Crump99 Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 He'd got clout and they didn't like that I'm not too sure about that. I think that you need to ease yourself in and learn how to play the game. I'm not sure that we did? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenga Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) If that's correct Neil, why is Rathbone saying we can only sign a second string ? maybe they want to sign a second string AND find a replacement for rafa as well. poss around 4.00 + If that's correct Neil, why is Rathbone saying we can only sign a second string ? maybe they need to sign a second string rider AND replace konopka @ reserve and have a few points to play with @ reserve ! J--U--S--T ........ M==========A...Y,,,,,,B******** E.. Edited July 2, 2015 by jenga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainAudi Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 If that's correct Neil, why is Rathbone saying we can only sign a second string ? I think what he means is that you can only sign an EL second string (i don't think there are any heat leaders under 6.00 in the EL) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northyorksbear Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 If that's correct Neil, why is Rathbone saying we can only sign a second string ? Absolutely no idea, again the ruling is quite clear A Team’s initial Declaration must not exceed 42.50 points MA for 7 Riders. It must also not exceed 42.50 points when re-declared (permanent or temporary) except where the MA of the introduced Rider is equal to, or lower than the Rider being replaced. So if you replace any one single rider in a change of your team you can use all of his current average for the new rider - ie in this case Allen - 8.51 to utilise, but any "unused" points are lost - so if you brought in a 7point rider then decided in a months time to replace him, you can only replace up to 7points not the previous 8.51 If you decide to replace more than one rider in a change then you can replace individually as described above for example bring in an 8 point man for Allen plus Grondal (7.00) for Lambert (7.26) plus Luke Bowen (4.00) for Simon Lambert (5.04) etc. BUT if the averages are both not lower than rider they are replacing then you have to have whole seven declared riders coming back under the 42.50 limit, so again on current averages if you decide to ditch Allen and say Konopka - total actual averages 11.51, because to have to fall back under limit you only can use 9.94 total to replace them (eg a 6 point rider and a 3.94 rider) this is taking off the 1.57 your current team is over the initial limit. Apologies for all the numbers , but I have tried to make this as simple as possible and hope it helps to clarify for those who are totally baffled and bemused by the whole scenario. Good Luck! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrow boy Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Because they had a 2014 Premier League average. SR18.6.4 If a Rider has only an EL Established MA from the previous season, which must not exceed 6.00, then a conversion is necessary; the EL MA is multiplied by 1.4. Pathetic. Not you Neil. This rule wants changing then. Jacob Thorsell should be allowed to ride in the BPL because his BEL average is no different to those I mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudflaps Posted July 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Maybe Ged misheard and the person was actually suggesting Joe Jacobs!! you're Crackers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Najjer Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Pathetic. Not you Neil. This rule wants changing then. Jacob Thorsell should be allowed to ride in the BPL because his BEL average is no different to those I mentioned. TBH, Moorwell has already explained the logic behind the rule (regardless of how poorly worded it is) which you can understand from the point of view that people such as Davey Watt, Rory Schlein etc. were lowering their average to get a PL doubling up role - much like Danny King did last year really. It seems harsh on Thorsell as appears to have just gone off the boil really, hence his average dropping so much, but a line has to be drawn somewhere I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukas Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 i would be carefull what you say,corruption is a very serious allegation and for the record i am not corrupt and never will be .It is quite simple there is a rule that was agreed at AGM by all the premier promoters that any rider with an EL average over 6 at the start of the season could not double up ,everyone agreed as this would protect the elete league from riders riding there average down to gain entry to the premier league and for the premier league would stop the gap getting even smaller to the elete league .so there you are over to you so no conspiracy just common sence and an agreement from eveyone no vote there never was dont know where that has come from but its not true because the rule was there so no debate needed So why are there so many inconsistencies then?..is the BSPA just full of incompetent people and as a matter of interest.. why, when it involves Poole for instance does it always work in their favour?...because of a conflict of interest that's why. And a conflict of interest leads to corruption. The BSPA should not be made up of promoters such as Ford and Harkess who only have their own clubs interest at heart..it should be an independent body...anybody disagree with that other than "moorwell"?..I don't think so but we shall see. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PE7Panther Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 So why are there so many inconsistencies then?..is the BSPA just full of incompetent people and as a matter of interest.. why, when it involves Poole for instance does it always work in their favour?...because of a conflict of interest that's why. And a conflict of interest leads to corruption. The BSPA should not be made up of promoters such as Ford and Harkess who only have their own clubs interest at heart..it should be an independent body...anybody disagree with that other than "moorwell"?..I don't think so but we shall see. Top post, Lukas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharpenRake Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 So why are there so many inconsistencies then?..is the BSPA just full of incompetent people and as a matter of interest.. why, when it involves Poole for instance does it always work in their favour?...because of a conflict of interest that's why. And a conflict of interest leads to corruption. The BSPA should not be made up of promoters such as Ford and Harkess who only have their own clubs interest at heart..it should be an independent body...anybody disagree with that other than "moorwell"?..I don't think so but we shall see. Don't want to seem pedantic but the BSPA stands for British Speedway Promoters Association - don't think you could exclude certain promoters just because they are cleverer than others. Agree ideally there would be an independent body but it wouldn't be called the BSPA, maybe call it something like Speedway Control Board Also sadly everyone on here when they disagreed with their decision would accuse someone of bribing someone else - hey ho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScotsman Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 So why are there so many inconsistencies then?..is the BSPA just full of incompetent people and as a matter of interest.. why, when it involves Poole for instance does it always work in their favour?...because of a conflict of interest that's why. And a conflict of interest leads to corruption. The BSPA should not be made up of promoters such as Ford and Harkess who only have their own clubs interest at heart..it should be an independent body...anybody disagree with that other than "moorwell"?..I don't think so but we shall see. I totally disagree with your supposition that certain promoters only have their own clubs' interest at heart. