hammer1969 Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 No matter how many times you repeat this, you are WRONG! As a staging Promoter, I am able to postpone a meeting if necessary up to two hours before the meeting (SR 14.7.1). Once the referee (or the Meeting Co-Ordinator in the case of a Sky meeting) is in attendance it is their decision, and their decision ALONE to abandon a meeting. (SR14.9) That's where there is a problem as well, once the Referee is in attendance to make the decisions it should be their decision alone with no interference from anyone, if they feel they want to speak to riders and ask their opinions that is their perogative but the Referee should make the decision as to whether a meeting goes ahead or gets called off at any point. Sky might be televising a match but they should have no say whatsoever in staging, rules etc. Sky or any other TV company should only be there to televise and commentate at meetings nothing more. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) No matter how many times you repeat this, you are WRONG! As a staging Promoter, I am able to postpone a meeting if necessary up to two hours before the meeting (SR 14.7.1). Once the referee (or the Meeting Co-Ordinator in the case of a Sky meeting) is in attendance it is their decision, and their decision ALONE to abandon a meeting. (SR14.9) Oh come on, SCB's never wrong, must be that Welsh air ya know !! :rofl: Edited July 17, 2015 by Starman2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 No matter how many times you repeat this, you are WRONG! As a staging Promoter, I am able to postpone a meeting if necessary up to two hours before the meeting (SR 14.7.1). Once the referee (or the Meeting Co-Ordinator in the case of a Sky meeting) is in attendance it is their decision, and their decision ALONE to abandon a meeting. (SR14.9) So have you got the clarification you were after about the GSI statement?! Nice write up in todays Local bournemouth Daliy Echo by Neil !!! I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned it Starman or provided the link - but maybe its best for this thread not to go on for another 60 pages!!!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 I think everyone knows the reason Coventry wanted the meeting off at heat nine was that they were losing, and knew the meeting would be called at heat ten. If they were winning they wouldn't have been concerned about safety until after heat 10. But - with Coventry having said the track was unsafe at heat nine, it seems ridiculous that they can be heavily fined for not racing heat ten when at the end of four Laps by two riders the track was deemed unsafe. How that decision was made is the key issue imho. But I believe Coventry, by trying to get the meeting restaged, muddied the waters, as that was never going to happen, and it took attention away from a valid concern to make it look like they simply tried to get the meeting called off to avoid losing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 So have you got the clarification you were after about the GSI statement?! I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned it Starman or provided the link - but maybe its best for this thread not to go on for another 60 pages!!!!! How many, if they found the link try 6000... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) I'm not surprised you wanted to hide the link. Your Team Manager appears beyond approach.. Talk about two faced... Obviously a total idiot...... http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/sport/13439780 Then head to the Sports section.... Edited July 17, 2015 by GRW123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 I'm not surprised you wanted to hide the link. Your Team Manager appears beyond approach.. Talk about two faced... Obviously a total idiot...... http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/sport/13439780 Then head to the Sports section.... Not hiding nothing mate, we were just waiting for somebody to come up with it.. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) No matter how many times you repeat this, you are WRONG! As a staging Promoter, I am able to postpone a meeting if necessary up to two hours before the meeting (SR 14.7.1). Once the referee (or the Meeting Co-Ordinator in the case of a Sky meeting) is in attendance it is their decision, and their decision ALONE to abandon a meeting. (SR14.9) So as a promoter, you're telling me it doesn't suit you, if Coventry are winning to have a meeting called off? So you'll be calling for the meeting vs Lakeside to be re-run? Of course it suits you, 3 (or 4) points but only having to pay points for 10 heats and not 15. And that's why no promoter will want the 20 10 heat rule scrapped. 50% of the time it works for them and when it doesn't at least it saves them a few £££ Edited July 17, 2015 by SCB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 So as a promoter, you're telling me it doesn't suit you, if Coventry are winning to have a meeting called off? So you'll be calling for the meeting vs Lakeside to be re-run? Of course it suits you, 3 (or 4) points but only having to pay points for 10 heats and not 15. And that's why no promoter will want the 20 heat rule scrapped. 