Adam Roynon Dropped By Sheffield

[Pantherman]

Adam could be a Devil very soon

[Fromafar]

The way I see it (and may be wrong) is that for whatever reason the Ty proctor inclusion into Tigers team has not been approved in time for Thursday and Saturday past? So when that happens the original line up inc Roynon, dropped or not dropped, comes back into play. So if he not riding a facility could be granted. There was no way a facility could be granted to Proctor, surely.

Ithink the rain -off on Thursday caused the problem for Procter because the rules state you cannot use R/r for a rider who has not ridden for the club ,which was the case with Procter.Why they got R/r for Roynon after sacking him is the mysteryIMO

[Hel'n'Back]

God my brain hurts with all this...think i'll just stick to Superbikes and Motogp...

[smod]

Was Ty Proctor EVER approved in a re-declared Sheffield 1-7? We know they trumpeted in the papers he was, and told Berwick he was in their line up on Thursday and would be covered by r/r on Saturday. But was the new 1-7 ever approved by BSPA? Did Sheffield maybe forget something in their excitement about making, and announcing, the deal?

 

Perhaps a need for a different kind of visa, or something?

 

The BSPA would picked up on what was going on when Berwick (presumably) pointed out on Saturday morning the rule about no facility being available for a rider who has never raced for a club. The BSPA then realised Sheffield's "old" 1-7 was still valid and presumably offered a sop to the Tigers by ruling that r/r could be used for Roynon, who will hopefully be spared the usual 28-day ban in view of the circumstances.

 

At that point the authorities would have immediately told the Sheffield promotion/ownership, along with the referee and Berwick promotion/ownership what was to happen. Around lunchtime on Saturday?

 

Amazingly, the Sheffield ownership/promotion then failed to inform either of their two team managers of this, who then turned up at Berwick expecting to be using a facility for Proctor! How very embarrassing.

 

One feels that a certain Mr Hoggart just might be smiling into his Ovaltine tonight.

Edited May 4, 2014 by smod

[Hel'n'Back]

Who knows... Put it to bed! Meaningless KOC anyway..

Edited May 4, 2014 by Hel'n'Back

[Byker Biker]

Was Ty Proctor EVER approved in a re-declared Sheffield 1-7? We know they trumpeted in the papers he was, and told Berwick he was in their line up on Thursday and would be covered by r/r on Saturday. But was the new 1-7 ever approved by BSPA? Did Sheffield maybe forget something in their excitement about making, and announcing, the deal?

 

Perhaps a need for a different kind of visa, or something?

 

The BSPA would picked up on what was going on when Berwick (presumably) pointed out on Saturday morning the rule about no facility being available for a rider who has never raced for a club. The BSPA then realised Sheffield's "old" 1-7 was still valid and presumably offered a sop to the Tigers by ruling that r/r could be used for Roynon, who will hopefully be spared the usual 28-day ban in view of the circumstances.

 

At that point the authorities would have immediately told the Sheffield promotion/ownership, along with the referee and Berwick promotion/ownership what was to happen. Around lunchtime on Saturday?

 

Amazingly, the Sheffield ownership/promotion then failed to inform either of their two team managers of this, who then turned up at Berwick expecting to be using a facility for Proctor! How very embarrassing.

 

One feels that a certain Mr Hoggart just might be smiling into his Ovaltine tonight.

 

This reads like an "I know something you don't" post ???????

[crescent girl]

Not possible, because this has ramifications for the whole sport. The "Management Committee" seems to be able to ignore it's own regulations, which means any aspect of those regulations suddenly become irrelevant. These people don't care about their own sport or the fans, or the impact their actions have.

I don't think it is the case that the BSPA don't care, just that they were backed into a corner when Sheffield announced their changes to the world before they were maybe rubber-stamped.

 

In the end, with the old 1-7 in force, they BSPA allowed r/r for Roynon, who was not surprisingly unavailable. Hopefully he won't pick up any suspension.

 

Next thing is, what will Sheffield's team be on Thursday?

[luluthetiger]

Not possible, because this has ramifications for the whole sport. The "Management Committee" seems to be able to ignore it's own regulations, which means any aspect of those regulations suddenly become irrelevant. These people don't care about their own sport or the fans, or the impact their actions have.

I wholeheartedly agree with your point that there must be a strict adherence to the regulations, and there must never be rule-bending by the Management Committee to solve one problem when it opens the door for a hundred more problems down the line.

[Stan Duppcomic]

Funny how Local Boy disappears and Smod appears spouting the same stuff. Yaaaaaaawn!

[Ben91]

Are people seriously suggesting Roynon should get a ban for withholding his services? His contract with the club was broken by the club, he has no obligation to them to turn up and ride anymore.

 

There should have been no facility at Berwick. This mix up was Sheffield's fault, no one else's, they should have made sure they had an eligible team to fulfil their side at Berwick in advance.

[The Third Man]

Are people seriously suggesting Roynon should get a ban for withholding his services? His contract with the club was broken by the club, he has no obligation to them to turn up and ride anymore.

 

There should have been no facility at Berwick. This mix up was Sheffield's fault, no one else's, they should have made sure they had an eligible team to fulfil their side at Berwick in advance.

 

Cant all be Sheffield's fault, as they had permission from the management committee, oh and the rain on Thursday didn't help

 

as far as I am concerned if a team signs a rider knowing they will miss fixtures there should be no facility whatsoever for that fixture

 

if that was the case no problem and no need to comment

[spin king]

(1) Are people seriously suggesting Roynon should get a ban for withholding his services? His contract with the club was broken by the club, he has no obligation to them to turn up and ride anymore.

