mdmc82 Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 so basically .....Sheffield wanted to stage the fixture or they'd have had ZERO income for a month while peterborough had 3 riders who wanted an extra 1 or 2 days travelling time (nothing at all to do with this match or british speedway in general) .... make your own minds up as to who is trying to 'pull a fast one' !!!!!! With all the fuss Peterborough were making, I thought their riders were rising elsewhere on the night. If not then I'm sure they can all ride. Injuries are one thing but wanting an extra couple of days off is no excuse. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big johnowls Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 (edited) Hope its fine on Thursday. Forecast looks better than a couple of days ago. If not meeting will be on Sunday apparently!! Edited September 15, 2015 by big johnowls Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cue Ball Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 It would be interesting to know if Peterborough would have been allowed guest facilities for those missing. Check in for FIM meetings is usually Friday when there is a practice beforehand and the Golden helmet meeting isn't an FIM meeting as far as I know and so the league meeting would have taken priority, so no guest facility other than an NL rider. In the absence of the riders having to be elsewhere to ride, it does seem Sheffield were correct to hold their ground. In response to the comment re income and the meeting being held a week later - continuity is probably the answer. You go for 3 weeks without a meeting, people get out of the habit and crowds go down as a consequence. there is also the point I made at some point that we have 6 weeks to get 3 potential meetings completed at a point in the year where the weather will probably start to play a part. As to Peterborough beating us over 2 legs, I would say that it's a distinct possibility given the team changes we have had to introduce. We are going from having a trump card of Bates (at home at least) at reserve to having him in the main body and also going from having a guest no.1 to having Aspergen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panthers89 Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 I think it's hard to call, if we turn up as we should, we should have enough fire power over 2 legs but if emil and MPT aren't upto much will be tight. I'm 60/40 in our favour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halifaxtiger Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 Fans of ANY club would be unhappy if they heard that their team was being forced into a date they hadn't agreed to, and on which 3 of their key riders weren't going to be available. As it turns out.the problem has been solved by the 3 riders agreeing to change their plans. For the record, nobody ever said that they were RIDING elsewhere on the 17th; just that they were not available - which, having already made their travel and logistical plans, they weren't. Talking about it being simply down to them wanting "another day in bed" is unfair and rather childish - although it's typical of this forum. Surely we're all glad that Panthers will be able to field an almost full team now? Nobody likes to see teams comprising guests and R/R, either in your own team or the opposition. By the way, I'm just waiting for the outcry from Edinburgh if, as seems likely, the PL play-offs drag on deep into October and key riders are down under .... The simple fact of the matter is that Peterborough (and its supporters) said that Barker, Grondal & Thomsen could not ride that night. They complained to all and sundry, wailed about how unreasonable Sheffield were, how they'd be understrength and how all fans were being cheated. In fact, the truth of the matter was that all three could and indeed will ride. What's worse is they must have known that from the beginning, yet backed three riders having a day off (call it what you will, that's how it is) instead. Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it. The fact that we have to wail, gnash and slag to make sense of it all says much about the sport, it's communications and the way it treats the paying customers. Did anyone at the start or during any of those 6 pages suggest that those 3 could ride, were putting their interests first ahead of paying customers? Nope! If it's all Peterborough's fault then why did the BSPA sympathise with our plight (or did Rathbone make that up?) and what plight was that? What rule did they need to assist us that they haven't currently got? As far as I can see, the only people in this instance who have treated the paying speedway public badly are Peterborough. They put the interests of three of their riders above the needs of the sport as a whole. I suspect the BSPA did sympathise with Peterborough but one things certain : if they thought Peterborough were in the right this match would not be taking place on Thursday. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wealdstone Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 An alternative view could be in these days where riders show little loyalty to their clubs that it is a breath of fresh air that the riders concerned are willing to alter their plans to accomodate the club and supporters. In addition it should be noted that as all three are new Panthers acquisitions that their plans had been in place for some time 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irk Deflector Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 Wow! Never knew there were so many bitter and twisted people. On the face of it many aren't fans of either side! Here's to a great play off encounter, may the best side win with fans proud of their teams effort. 90-90 would be a great result with 2 leg replay to follow, would fill the blank spaces in the fixture list pending Semi Final dates! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewy Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 An alternative view could be in these days where riders show little loyalty to their clubs that it is a breath of fresh air that the riders concerned are willing to alter their plans to accomodate the club and supporters. In addition it should be noted that as all three are new Panthers acquisitions that their plans had been in place for some time Or money talks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wealdstone Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 Or money talks! Suppose it depends on who is paying the money and where the money is going to.! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMNS Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 Sheffield have had 17th down as a reserve, and is financial stupidity to go yet another week with no fixture. Peterborough wouldn't have gotten a facility for the missing riders as the riders could still have travelled to their U21 meeting on Friday. must have been why the fuss was caused - nice to see BSPA sticking to their rules for a change! