Peterborough Panthers 2016

[Star Lady]

Lol. 3 clashes - that happens even when a rider is signed to two clubs with completely different race nights because no one sticks to it these days. For whatever reasons Sky TV schedule, weather plus cancellations and re-arrangements, Bank holidays, GP weekends, foreign championships the list is endless.

 

 

Good points

[peterborough daz]

But panthers don't have a Friday race night it's occasional meeting

 

https://twitter.com/DazMoody/status/728530120739323904

[damosuzuki]

Certainly a promotional disaster from the league. Reading between the lines - Harkness butted in with the same race night issue, and Edinburgh would complain about any change to race night, so all their evil bases were covered. A new low.

[Mr Blobby]

Certainly a promotional disaster from the league. Reading between the lines - Harkness butted in with the same race night issue, and Edinburgh would complain about any change to race night, so all their evil bases were covered. A new low.

2+2 and getting 5 springs to mind.

[maneacat]

You do get some idiots in this world what is surprising that BSPA seem to have more than their fair share.

You are spot on there!

[TheScotsman]

2+2 and getting 5 springs to mind.

More than 5.

[Najjer]

So is it a coindence a PL promotor declined the move?

 

Surely it's upto Peteborough to run their business as they see fit, and if they think having their no.1 missing for 3 meetings is acceptable that's upto them. Effectively the BSPA have made up a rule because the fans won't accept a rider missing. I sense that is just a excuse that barely scratches the surface.....

[TheScotsman]

And where has this stuff about 3 fixture clashes come from?

 

A quick scan through both sets of fixtures and I find 7 before we get to the play-off season in September, when there are bound to be some more.

 

Maybe the fixtures are wrong but they seemed to be:-

 

Friday 30th May

Friday 17th June

Friday 1st July (Peterborough are away at Somerset)

Friday 15th July

Friday 22nd July (Peterborough have a reserved fixture - presumably in case of progress in one of the cups?)

Monday 29th August

Friday 2nd September

 

As well as play-off fixtures not yet on the calendar, Belle Vue still have some back fixtures to rearrange and obviously there will be postponements going forward given the weather in this country.

 

So it seems to me potentially quite a lot of requirement for guest riders going forward.

 

And I though most people on here moaned about the number of guest riders?

 

 

I feel really sorry for Cookie - but I think the problem has only arisen because a club with a fair number of Friday fixtures has tried to sign him.

[Najjer]

And where has this stuff about 3 fixture clashes come from?

 

A quick scan through both sets of fixtures and I find 7 before we get to the play-off season in September, when there are bound to be some more.

 

Maybe the fixtures are wrong but they seemed to be:-

 

Friday 30th May

Friday 17th June

Friday 1st July (Peterborough are away at Somerset)

Friday 15th July

Friday 22nd July (Peterborough have a reserved fixture - presumably in case of progress in one of the cups?)

Monday 29th August

Friday 2nd September

 

As well as play-off fixtures not yet on the calendar, Belle Vue still have some back fixtures to rearrange and obviously there will be postponements going forward given the weather in this country.

 

So it seems to me potentially quite a lot of requirement for guest riders going forward.

 

And I though most people on here moaned about the number of guest riders?

 

 

I feel really sorry for Cookie - but I think the problem has only arisen because a club with a fair number of Friday fixtures has tried to sign him.

 

If at the start of the season, the BSPA had made a rule and said there is to be no missing meetings because of doubling up then I could understand their stance. As it is though, the fixtures get compiled and there is clashes after clashes, so they didn't care then - why care now all of a sudden??

[crazyb]

From Twitter:

 

BRITISH Speedway vice-chairman Rob Godfrey is keen to explain why Peterborough's bid to sign Craig Cook has failed - Godfrey: "You cannot sign a rider when he already rides for a club on your racenight." "I advised Peterborough promoter Ged Rathbone that any such move was unlikely to be approved." "King's Lynn switched from a Wednesday to a Thursday and as a consequence they had to lose Lewis Kerr (for the same reason)." "Peterborough are a... Friday night racetrack as in the promoter's guide and Craig already rides for Belle Vue who are also a Friday track." "Craig is more than welcome to ride in the Premier League, but not for a Friday night track." "If we allowed it to happen now, everyone would be trying the same thing." "I hope people, even our fiercest critics, can at least appreciate my explanation as to how this decision was reached."