 

(2)There should have been no facility at Berwick. This mix up was Sheffield's fault, no one else's, they should have made sure they had an eligible team to fulfil their side at Berwick in advance.

 

(1) I don't think that anyone is suggesting that Adam should received a ban for withholding his services at least I will say I don't think anyone has said he should on here.

 

(2) Under the rules as I understand it, you and many others the Rider Replacement which was given for Sheffield to use for Ty Proctor was incorrect, but Sheffield were given written permission from the BSPA on the Friday

 

After a protest by the Berwick Promotion, perfectly understandable the Rider Replacement was changed to Adam Roynon, by the BSPA.

 

Again under the rules as I, you and others understand is incorrect, as Adam was released by the club earlier in the week, so he could not withholding his services.

 

The question remains, why did the BSPA allow Sheffield the rider replacement for firstly Ty Proctor and then Adam Roynon.

 

If the BSPA as a governing body cannot give the right information to clubs, as to what is right or wrong then who can.

 

So unless there is another twist in the tale I fail to see where this all Sheffield speedways doing, as me and you and others know Sheffield should have been granted the facility to use a National League rider, which is what the BSPA should have done the minute the fixture on Thursday at Sheffield which I believe they did so mid morning.

 

There is no doubt that Sheffield Promotion made a big mistake, but you also have to question the role of The BSPA in saga.

[Paulco]

 

(1) I don't think that anyone is suggesting that Adam should received a ban for withholding his services at least I will say I don't think anyone has said he should on here.

 

(2) Under the rules as I understand it, you and many others the Rider Replacement which was given for Sheffield to use for Ty Proctor was incorrect, but Sheffield were given written permission from the BSPA on the Friday

 

After a protest by the Berwick Promotion, perfectly understandable the Rider Replacement was changed to Adam Roynon, by the BSPA.

 

Again under the rules as I, you and others understand is incorrect, as Adam was released by the club earlier in the week, so he could not withholding his services.

 

The question remains, why did the BSPA allow Sheffield the rider replacement for firstly Ty Proctor and then Adam Roynon.

 

If the BSPA as a governing body cannot give the right information to clubs, as to what is right or wrong then who can.

 

So unless there is another twist in the tale I fail to see where this all Sheffield speedways doing, as me and you and others know Sheffield should have been granted the facility to use a National League rider, which is what the BSPA should have done the minute the fixture on Thursday at Sheffield which I believe they did so mid morning.

 

There is no doubt that Sheffield Promotion made a big mistake, but you also have to question the role of The BSPA in saga.

Suppose situations like this can arise when a sport strangles itself by an ever increasing , and confusing , set of rules and regulations

[spin king]

Suppose situations like this can arise when a sport strangles itself by an ever increasing , and confusing , set of rules and regulations

Probably totally summed up the sport in that one sentence.

[Local Boy]

Funny how Local Boy disappears and Smod appears spouting the same stuff. Yaaaaaaawn!

It's good to see your posts are up to their usual standards.

[Halifordukesfan]

I should go on holiday more often, went in March, returned to find Hoggy gone, away last week, return to find Roynon replaced by Proctor. I cannot understand most of the forum negativity on these moves, we want success at Sheffield, the new promotion are doing their utmost to provide it, getting rid of people is never easy or popular, but that's why Sheffield was in the s--t these last 2 years. I for one am delighted to see Proctor in the team and his inclusion will probably mean I will see the season out, again unlike 2012/13.

[The White Knight]

 

That is fair enough, but the fact remains Sheffield were given permission by the BSPA, surely the BSPA should have if the team was illegal refuse permission to Sheffield to use Rider Replacement.

 

I don't have a problem with people saying the Sheffield was not legal, the question for me is why, how did the powers that be not only give Sheffield permission to track what appears to an illegal team, but then tell them to track another illegal team.

 

People seem quick to blame the Sheffield Promotion, but for me the BSPA Management Committee, has more to answer to.

Whatever the problems over this issue - nobody can possibly blame Adam Roynon. If HE is banned it would be a total disgrace.

 

The fault seems to lie at the door of the BSPA. It certainly appears that they are not clear on their own Regulations.

 

Seems like a complete c*ck up to me.

Edited May 5, 2014 by The White Knight

[Ned Kelly 41]

Whatever the problems over this issue - nobody can possibly blame Adam Roynon. If HE is banned it would be a total disgrace.

 

The fault seems to lie at the door of the BSPA. It certainly appears that they are not clear on their own Regulations.

 

Seems like a complete c*ck up to me.

 

Cannot agree. Sheffield seem to have erred in not doing a signing properly, but advertising it before BSPA had approved it.

 

In a way, BSPA were picking up the pieces.

[The White Knight]

Cannot agree. Sheffield seem to have erred in not doing a signing properly, but advertising it before BSPA had approved it.

 

In a way, BSPA were picking up the pieces.

You could be right.

 

On the other hand......................................... you could be wrong.

 

I did say it seems..............................................

[Fromafar]

Cant all be Sheffield's fault, as they had permission from the management committee, oh and the rain on Thursday didn't help

 

as far as I am concerned if a team signs a rider knowing they will miss fixtures there should be no facility whatsoever for that fixture

 

if that was the case no problem and no need to comment

I agree regards signing riders who will miss fixtures for the Team no facilities should be allowed, might make Promotions think a bit more about who they sign.You could then scrap half the stupid rules in Speedway.