50% of the time it works for them and when it doesn't at least it saves them a few £££ 20 heats sound good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobMcCaffery Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) The issue being discussed is about this meeting when the rules are known and meetings can be completed with a heat 10 cut off, if meetings had to be all 15 heats we would never get the season finished. Actually, when you had to complete the meeting to get a result we did normally complete the season - and that was in a 36-40 match season. It's rather sad that the discussion is still about whether Coventry wanted the match off because they were losing, thus dragging a much bigger issue down to the usual puerile 'my dad's bigger than your dad", sorry "my team's better than your team" drivel. It seems even supporters don't give a damn about supporters being cheated..... Edited July 17, 2015 by rmc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heathen chemistry Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) question, why didnt the meeting officil inspect the track after ht 9 , when he agreed to with discussions with havvy??? ridiculous; this would never of happened at wimborne road , the meeting official would of taken middlo and co much more seriously and middlo would of had louis with his mic straight to him to give his views, the commentators would most definately sided with poole and middlo ,and the match would be stopped, no 2 mins put on and eventually poole would have there way........ Edited July 18, 2015 by heathen chemistry 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Panda Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 Coventry refuse to ride v Poole and get a fine. Belle Vue refuse to ride v Poole and get a fine (and 3 points docked). Poole refuse to ride v Lakeside and get a .......... wait minute. We did not refuse to ride against Lakeside..........we asked for the meeting to be postponed there is a difference............. The choice was postpone it which Lakeside agreed to or be fined for fielding an understrength team................. RP 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 We did not refuse to ride against Lakeside..........we asked for the meeting to be postponed there is a difference............. The choice was postpone it which Lakeside agreed to or be fined for fielding an understrength team................. RP Lakeside didn't agree. And im even if they did, the rules don't allow for mutually agreeing to ignore the rules - it explicitly says so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 Lakeside didn't agree. And im even if they did, the rules don't allow for mutually agreeing to ignore the rules - it explicitly says so. Was you actually their, and know word for word what went on ? I would guess not. Sometimes i do wonder if you are looking to pick holes in Poole just for the sake of it. Oh hang on, were to sign a 4 pt rider next week, but you would swear he should come in on a 7.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 Was you actually their, and know word for word what went on ? I would guess not. Sometimes i do wonder if you are looking to pick holes in Poole just for the sake of it. Oh hang on, were to sign a 4 pt rider next week, but you would swear he should come in on a 7.. Lakeside/Jon Cook said so in a press release! Still, can't have you disagreeing with Poole! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Nick Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 Lakeside/Jon Cook said so in a press release! Still, can't have you disagreeing with Poole! Ah well there you have it. Irrefutable proof cos John Cook said so. 😂😂😂😂 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 Ah well there you have it. Irrefutable proof cos John Cook said so. 😂😂😂😂Surely he should know whether or not he agreed to it? Though regardless the rules still don't allow a fixture to be postponed like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 You did get rain-off's in the 70's Steve but you would get a re-admission ticket up to heat 6 if I remember correctly. The difference was that you didn't a result by heat 10. I think I remember meetings being called off at heat 11 on the old 13 race format and the result did not stand. I'd say it was more of a rarity than the norm to have a meeting rained off tho. Hence why the crowds knew where they stood most of the times. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 Ah well there you have it. Irrefutable proof cos John Cook said so. Wasn't he BSPA Vice Chair at the time? And didn't the SCB official approve the decision?! And didn't the SCB find there was no case for Poole to answer?! Unlike the Coventry situation in this case!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunRobin Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 At the end of the day I don't think that anyone really blames Poole. The problem for me is the heat 10 rule which is a nonsense & Sky's insistence on using it to get a meeting to end up with a result. To get full points after only 10 heats is a nonsense, how many meetings have totally changed after heat 10, if nothing else there should only be 2/3's of the points available if result declared at that point. This would deter sides on trying to force a result at this point, better to get a re-run with all points available. 1 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.