Coventry V Poole 1/6/15

[orion]

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.

Not sure why people keep on about sky and heat 10 ..There are pleny of matches that are not on sky when teams mostly home sides will try to get to heat 10 if it means they get the desired result . As I said Cov themselves done the same v lakeside only a couple of weeks before this match . Just like you I don't like the heat 10 rule not why sky are to blame as it happens on the time .

[SCB]

Not sure why people keep on about sky and heat 10 ..There are pleny of matches that are not on sky when teams mostly home sides will try to get to heat 10 if it means they get the desired result . As I said Cov themselves done the same v lakeside only a couple of weeks before this match . Just like you I don't like the heat 10 rule not why sky are to blame as it happens on the time .

The Sky issue is that the rules state that after heat 10 ONLY the losing team can request a track inspection. Yet in the play-off final, the meeting was called off with Coventry losing and that was going to happen in this meeting due to the different rules for Sky meetings.

[SteveLyric2]

The Sky issue is that the rules state that after heat 10 ONLY the losing team can request a track inspection. Yet in the play-off final, the meeting was called off with Coventry losing and that was going to happen in this meeting due to the different rules for Sky meetings.

Maybe that's why there wasn't a track inspection at heat 9??

[oleoleole]

If anybody fancies coming along and asking Gary Havelock for his views on this then everybody is welcome at the NSSC tomorrow night. (Non-members £3 for admission)

 

David Rowe has kindly stepped in to the interviewers chair for this one so it should be an interesting night.

 

All money raised supports the Young Lions, details here;

http://www.younglionsspeedway.co.uk/next-guest-at-the-nssc-gary-havelock-all-proceeds-for-the-young-lions/

[mdmc82]

Coventry are making an appeal to the ACU. They are taking video evidence.

[SteveLyric2]

Coventry are making an appeal to the ACU. They are taking video evidence.

Is that the same video evidence they took to SCB??

 

Or is Mick taking his porn stash.......?

[Pirate Nick]

Coventry are making an appeal to the ACU. They are taking video evidence.

Mick must have money to burn, or confident that he can make up his legal costs with a sympathy collection at the track.

[Woz01]

Or like some of us he thinks he has a case?

Maybe that's why there wasn't a track inspection at heat 9??

You need to read that again.

[Midland Red]

If the club statement had been left at this, it would have been spot on - but the last few paragraphs about donations, etc. have done the club and its officials no good at all

 

COVENTRY can confirm they will be lodging an appeal against the verdict issued by the Speedway Control Bureau last week.

The members present at the meeting on July 9, which discussed the events of the Coventry v Poole fixture on June 1, were: Tony Gillias (SCB Chairman); Dickie Staff (SCB Member - ACU), Peter Gregory (substitute SCB Member - ACU, replacing unavailable Gary Thompson), Alex Harkess (SCB Member - BSPA) and Gordon Pairman (SCB Member - BSPA).

Also present were SCB Prime Officer Graham Reeve and Clerk to the Court Mrs Nikki Jamieson.

Coventry can also confirm, contrary to a recent press release from Poole, that at no stage were they given the option of requesting the withdrawal of any member of this panel due to an actual or perceived conflict of interest. The club was epresented by co-promoters Mick Horton and Neil Watson.

The SCB members ruled the Buildbase Bees had been in breach of regulation 4.1.9 during the abandoned meeting against Poole on June 1, stating that the riders had “failed to meet the 2-minute time allowance facility on more than one occasion.”

Coventry feel the overall conclusion of the SCB has failed to take into account the full circumstances of the meeting and the roles of key officials on the night, despite the evidence presented, and that the penalty is unjust.

Having given the matter due consideration, the club has paid an Appeal fee to the Auto Cycle Union (ACU) in accordance with regulation 3.4.11 .

 

That's all that needed to be said, pending the appeal

[Dave Jones]

If the club statement had been left at this, it would have been spot on - but the last few paragraphs about donations, etc. have done the club and its officials no good at all

 

COVENTRY can confirm they will be lodging an appeal against the verdict issued by the Speedway Control Bureau last week.

 

The members present at the meeting on July 9, which discussed the events of the Coventry v Poole fixture on June 1, were: Tony Gillias (SCB Chairman); Dickie Staff (SCB Member - ACU), Peter Gregory (substitute SCB Member - ACU, replacing unavailable Gary Thompson), Alex Harkess (SCB Member - BSPA) and Gordon Pairman (SCB Member - BSPA).

 

Also present were SCB Prime Officer Graham Reeve and Clerk to the Court Mrs Nikki Jamieson.

 

Coventry can also confirm, contrary to a recent press release from Poole, that at no stage were they given the option of requesting the withdrawal of any member of this panel due to an actual or perceived conflict of interest. The club was epresented by co-promoters Mick Horton and Neil Watson.

 

The SCB members ruled the Buildbase Bees had been in breach of regulation 4.1.9 during the abandoned meeting against Poole on June 1, stating that the riders had “failed to meet the 2-minute time allowance facility on more than one occasion.”