 

So what! There are so many guests now (have been for years) so another three won't make any difference. If I were Rathbone I would chuck out the Fours now. Probably won't be a promotion at Peterborough by the time the Fours come round anyway.

Will Godfrey be more transparent and say who voted which way. Pigs and flying come to mind

[Lukas]

Can't believe people are congratulating the vice chairman on coming out with the pathetic excuse that there are 3 fixture clashes.. Are u people delusional who are with him?..are there any winners in all this!?

[wealdstone]

As I understand it this decision was made under the catch all rule"not in the interests of British Speedway" which give BSPA Carte Blanche to do anything they like.

 

It could also be argued that the interests of British Speedway or not being served if Ged Rathbone and Panthers pull out as has been suggested.

[TheScotsman]

Since most posters are stating there are only 3 clashes, can you please confirm which ones they are and therefore which of my 7+ are wrong?

 

Thanks.

[lucifer sam]

Can't believe people are congratulating the vice chairman on coming out with the pathetic excuse that there are 3 fixture clashes.. Are u people delusional who are with him?..are there any winners in all this!?

 

The Scotsman has already pointed out that there are more than three fixture clashes. And that's before Belle Vue start to re-arrange their postponed meetings.

 

Surely it's simple common sense being applied in this case. Doubling-up is bad enough as it is, before you allow it to happen with tracks with the same race-night.

 

All the best

Rob

[NJC71]

This forum is chock a block full of people complaining about absences, doubling up and guests.

 

The BSPA make a decision that will stop a rider doubling up between two tracks on the same night - a situation that will undoubtedly lead to more of the same - and people complain about that too.

 

 

 

When I first became aware of the ruling made, I thought it was appalling especially when the only justification was 'in the interests of speedway'.

 

Great credit to Rob Godfrey for giving us all an explanation and for treating us like people who care about the sport and not simpletons to be milked for every penny, which has happened so many times in the past.

 

For what my opinion is worth, I agree with what the BSPA have done. Doubling up is, as Godfrey says, a necessary evil. What is not needed is a situation where guests are continually required because a rider is contracted to two clubs whose home meetings are on the same night. Its all very well to say this is only three meetings, but this decision sets a precedent.

 

I also think that fingers are being pointed in the wrong direction. According to Godfrey, he told Ged Rathbone that signing Cook was unlikely to be permitted but Rathbone went ahead anyway. If that's true, then Rathbone is to blame for what has happened, not the BSPA.

Don't disagree with any of that although there are inconsistencies with their approach to doubling up. Given the number of PL tracks that ride on a Thursday & Friday night should any EL rider who has a home EL race night of a Thursday or Friday be allowed to double up? It appears the BSPA are only concerned about home availability but that ignores problems of availability for away matches as we are seeing with Newcastle's doubling up riders.

 

Rob Godfrey states the criticism of the BSPA is unfair - well here's a unique idea, why not explain why a decision has been made at the same time as announcing the decision? Not hours or days later when the damage has already been done. Use some common sense.

[Shadders]

Isn't it time there was an independent body running the sport. You can't have promoters of other teams deciding the future of another club, it's madness. As a compromise, why not allow the signing of Cook, but use a 3 point guest when he's double booked for Belle Vue

[Halifaxtiger]

 

 

To be fair, Peterboro did not want to announce this until the BSPA had ruled on it. That decision was taken out of their hands by Porsing and/or his manager who leaked the story on social media. So really it's a bit harsh to blame Rathbone.

 

I wonder whether the fans would have been given any explanation had it not been for the explosion of tweets/fb posts/BSF posts that followed the initial announcement. I applaud the fact they have tried to give fans an explanation even tho I think it's crap.

 

That still doesn't get away from the fact that they tried to sign a rider who doubles up with a club with the same race night when there is a precedent (Lewis Kerr) that you can't do it or the fact that Rathbone was told by Godfrey that it wouldn't happen.

 

Even with a ruling in place and advice from the VP of the BSPA (which, lets face it, is pretty good) Peterborough still went ahead.

 

That's entirely down to them, even if the fact that it became public knowledge isn't although what's the chances that we wouldn't have had an outburst of a similar nature even if Porsing hadn't said something ? Slim, I'd say.

 

As to your second point you might be right but its never stopped them ignoring the fans in the past.

 

So is it a coindence a PL promotor declined the move?

 

Surely it's upto Peteborough to run their business as they see fit, and if they think having their no.1 missing for 3 meetings is acceptable that's upto them. Effectively the BSPA have made up a rule because the fans won't accept a rider missing. I sense that is just a excuse that barely scratches the surface.....

