Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

Scunthorpe Vs Glasgow ( P L) - Friday, June 19th (7.30pm)


Recommended Posts

 

Gaz, did you hear what Rob Godfrey said last night?

 

Fair play to Glasgow for winning on the night. But to use a guest when Rob G requested rider replacement, after he allowed you to track David Howe last night, is poor form. As well as written rules, there are unwritten ones. A gentleman's agreement should be just that. Instead the Tigers management have shown themselves to be win-at-all-costs.

 

As you know I'm often sympathetic to Glasgow, but not in this case.

 

All the best

Rob

Fair do's Rob but no i didn't hear what Rob Godfrey said i am sure he is saying what he believes be interesting what our take is on those comments and if this agreement was in place i am sure we will have our version off what was said and Rob G has his but as i have now read some posts since i got back in i see nagy1 has referred to there being no agreement which knowing our management team would seem more plausible as they are not in the habit off shafting anyone.

The rule was dubious because if the r/r rule states that it is intended for an injured rider, that should be it. doesn't matter when or how the injury occurred end of! guest cancelled. In the same way I believe the rule for No 1 is the allowance of a guest that we used. Us using r/r of Ryan one would have cancelled the other. Not Glasgow's fault but that of BSP rule. Would Glasgow had beaten Scunny doing r/r I doubt it. Your guest turned out to be your 2nd best rider on the night. He got 3 wins from 4 races. 10 + 1 A very good showing, impressive rider!

Not the best meeting. Missed you Josh you'd have been in your element on that outside line. Sure we would have won it with you! Hurry up to get back SCORPIONS need you!

But it is not as simple as that Glasgow had provided details off there team line up 3 days prior to the meeting with Covatti included as a guest for James who was riding for Coventry last night but was then injured on Wednesday after the team was declared either way he was going to miss last night as he was due to ride for his parent club and under the rules we had the facility to field a guest which we have done legitimately wether people like it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Appreciate I might be seen by others as being biased, but a genuinely neutral view on this, and for any other time/club who act similarly.

 

Surely the ultimate job of promoters is to have as many riders racing as possible to entertain the public?

Not restricting who should had shouldn't appear?

Short changing your customers ... not good business practice.

 

And yes I appreciate it depends on folk's interpretation of the word "entertain", because for some that means winning.

And yes I know some may call me naive, but I'm not talking about whether or not it happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would this work rather than running with a guest rider?.

 

Simply allow the team minus a top rider due to injury; to start the meeting on +his average. So last night Scunny start on 8 Glasgow 0 and Scunny then bring in a No8 say Matt Williamson. We promote Lunna into the team. So Glasgows task is to ride down our +8 start. This way we field a genuine Scunny 1-7 and the need to include guests at every turn is lessened. If you think about it the whole premise for building a team is based on numbers on paper not on the track.So its not incomprehensible that a team losing a top man be permitted to start with a points "loader" equivalent to his average. Its up to that team to defend those points and the opposition to chase it down. That may add a bit of extra spice to meetings As well as giving No8s experience.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

its the "gentlemans agreement" that got broke thats rattled rob.. to me if someone didnt hear what he said then he or she shouldnt second quess what was said. i believe rob knew that glasgow were planning to use a guest but asked for a favour by saying they could david this week instead of after the match, a gentlemans agreement was agreed last week with lakeside regarding ben barker and ashley birks i believe, its not about what "scunny have done it before", its about promoters talking deals over the phone, and thinking you have people who you can trust, of course glasgow were in the right to use a guest as the bspa granted the facility, did the mangemaent go back on their word as i dont think david would have been with glasgow last night if they hadnt agreed..... could someone explain why berge did hand gestures to the crowd coming off bend 4 please?

Edited by neck brace tony
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it is not as simple as that Glasgow had provided details off there team line up 3 days prior to the meeting with Covatti included as a guest for James who was riding for Coventry last night but was then injured on Wednesday after the team was declared either way he was going to miss last night as he was due to ride for his parent club and under the rules we had the facility to field a guest which we have done legitimately wether people like it or not.

I could be wrong Gaz but the way I read it what Rob is saying was that the gentleman s agreement was made to allow Glasgow to sign David Howe earlier. If that's the case and it was agreed at that time under gentle mans agreement that in allowing Glasgow to sign Howe Glasgow would use r/r for James then it is totally irrelevant from the point of the teams for Scunthorpe as to wether James is now injured or not. That's almost a smokescreen. I'm sure Rob will correct me if I am wrong but I get the impression the issue is not James as such but the David Howe agreement which Scunthorpe feel was renaiged on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would this work rather than running with a guest rider?.