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PE7Panther Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) i would be carefull what you say,corruption is a very serious allegation and for the record i am not corrupt and never will be .It is quite simple there is a rule that was agreed at AGM by all the premier promoters that any rider with an EL average over 6 at the start of the season could not double up ,everyone agreed as this would protect the elete league from riders riding there average down to gain entry to the premier league and for the premier league would stop the gap getting even smaller to the elete league .so there you are over to you so no conspiracy just common sence and an agreement from eveyone no vote there never was dont know where that has come from but its not true because the rule was there so no debate needed There's several points I would like to make in response to the above post: 1. When you say "all" PL promoters, you do realise that that doesn't include Panthers, don't you? At the annual meeting last November the Panthers reps left after the conclusion of the previous season's business and before this season's business. At that stage it was far from certain that Panthers would be riding this season, and so it was only right and proper that they left the meeting. The SCB statement (qv) confirms this: http://www.peterboroughpanthers.co/news.php?extend.2333.2 Any fair-minded person would agree that this puts it all in a different light. The Management Committee is a fairly motley bunch which obviously can't and doesn't convene on a daily basis. When this Thorssell idea cropped up it's not unreasonable that Ged Rathbone would speak to one of the MC members. In fact Ged himself says that it was this MC member who mooted the idea in the first place! Maybe, maybe not. Either way, it's clear that Ged was given the thumbs-up. Or at least he wasn't given the thumbs-down. There's only 5 people on the MC, plus a reserve: Management Committee: Chairman: Alex Harkess Vice-Chairman: Chris van Straaten Management Committee Members: George English, Rob Godfrey & Keith Chapman Reserve Management Committee Member: David Hemsley So it must be one of them - and it doesn't take a genius to work it out! Anyway, we can assume that they were all at the annual meeting last Nov. So whichever MC member it was, HE would have known about the rule and its correct implementation. Or he should have done. (Otherwise he shouldn't be on the MC in the first place!) I'm not disputing that the rule is there, or that it has been applied correctly. And neither, to their credit, are Panthers. But one thing is for sure: Panthers are entitled to feel hard done by. It's even more galling that the whole affair is governed - and I use the term loosely! - by a rule book that is, at best, a badly worded pig's ear. At worst, the rules are an open-invitation to abuse by those with a vested interest in certain clubs. I'm sure every forumite can list dozens of examples! Not only that, every effin' page of the rule book can be ignored in certain circumstances... i.e. if it's deemed by the MC to be in "in the best interests of speedway". Well, if Thorssell riding for Panthers isn't "in the best interests of speedway", I don't know what is! 2. When Ged was talking about a "vote" maybe - just maybe - he was slightly misquoted, or was simply referring to the fact that the MC got their heads together and decided to block the Thorssell move. I doubt if it necessitated a formal meeting of the five MC cronies. We already know that at least ONE of them thought Panthers were on safe ground. But a few phone calls later, or maybe a conference call, the other four effectively vetoed it. Maybe it was 3-2, who knows? It might even have been the the Chairman (Harkness) who gave it the chop, but he would be bound to communicate with the other members, one way or another, because they'd need to consider if it fell under the "best interests of speedway" caveat. Anyway, Panthers would be given the bombshell news, probably (as punishment!) by the very MC member who'd led him up the garden path. No doubt Ged would be effing & blinding at him in private. And the MC bloke would be back-pedalling with something like "Sorry mate, I make you right but it was four against one, I tried my best...". And then we'd see Ged quoted in the press as saying something about it being a vote. And in a roundabout way it probably was. 3. About your quasi-legal comment about being careful with the use of the word "corruption" because it's a serious allegation, blah blah blah: You seem to be hinting that you are somehow involved. I don't know and frankly I don't give a toss. But I would suggest that the LAST thing the MC or the BSPA would want is ANY sort of litigation that risks the spotlight falling on what really goes on behind the scenes So maybe it's YOU that needs to be careful with what you say 4. I can just about forgive the awful spelling mistakes (sence, elete) but ffs BREATHE! Didn't you learn about punctuation when you were at school? Edited July 2, 2015 by PE7Panther 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudflaps Posted July 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Well Said Mick!!! Good Post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PE7Panther Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Well Said Mick!!! Good Post ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukas Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 I see "moorwell" has had my post about the BSPA being more corrupt than FIFA removed..how about you and your bunch of clowns who make British speedway worse than tinpot remove yourselves from the sport and let someone with dignity govern the sport who don't have any conflicts of interest? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterborough daz Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Lewis Blackbird has withdrawn from the Wolves meeting with an ankle injury Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 I see "moorwell" has had my post about the BSPA being more corrupt than FIFA removed..how about you and your bunch of clowns who make British speedway worse than tinpot remove yourselves from the sport and let someone with dignity govern the sport who don't have any conflicts of interest? Sadly it is you that hasn't a clue about the management of a sport financed by the promoters, decisions made by them, and you suggest they get removed and let someone else with dignity govern the sport. Pray tell how you remove the owners of clubs with their agreement, and allow an independent to advise/rule on things which could lose promoters money. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukas Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 ..sounds like you know everthing..but could you reapeat that in English please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScotsman Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Is dick the same as knob? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukas Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) ? Edited July 2, 2015 by Lukas 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.