPA had been asked to rule I believe they would have made Poole run the meeting.

 

 

The facts are that Ford was told to revert to the original 1-7. At that point he cancelled the meeting. How do the BSPA force Ford to run the meeting ? All they can do is fine him for not doing so.

 

Not sure how Cook is muddying the waters. He is leaving it to the SCB to sort out which is the correct thing to do.

 

 

 

You ought to become a Journalist with statements like that..

 

I know but I got myself a proper job instead. I am going to watch the programme on D-Day on the telly now so I'll have to leave you guys to play among yourselves.

[Pirate Nick]

 

 

The facts are that Ford was told to revert to the original 1-7. At that point he cancelled the meeting. How do the BSPA force Ford to run the meeting ? All they can do is fine him for not doing so.

 

Not sure how Cook is muddying the waters. He is leaving it to the SCB to sort out which is the correct thing to do.

 

 

 

I know but I got myself a proper job instead. I am going to watch the programme on D-Day on the telly now so I'll have to leave you guys to play among yourselves.

 

Poole were told to revert to previous 1-7 (a decision which I believe Cook has said he disagreed with in the Star). Up until that point the match was going ahead with Kyle Newman as a replacement. The phone call would, I assume have been made after the BSPA made their decision, at which point I believe that Cook agreed with Poole and the meeting was called off. Cook could have come out and said that under normal circumstances he would not have agreed but in view of the BSPA decision he did.

 

Anyway I'm watching the same programme so I'm going too.

[SteveLyric2]

Poole were told to revert to previous 1-7 (a decision which I believe Cook has said he disagreed with in the Star). Up until that point the match was going ahead with Kyle Newman as a replacement. The phone call would, I assume have been made after the BSPA made their decision, at which point I believe that Cook agreed with Poole and the meeting was called off. Cook could have come out and said that under normal circumstances he would not have agreed but in view of the BSPA decision he did.

 

Anyway I'm watching the same programme so I'm going too.

Did GB win??

[Pirate Nick]

Did GB win??

 

Yes, with a little help from the Colonies

Edited June 10, 2013 by Pirate Nick

[ouch]

Any club that makes a bugger of their track to get a meeting cancelled due to not liking the team they would have to put out, should be dealt with in the strongest manner.

Though it was my team it was good to see the powers that be show some backbone and show behaviour of this nature will not be tolerated.