June01 Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 (edited) Guess that answers my PL/Peterborough question, but given the Friday night statement, would they also have blocked a return to Edinburgh? Wonder if Cookie will now be forced to choose a full time return to the PL in order to earn a living? Feel so sorry for him at the moment. That's the second blow to the family jewels he's had this week alone. Edited May 6, 2016 by June01 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucifer sam Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 So he would now be missing 8 meetings in total. Hmm... quite a bit of logic to it then. Eight... and counting. How many of BV's meetings currently need re-arranging.... Common sense decision by BSPA. You can't allow a rider to double up between two tracks with the same race-night. Doubling up is already enough of a mess, without opening that particular floodgate. All the best Rob 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointsmeanplayoffs Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 Another PR disaster for the BSPA, Peterborough Panthers, in fact everyone involved. Feel sorry for the riders to be honest, trying to make a living in a circus cannot be easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 That wasn't the reason given. It was because both are Friday tracks so the objection relates purely to home matches. Godfrey goes further and says he can sign for any team other than a Friday track so it seems the BSPA are quiet happy about away clashes. No, but it is part of it. As the statement says, doubling up is a necessary evil and comes with problems.. that being riders will miss matches when there are fixture clashes. Fans are crying out all over the forum about that happening. It is common sense that you can't sign a double up rider with the same home race night on both teams as that will just make the issue fans hate, even worse. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouch Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 The number of clashes due to Belle Vue & Peterbough being Friday night tracks is 3 There are 2 other clashes due to one or both clubs riding away. Belle Vue ride 5 Friday's, 5 Wednesday's with the rest on Mondays and Saturdays. Less than 35% of the time we are a Friday night club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyb Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 Its not hard to see who was the driving force was behind the decision. WHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trees Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 So say OK but no facility, no 8 only? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkafag Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 If the rule is in place that you cannot sign for two tracks that race on the same night (which seems entirely logical) then the number of clashes is pretty irrelevant. If it was allowed to happen once and “yeah but” is used in that instance it genuinely would suggest favouritism if another side was told no if they attempted the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces51 Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 (edited) No, but it is part of it. As the statement says, doubling up is a necessary evil and comes with problems.. that being riders will miss matches when there are fixture clashes. Fans are crying out all over the forum about that happening. It is common sense that you can't sign a double up rider with the same home race night on both teams as that will just make the issue fans hate, even worse. It isn't part of it. If he can ride for any non Friday PL club, which is what Godfrey said, then away matches played no part in their reasoning. Whether it should have done is an entirely different argument but you can't make up reasons for them. Edited May 6, 2016 by Aces51 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trees Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 Tbh you could say the Panthers should know the rules .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 If the rule is in place that you cannot sign for two tracks that race on the same night (which seems entirely logical) then the number of clashes is pretty irrelevant. If it was allowed to happen once and “yeah but” is used in that instance it genuinely would suggest favouritism if another side was told no if they attempted the same thing. There is no such rules. The rule they have used is the rule that says the BSPA can turn down or allow any team declaration they like regardless of the rules. Tbh you could say the Panthers should know the rules .... What rule should they know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arson fire Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 I think it makes a lot more sense now... If double uppers sign for same race night team it would be even more farcical than it is now, if cook set a precedent it would be a bench mark for others. Unfortunate on all concerned but sensible imo. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucifer sam Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 (edited) What rule should they know? This one: 16.3.5 The BSPA MC monitors all proposed moves and has the sole responsibility to approve all (re-)Declared Team Line-Ups having been satisfied they are in the best interests of the sport. Plus two precedents: 1. Swindon having to release Josh Bates, when he signed for Sheffield (on the same race-night). 