 

Simply allow the team minus a top rider due to injury; to start the meeting on +his average. So last night Scunny start on 8 Glasgow 0 and Scunny then bring in a No8 say Matt Williamson. We promote Lunna into the team. So Glasgows task is to ride down our +8 start. This way we field a genuine Scunny 1-7 and the need to include guests at every turn is lessened. If you think about it the whole premise for building a team is based on numbers on paper not on the track.So its not incomprehensible that a team losing a top man be permitted to start with a points "loader" equivalent to his average. Its up to that team to defend those points and the opposition to chase it down. That may add a bit of extra spice to meetings As well as giving No8s experience.

 

Simple answer NO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be wrong Gaz but the way I read it what Rob is saying was that the gentleman s agreement was made to allow Glasgow to sign David Howe earlier. If that's the case and it was agreed at that time under gentle mans agreement that in allowing Glasgow to sign Howe Glasgow would use r/r for James then it is totally irrelevant from the point of the teams for Scunthorpe as to wether James is now injured or not. That's almost a smokescreen. I'm sure Rob will correct me if I am wrong but I get the impression the issue is not James as such but the David Howe agreement which Scunthorpe feel was renaiged on.

I read it that way as well but the point that Nagy 1 has made is it was totally down to Scunthorpe wether we spoke to David or not to then try and tell us on the makeup off our team for the Friday fixture is not there desicion to make if we chose R/R or as it turned out the guest option it is our decision to make and i don't think there is a team out there including Scunthorpe that would bow to that request.

 

The David Howe signing is totally separate to the gripes by many on the guest scenario and should remain as such it was down to them to decide if we could sign him or not which to there credit they allowed but it is not down to them or anyone else to try and dictate what our team makeup should be for a meeting.

 

I would like to think we didn't agree to what has been said because if we did agree then go back on it after the signing and used Covatti anyway then it is pretty poor but as i have said in a previous post i would be surprised if we did agree to that request as our management are not the type to shaft anyone.

its the "gentlemans agreement" that got broke thats rattled rob.. to me if someone didnt hear what he said then he or she shouldnt second quess what was said. i believe rob knew that glasgow were planning to use a guest but asked for a favour by saying they could david this week instead of after the match, a gentlemans agreement was agreed last week with lakeside regarding ben barker and ashley birks i believe, its not about what "scunny have done it before", its about promoters talking deals over the phone, and thinking you have people who you can trust, of course glasgow were in the right to use a guest as the bspa granted the facility, did the mangemaent go back on their word as i dont think david would have been with glasgow last night if they hadnt agreed..... could someone explain why berge did hand gestures to the crowd coming off bend 4 please?

Can you elaborate on second guess as Rob has kindly told us what was said but what you are saying really is that we can sign David Howe if you don't use a guest which we were entitled to if you use a guest you can't sign him at the moment what difference would it have made in reality as we would have used Covatti for James anyway and R/R for Kozza in all likelihood we would have scored more than the 4 David scored from as Rich would have had another ride.

 

I am not privy to the discussions and don't claim to be i would be very surprised though if we had agreed to that it is the same in all walks off life there will be two sides to every story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you say 'you would like to think....' But the bottom line is we don't know! It's not unknown for little agreements like this to be made between promoters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you say 'you would like to think....' But the bottom line is we don't know! It's not unknown for little agreements to be made between promoters

Exactly us mere mortals are only second guessing Rob is more in the know than most on here i would just like to think that we wouldn't go back on an agreement if that is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it was your post earlier gaz... "i didnt hear what rob was saying" what i meant about quesing

No problem Rob had asked and i told him i didn't know what was said and he kindly told me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read it that way as well but the point that Nagy 1 has made is it was totally down to Scunthorpe wether we spoke to David or not to then try and tell us on the makeup off our team for the Friday fixture is not there desicion to make if we chose R/R or as it turned out the guest option it is our decision to make and i don't think there is a team out there including Scunthorpe that would bow to that request.

 

The David Howe signing is totally separate to the gripes by many on the guest scenario and should remain as such it was down to them to decide if we could sign him or not which to there credit they allowed but it is not down to them or anyone else to try and dictate what our team makeup should be for a meeting.

