peterborough daz Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 If panthers had been as quick to make changes last year they might have done better, instead of manipulating at guest at number one for months, what goes around comes around eh? bspa has bent over backwards for you lot.... Never bloody happy Are you trolling or being serious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigcatdiary Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 Absolute farce, I hope Craig does get another team. It would be interesting to know who the leading parties were in getting him blocked. Well their is only 5 on the MC and only 2 of them are PL promoters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterborough daz Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 When does the appeal get heard? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyb Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 Peterborough would have to go with a NL rider whilst two Brits needlessly sit on the sidelines. Panther's would get fined for fielding a under strength team, the attendance will be poor & the future of Speedway in Peterborough plunged in to doubt again....... ... but all in the best interests of British speedway of course. Think back to the Coventry-Peterborough stand-off a few years ago. They wanted speedway to be run by someone or two who had no interest in a particular team, so completely unbiased. It didn't happen, it never will, BUT while you thought that things had reached the depths and couldn't get worse, it has, and will continue to until there is nothing left. The BSPA are a complete and utter joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damosuzuki Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 "I've also been informed that Belle Vue were not in a position to give us permission to speak to the rider - something they did grant to my co-promoter Trevor Swales when he made contact with them." Assuming that the BSPA are too dense to have come to this conclusion themselves, who would have raised it? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterborough daz Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 In the best interests of speedway how can they sanction a move ti another PL team? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solidmango Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 Cook will be at Edinburgh shortly and that'll be why it has been blocked! What a shambles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodles Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 If panthers had been as quick to make changes last year they might have done better, instead of manipulating at guest at number one for months, what goes around comes around eh? bspa has bent over backwards for you lot.... Never bloody happy So you agree it's personal and the judgment isn't based on any rule? Hopefully Sheffield will recieve the same then if they need to make changes this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NICKAT Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 I think the main problem the BSPA management committee have with the proposed change is it is not Poole who are proposing it! If that had been the case it would have sailed through. A stunning piece of theory by the BSPA this that I and most others judging by comments find ridiculous. Speedway in general is a sport that is struggling on many levels, especially getting people through the door to make financially viable for promotors up and down the country. The BSPA know this, so what is the best course of action - to block the signing of a rider who would potentially add to gates wherever he and his team ride. Now, one of the men who saved the Panthers and stopped one of the best race strips in the UK disappearing is considering his future due to this, which could possibly have serious implications for the future of the sport in Peterborough again. The BSPA clearly have little interest in protecting the sport and the rest of speedway in the UK should breakaway and form a proper governing body with positive ideals for the future of the sport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comet49 Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 Ok, I wasn't aware of that. Well their is only 5 on the MC and only 2 of them are PL promoters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkafag Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 (edited) Need to see the explanation, but the going to Edinburgh thing seems a bit 2+2 given that if he was going there it would have made more sense not to agree terms with Peterborough. I would say though, the BSPA could do with implementing regulations around the release of statements from clubs and on their own website. The number of times a news is released and then contradicted days later is slightly cringing for those involved, just sort it and rubber stamp it behind closed doors before putting it out in public. Edited May 6, 2016 by sparkafag 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevePark Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 So what would happen now if porsing says no thanks? The BSPA will fine Peterborough for fielding an under strength team Peterborough would have to go with a NL rider whilst two Brits needlessly sit on the sidelines. Panther's would get fined for fielding a under strength team, the attendance will be poor & the future of Speedway in Peterborough plunged in to doubt again....... ... but all in the best interests of British speedway of course. Surely he would be deemed as "withholding his services" and they could use a facility (guest or R/R)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stiltonpanther Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 What a disgrace the bspa are. If I was Ged at the appeal would say OK we will change the 3 fixtures which clash, now give us another reason why you will not sanction the move. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigcatdiary Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 Need to see the explanation, but the going to Edinburgh thing seems a bit 2+2 given that if he was going there it would have made more sense not to agree terms with Peterborough. I would say though, the BSPA could do with implementing regulations around the release of statements from clubs and on their own website. The number of times a news is released and then contradicted days later is slightly cringing for those involved, just sort it and rubber stamp it behind closed doors before putting it out in public. I think that was the plan but Porsing,s manager decided to plaster it all over Facebook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_Jones Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 If Peterborough didn't speak to Edinburgh then they've broken the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damosuzuki Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 All teams are bound to be represented on the management comittee even though they are not there. I'm sure phones have been red hot over the last 48 hours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Blue Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 What a disgrace the bspa are. If I was Ged at the appeal would say OK we will change the 3 fixtures which clash, now give us another reason why you will not sanction the move. The move wouldn't be sanctioned as, under the best interests of speedway, a team is not allowed more than 2 riders with double letters in their surname at any one time. As Panthers already have OstergAArd and PeRRy in their declaired 1-7 they cannot add COOk. If the management committee were to let this slip through it would mean the end of speedway as we know it!!!! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainAudi Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 If Peterborough didn't speak to Edinburgh then they've broken the rules. I saw it mentioned somewhere yesterday (maybe on here but if I'm wrong someone can correct me) that as he's not riding for us this year, then it has nothing to do with Edinburgh, it's up to Belle Vue as they signed him first. Ridiculous if true, but then again, that's speedway! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 (edited) I saw it mentioned somewhere yesterday (maybe on here but if I'm wrong someone can correct me) that as he's not riding for us this year, then it has nothing to do with Edinburgh, it's up to Belle Vue as they signed him first. Ridiculous if true, but then again, that's speedway! Correct, Belle Vue hold his 2016 registration. If he was changing PL clubs then it would be through said PL club due to priorities. The priorities are with the EL club in this instance Edited May 6, 2016 by Danny Smith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylorj Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 Interesting tweet from Davey Watt yesterday "Don't see how its right that someone with a higher average than me can sign in the PL but I can't just because he did PL last year and I didn't" ........mmmmm and all blocked today 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.