2. King's Lynn having to release Lewis Kerr, when they moved to Thursday nights and clashed race-nights with Ipswich (Kerr's PL club). It's pretty clear from that, that a rider is not allowed to sign for two clubs with the same race-night. All the best Rob Edited May 6, 2016 by lucifer sam 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyb Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 http://www.speedwaygb.co/news.php?extend.30419.1&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook BRITISH Speedway vice-chairman Rob Godfrey is keen to explain why Peterborough's bid to sign star rider Craig Cook has failed. Panthers had announced their intention to bring in the Belle Vue man on a doubling-up basis - but the sport's management committee didn't approve the move. And Godfrey insists Cook is welcome to ride in the Premier League and is also slamming suggestions of a vendetta against the East of England Showground club. He said: "I'm annoyed by the amount of unfair criticism the association are taking over this. "The fact of the matter is that I advised Peterborough promoter Ged Rathbone that any such move was unlikely to be approved, I told him this as a friend. "You simply cannot sign a rider when he already rides for a club on your racenight. King's Lynn switched from a Wednesday to a Thursday and as a consequence they had to lose Lewis Kerr from their team as he was already signed to a Thursday night track. "Here, we have Peterborough who are a declared Friday night racetrack as in the promoter's guide and yet Craig already rides for Belle Vue who are also a Friday track. "I explained all this to Ged but he still went and released riders from his team. "This is not a vendetta against Peterborough and not a vendetta against Craig. Craig is more than welcome to ride in the Premier League, but not for a Friday night track and if we allowed it to happen now, everyone would be trying the same thing. "Doubling-up is a necessary evil in the sport, as an association we have a responsibility to maintain control of the situation. "I hope people, even our fiercest critics, can at least appreciate my explanation as to how this decision was reached." Peterborough have more Sunday meetings than Fridays, so why didn't they put in the Promoters guide Race nights Sunday and Friday. This must be the first time that the Bloody Stupid P****s Assoc have ever taken notice of their guide 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trees Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 There is no such rules. The rule they have used is the rule that says the BSPA can turn down or allow any team declaration they like regardless of the rules. What rule should they know? Must be one of the BSPA's unwritten rules! Rob Godfrey on Twitter says it's a rule, I dunno .... could cause big probs if there are rain offs etc, if they said no facility for clashes then no probs ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 It isn't part of it. If he can ride for any non Friday PL club, which is what Godfrey said, then away matches played no part in their reasoning. Whether it should have done is an entirely different argument but you can't make up reasons for them. Yes it is. Riders are already missing fixtures as it is due to away clashes, which is BAD. Therefore they don't want to ADD to that problem by allowing clubs to sign riders with the same home race night. Again, I am not saying I totally agree with this decision, but I can understand why it has been made. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fromafar Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 I think it highlights how far the standard has drop in British Speedway ,whatever we think of Craig's situation,he states in SS that he is not up to speed in Poland,these engine tuners must be rubbing their hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maneacat Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 Peterborough have more Sunday meetings than Fridays, so why didn't they put in the Promoters guide Race nights Sunday and Friday. This must be the first time that the Bloody Stupid P****s Assoc have ever taken notice of their guide Hopefully another lesson learned for our Promoter - if a race night not used by the EL clubs is stated as our race night this will never be a problem in the future. Saturday's/Sunday's no problem for signing D/U riders and then run your fixtures as usual. They are all over the place anyway so it won't make any difference to fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_Jones Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 There is no such rules. The rule they have used is the rule that says the BSPA can turn down or allow any team declaration they like regardless of the rules. What rule should they know? By their own admission they broke 6.7 by not asking Edinburgh's permission. As I understand it the same night doubling up ban is in the promoters handbook along with things like the 30 mile rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfsbane Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 (edited) So fans are heartily hissed off with double up/down clashes. The BSPA have finally realised this so are trying to stop a bad situation getting worse. So issue a press release that details the REAL reason.'Craig would miss 3 Peterborough home meetings plus 5 away meetings and that is a situation we couldn't allow to happen. He is welcome to ride in the Premier league but it's the BSPA's responsibility to deal with issues that have angered supporters'. Easy isn't it, full and transparent explanation, no BS, no hiding behind false reasons, job done. Some folks may not agree with them but there you go. What is their problem? Edited May 6, 2016 by Wolfsbane 5 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.