 

Coventry feel the overall conclusion of the SCB has failed to take into account the full circumstances of the meeting and the roles of key officials on the night, despite the evidence presented, and that the penalty is unjust.

 

Having given the matter due consideration, the club has paid an Appeal fee to the Auto Cycle Union (ACU) in accordance with regulation 3.4.11 .

 

That's all that needed to be said, pending the appeal

Just another example of the officials shooting themselves in the foot, which has happened quite regularly since they took over the promotion.

 

The most important aspect of it all for me is the way that they have wrecked the reputation of what was once the most well respected speedway club in the country.

[Pirate Nick]

http://m.bournemouthecho.co.uk/sport/13488679.UPDATED_Speedway__Poole_Pirates_co_promoter_Pairman_refutes_Coventry_statement/

 

Horton being less than honest?

[mdmc82]

http://m.bournemouthecho.co.uk/sport/13488679.UPDATED_Speedway__Poole_Pirates_co_promoter_Pairman_refutes_Coventry_statement/

 

Horton being less than honest?

OR Poole being less than honest. Would hardly be the first time would it

[Pirate Nick]

OR Poole being less than honest. Would hardly be the first time would it

Gordon Pairman is one of the most honest and upfront people I have met so I doubt it.

[mdmc82]

Gordon Pairman is one of the most honest and upfront people I have met so I doubt it.

Nothing against him as don't know him personally, however I remember people saying what a lovely person Ward was at one point.

[Pirate Nick]

Nothing against him as don't know him personally, however I remember people saying what a lovely person Ward was at one point.

What's Ward got to do with it?

[Alan_Jones]

If Pairman was originally happy to leave the inquiry in the event of a conflict of interest, why didn't he just leave when the obvious conflict arose? It shouldn't have been necessary for anyone to ask.

[Steve0]

If Pairman was originally happy to leave the inquiry in the event of a conflict of interest, why didn't he just leave when the obvious conflict arose? It shouldn't have been necessary for anyone to ask.

What conflict of interest? Coventry refused to ride - nothing to do with Poole!

[TesarRacing]

What conflict of interest? Coventry refused to ride - nothing to do with Poole!

 

Of course there is a conflict of interest. It is in Poole's interest that the result stands and therefore they keep the league points!!

[g13webb]

This whole episode stinks of conspiracies. The BSPA; The Sky contract, The stupid rules, The integrity of the sport. Nobody has come out of this with any credit..... All it does is dig a deeper hole for the sport to get out of..

 

So many questions and no answers......What good will come from the decision to fine Coventry £3000.00?. Who will benefit from this money?. What damage will it do for the sport? What damage it will do for the survival of the Bees? to name but a few.......

 

Of cause Coventry made mistakes, but so did the other organising powers as well. The situation arose because these organisations have different priorities, where the sport and the fans comes last. Sky don't give a damn about the sport, other than filling in a spot of their busy schedule. and it is wrong for them to have the powers to override safety and common sense..

 

This match should never have started, but now we need to move on. ..... The powers of the SCB and the BSPA should learn from this and see that situations like this, won't happen again. Dishing out heavy fines for petty issues, (failing to come to the tapes) is not the way forward.

 

We should be looking at the positives from dire situations like this, and instigate new rules and guidelines to illuminate any possible chance of this happening again. If that cant be implemented, one has to question the behaviour of the powers in charge............

[foreverblue]

This whole episode stinks of conspiracies. The BSPA; The Sky contract, The stupid rules, The integrity of the sport. Nobody has come out of this with any credit..... All it does is dig a deeper hole for the sport to get out of..

 

So many questions and no answers......What good will come from the decision to fine Coventry £3000.00?. Who will benefit from this money?. What damage will it do for the sport? What damage it will do for the survival of the Bees? to name but a few.......

 

Of cause Coventry made mistakes, but so did the other organising powers as well. The situation arose because these organisations have different priorities, where the sport and the fans comes last. Sky don't give a damn about the sport, other than filling in a spot of their busy schedule. and it is wrong for them to have the powers to override safety and common sense..

 

This match should never have started, but now we need to move on. ..... The powers of the SCB and the BSPA should learn from this and see that situations like this, won't happen again. Dishing out heavy fines for petty issues, (failing to come to the tapes) is not the way forward.

 

We should be looking at the positives from dire situations like this, and instigate new rules and guidelines to illuminate any possible chance of this happening again. If that cant be implemented, one has to question the behaviour of the powers in charge............

I don't think refusing to race is petty and if they didn't get fined it would open up a whole new can of worms, the amount of the fine another question.

 

The fan always seem to come last unless clubs give discounts for sky meetings and give value for money, perhaps they could discount the programme too as it is rarely good value for money.

 

If clubs are going to continue to produce a programme from a previous meeting with a two page insert then they are only going to make fans annoyed, if programmes were all like the programme at Swindon when Poole were there then there wouldn't be a problem.