 

The thing is the rule was already in place - its why Lewis Kerr rides for Lakeside, not King's Lynn. This hasn't been created for this occasion.

 

Don't disagree with any of that although there are inconsistencies with their approach to doubling up. Given the number of PL tracks that ride on a Thursday & Friday night should any EL rider who has a home EL race night of a Thursday or Friday be allowed to double up? It appears the BSPA are only concerned about home availability but that ignores problems of availability for away matches as we are seeing with Newcastle's doubling up riders.

 

Rob Godfrey states the criticism of the BSPA is unfair - well here's a unique idea, why not explain why a decision has been made at the same time as announcing the decision? Not hours or days later when the damage has already been done. Use some common sense.

 

I can see your point but there have to be limits somewhere. You can make a case for a rider riding for Swindon doubling up with Peterborough but when home fixtures clash potentially every week its very hard to do so.

 

On your second point, completely agree. The only thing is at least we have an explanation here not the usual mushroom theory and that must be a step in the right direction.

Isn't it time there was an independent body running the sport. You can't have promoters of other teams deciding the future of another club, it's madness. As a compromise, why not allow the signing of Cook, but use a 3 point guest when he's double booked for Belle Vue

 

I have always said that you can't have an independent body running the sport but you must for arbitration, as here.

 

The only thing is for once I think the decision would have been the same.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Halifaxtiger

[DWP]

To be fair, Peterboro did not want to announce this until the BSPA had ruled on it. That decision was taken out of their hands by Porsing and/or his manager who leaked the story on social media. So really it's a bit harsh to blame Rathbone.

 

I wonder whether the fans would have been given any explanation had it not been for the explosion of tweets/fb posts/BSF posts that followed the initial announcement. I applaud the fact they have tried to give fans an explanation even tho I think it's crap.

So it's mine and Nicklas's fault for this debacle. Ged called me to tell me he had released Nick to replace him with Cook and would I call Nick to tell him he had been sacked by Peterborough and the reason he had been sacked. At no time did Ged say to me, that BSPA confirmation was still required, we need clarification etc. I was told it was a done deed. Nor was I or Nicklas told we should not reveal his sacking to anyone. I had a number of calls to Nicklas in Denmark and I wrote the statement which he approved and he placed on his Facebook page approx. 3 hours after Ged's call to me. Supporters and media have accused us that we released the news because we were bitter. I can guarantee you this was not the case, we released it as it was a fact that Nicklas had been sacked. I am certain if you had been sacked from your job, you would not have kept it under your hat thinking the management had to carry out further tasks get confirmations etc. before you can tell anyone. Many ask for transparency, I have no need to not tell the facts as they were. As I help, manage Nick for no personal or financial gain other than personal pleasure in helping a young man who was instroduced to me 3 years ago when he came to the UK. If Peterborough have made an error, then please don't blame Nicklas, all he has done is tried his best and been sacked. Thank you - David Wootton

[proud panther]

Question is, will Porsing agree to return to Panthers ?

[Najjer]

 

That still doesn't get away from the fact that they tried to sign a rider who doubles up with a club with the same race night when there is a precedent (Lewis Kerr) that you can't do it or the fact that Rathbone was told by Godfrey that it wouldn't happen.

 

Even with a ruling in place and advice from the VP of the BSPA (which, lets face it, is pretty good) Peterborough still went ahead.

 

That's entirely down to them, even if the fact that it became public knowledge isn't although what's the chances that we wouldn't have had an outburst of a similar nature even if Porsing hadn't said something ? Slim, I'd say.

 

As to your second point you might be right but its never stopped them ignoring the fans in the past.

 

 

The thing is the rule was already in place - its why Lewis Kerr rides for Lakeside, not King's Lynn. This hasn't been created for this occasion.

 

 

I can see your point but there have to be limits somewhere. You can make a case for a rider riding for Swindon doubling up with Peterborough but when home fixtures clash potentially every week its very hard to do so.

 

On your second point, completely agree. The only thing is at least we have an explanation here not the usual mushroom theory and that must be a step in the right direction.

 

 

I have always said that you can't have an independent body running the sport but you must for arbitration, as here.

 

The only thing is for once I think the decision would have been the same.

Where is the rule? Kerr doesn't ride for Kings Lynn because they opted against using him after he had signed for Ipswich, that was the clubs decision.