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 As far as I can see, the only people in this instance who have treated the paying speedway public badly are Peterborough. They put the interests of three of their riders above the needs of the sport as a whole. I suspect the BSPA did sympathise with Peterborough but one things certain : if they thought Peterborough were in the right this match would not be taking place on Thursday. If it wasn't a PR stunt then it was a cock-up all round so you need to look a bit harder. "They have now agreed a date to host Peterborough next week" - who'd they agree that with "PETERBOROUGH chiefs stress they have not agreed to travel to Sheffield in a Premier League play-off quarter-final next Thursday"? Don't you need to agree it with the other team these days, or do you just pick a day that suits? Personally I don't see why those 3 couldn't ride anyway but don't know enough about the individual circumstance, but it could have been easily sorted without a public slanging match. I suspect that their never was an issue for the BSPA to sympathise with, but even if there was, they'd only change it if it was in their interests, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The SAINT Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 An alternative view could be in these days where riders show little loyalty to their clubs that it is a breath of fresh air that the riders concerned are willing to alter their plans to accomodate the club and supporters. In addition it should be noted that as all three are new Panthers acquisitions that their plans had been in place for some time totally agree with you here,the riders are blameless and cannot be faulted..... however, their individual commitments are nothing at all to do with british speedway/the fixture list/ sheffield speedway who have run every thursday since 1929) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halifaxtiger Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 If it wasn't a PR stunt then it was a cock-up all round so you need to look a bit harder. "They have now agreed a date to host Peterborough next week" - who'd they agree that with "PETERBOROUGH chiefs stress they have not agreed to travel to Sheffield in a Premier League play-off quarter-final next Thursday"? Don't you need to agree it with the other team these days, or do you just pick a day that suits? Personally I don't see why those 3 couldn't ride anyway but don't know enough about the individual circumstance, but it could have been easily sorted without a public slanging match. I suspect that their never was an issue for the BSPA to sympathise with, but even if there was, they'd only change it if it was in their interests, I don't think it was intended as a PR stunt (although it seems to have worked rather nicely as one) or a cock up. I think its a case of Sheffield saying that it was going to be that date either without consulting Peterborough or having consulted them and been refused and then Sheffield refusing to budge. To me, that's not quite the point, though. The point is Peterborough said they could not do it knowing all along that they could (albeit at the expense of changing travel arrangements). No such thing as bad publicity, though. This spat might just add a few more spectators at both venues. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigerite Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 I don't think it was intended as a PR stunt (although it seems to have worked rather nicely as one) or a cock up. I think its a case of Sheffield saying that it was going to be that date either without consulting Peterborough or having consulted them and been refused and then Sheffield refusing to budge. To me, that's not quite the point, though. The point is Peterborough said they could not do it knowing all along that they could (albeit at the expense of changing travel arrangements). No such thing as bad publicity, though. This spat might just add a few more spectators at both venues. Agree about the publicity bit. After Jonathan Chapman made some comments about Sheffield in 2007 before the playoff semifinal, there were literally hundreds of Tigers fans that travelled to Saddlebow Road that night, the 3rd bend terrace wasn't big enough. It's probably still the best atmosphere I remember at a Sheffield away meeting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barncooseboy Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 There is no facility for anybody riding in The Golden Helmet its just a prestgious OPen meeting held every year and related events take place on Saturday and Sunday Back in 2002 Trelawny were forced to ride a PL match against ..............................Edinburgh who refused to ride on a Tuesday because they had a swede, we told them Cornwall has lots of swedes in the fields happily growing awayt, they could have one of them. It so happened the Sunday insisted on was an international at Poole and we had to put out a team of 'Rabbits' because we couldnt get good guests. Trelawny always lost money on Sunday matches so we got stuffed in every direction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 (edited) I don't think it was intended as a PR stunt (although it seems to have worked rather nicely as one) or a cock up. I think its a case of Sheffield saying that it was going to be that date either without consulting Peterborough or having consulted them and been refused and then Sheffield refusing to budge. To me, that's not quite the point, though. The point is Peterborough said they could not do it knowing all along that they could (albeit at the expense of changing travel arrangements). No such thing as bad publicity, though. This spat might just add a few more spectators at both venues. I'd agree with that. I do get irritated with travelling time being used as an excuse when it suits, and now that it has all become somewhat clearer then I don't think that it's unreasonable that Sheffield & the BSPA said that this is happening. I find it hard to believe though that nobody looked at the possible scenarios and considered that this might be one? Anyway, only 48 hours to go and it's chip paper Edited September 16, 2015 by Crump99 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cue Ball Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 Agree about the publicity bit. After Jonathan Chapman made some comments about Sheffield in 2007 before the playoff semifinal, there were literally hundreds of Tigers fans that travelled to Saddlebow Road that night, the 3rd bend terrace wasn't big enough. It's probably still the best atmosphere I remember at a Sheffield away meeting. It was a cracking night that! Seem to remember one of our reserves scoring zero and getting a loader cheer than Topinka who scored a faultless maximum 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.