 

I would like to think we didn't agree to what has been said because if we did agree then go back on it after the signing and used Covatti anyway then it is pretty poor but as i have said in a previous post i would be surprised if we did agree to that request as our management are not the type shaft anyone.

so as there is no more confusion this is what happened. Three weeks ago Glasgow asked for David Howes number and I gladly gave them it . More recently they asked me again for it and that coincided with David writing on twiter decisions, decicions, desicions. So putting it together with the request from Glasgow for his number again I text David and told him to go for it and he replied that he didnt think his shoulder was up to it. Not believing that David would ride I thought nothing about it until last Thursday when I recieved a text saying that glasgow had done a deal with David. I immediatly contacted Glasgow to inform them that I did not want David riding against us on Friday as it could be damaging for Scunthorpe Speedway and it was my right to protect Scunthorpe. It was agreed to not use David and sort out another matter. On Tuesday as I was at MC the 1 to 7 was tabled for approval I realised that as James Sarjents average was effective on the Friday there could be no way to not let David ride as then Glasgow would lose the point they had gained before James Sarjents average went up so being as fair as I could I agreed to let David ride and in turn that would protect Glasgows average but asked in return for Glasgow not to use a guest for James just use r/r as if David had not ridden it would be r/r for Kozza Smith but this decision was reffered to the boss to which I never got a reply. I acted in good faith but felt Glasgow did not repay that courtesy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if rob himself repeated on here what he told us, would you still deny there was a gentlemans agreement?,,, obviously yes, because us scunny fans will believe rob, you glasgow fans will be on the side of glasgows.... if you know rob then you know he will tell you straight what he thinks of things, swearing at the ref, our riders not riding the track he prepared for them. , what i heard was that davids signing was based on glasgow not going with a guest, but r/r , they agreed then when signed they went back on the "agreement" .. i wish the meeting was videoed then people could hear what he said (unless it got edited out)..didnt rob request a song from barry when the meeting was getting started?


sorry i posted when rob was typing then saw he had posted.... sorry rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so as there is no more confusion this is what happened. Three weeks ago Glasgow asked for David Howes number and I gladly gave them it . More recently they asked me again for it and that coincided with David writing on twiter decisions, decicions, desicions. So putting it together with the request from Glasgow for his number again I text David and told him to go for it and he replied that he didnt think his shoulder was up to it. Not believing that David would ride I thought nothing about it until last Thursday when I recieved a text saying that glasgow had done a deal with David. I immediatly contacted Glasgow to inform them that I did not want David riding against us on Friday as it could be damaging for Scunthorpe Speedway and it was my right to protect Scunthorpe. It was agreed to not use David and sort out another matter. On Tuesday as I was at MC the 1 to 7 was tabled for approval I realised that as James Sarjents average was effective on the Friday there could be no way to not let David ride as then Glasgow would lose the point they had gained before James Sarjents average went up so being as fair as I could I agreed to let David ride and in turn that would protect Glasgows average but asked in return for Glasgow not to use a guest for James just use r/r as if David had not ridden it would be r/r for Kozza Smith but this decision was reffered to the boss to which I never got a reply. I acted in good faith but felt Glasgow did not repay that courtesy.

So you have cleared the confusion up i understand what you are saying in the highlighted part but is it not our promotions right to protect Glasgow Speedway just the same i am not disputing what you say but i am sure we will be given an update on our promotion's view on thing's tomorrow as you have so kindly given your view on thing's it may well be the same or it may not.

if rob himself repeated on here what he told us, would you still deny there was a gentlemans agreement?,,, obviously yes, because us scunny fans will believe rob, you glasgow fans will be on the side of glasgows.... if you know rob then you know he will tell you straight what he thinks of things, swearing at the ref, our riders not riding the track he prepared for them. , what i heard was that davids signing was based on glasgow not going with a guest, but r/r , they agreed then when signed they went back on the "agreement" .. i wish the meeting was videoed then people could hear what he said (unless it got edited out)..didnt rob request a song from barry when the meeting was getting started?

sorry i posted when rob was typing then saw he had posted.... sorry rob

I have never denied it if you read my post's what i have said there is two sides to every story .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry gaz that wasnt meant specifically to you, i was speaking generally, like i said we believe rob and glasgow will believe your management,to be fair maybe it should of been kept between then selves, but like i said, rob will tell it how it is...

And that is how it should be to a certain extent hopefully it doesn't leave a sour taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy