BurntFaceMan Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 Nice try. There is no need to fabricate information as you are doing. The evidence is already available. Andersen at no point stated he would be out long term, he stated he would back asap, whilst Poole were already putting the message out he was done for the season, laying the groundwork. As for you trying to dispute the definition of 'long term'. Well, short term would me one match, that's as short as you can get. To appease you we'll have the 'long term' as two matches... he didn't reach two matches so under no definition could it have been classed as 'long term' from the point at which the signing was made. Anyway we'll never disagree... I'm a fan of the sport and want to see it prosper. You just want to win at all costs and to hell with the damage as is clear by your final comments above. Each to their own. It's not me trying to dispute the definition of long term. The fact is unless long term is defined exactly, and the way you can ensure a rider is going to be injured for that time is defined, then it's basically an open invitation to be used by any team who want to replace any rider before the play offs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Shovlar Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 So basically no rules were broken. The anti Poole brigade are trying anything they can to say Matt Ford cheated when in truth no rules were broken and no cheating has taken place at all. Nothing to see here. Move along. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semion Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 Will Poole be permitted to bring a new signing in for Bjarne as well. Or will he now be fit for Wednesday ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 Neither!! Tungate guests for Pedersen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim G Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 It must be upsetting to be a Poole fan when all your out of form riders get injured for the playoffs. Every year I feel sorry for you, but luckily due to the generosity of your fellow promoters/doctors notes you reshuffle and your team becomes stronger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 Neither!! Tungate guests for Pedersen A guest for an injured rider how ridiculous!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 What happened to R/R? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E I Addio Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 I think the "GP riders assessed at 8" was perfectly reasonable and made sense. y. Except that when Andreas Jonsson was brought back to Lakeside he was assessed at 9.03. This is the root of the problem. They are incapable of making a decision and sticking to it. First it's an 8 then it's a 9 then it's a 7. If there was a specific formula, set in the rules like the EL/PL conversion everyone would know what's going on. If 7 is the correct figure then by definition they got AJ completely wrong, if AJ was correctly assessed then they clearly messed up big time with Lindback Even by the usual BSPA standards they have made a complete dogs breakfast of this one. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 It's not me trying to dispute the definition of long term. The fact is unless long term is defined exactly, and the way you can ensure a rider is going to be injured for that time is defined, then it's basically an open invitation to be used by any team who want to replace any rider before the play offs. In most cases I would agree, in this case it isn't needed. Short term and Long term are two different lengths. The shortest possible term is 1 match. Hence that is short term. To play devils advocate we will say that anything over 1 match is 'long term'. It isn't obviously, but as you point out, it's not defined so we will take the shortest possible period it can be, which is two matches.. given that 1 match is short term. How many matches did Andersen miss after he was signed?.. 1 match. So he fails to meet the criteria, no matter how you twist it and no matter how short you try to imply 'long term' might be. Now, despite all the discussion, nothing is going to change, Poole will continue on in their destructive fashion, fans will be p****d off the length and breadth of the country and the fanbase will shrink further. All that being said, I'm still looking forward to tomorrow night (being the fool that I am) and hopefully we'll have a cracking nights racing and Wolves can make a fight of it. In other words, lets agree to disagree and focus on the match itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 In most cases I would agree, in this case it isn't needed. Short term and Long term are two different lengths. The shortest possible term is 1 match. Hence that is short term. To play devils advocate we will say that anything over 1 match is 'long term'. It isn't obviously, but as you point out, it's not defined so we will take the shortest possible period it can be, which is two matches.. given that 1 match is short term. How many matches did Andersen miss after he was signed?.. 1 match. So he fails to meet the criteria, no matter how you twist it and no matter how short you try to imply 'long term' might be. Now, despite all the discussion, nothing is going to change, Poole will continue on in their destructive fashion, fans will be p****d off the length and breadth of the country and the fanbase will shrink further. All that being said, I'm still looking forward to tomorrow night (being the fool that I am) and hopefully we'll have a cracking nights racing and Wolves can make a fight of it. In other words, lets agree to disagree and focus on the match itself. Hans missed many matches after being injured about 8 or 9, surely that's the criteria not the amount of matches since the new rider was signed and i would say 8 or 9 matches is long term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 Hans missed many matches after being injured about 8 or 9, surely that's the criteria not the amount of matches since the new rider was signed and i would say 8 or 9 matches is long term. According to your website - it was 5 before the playoffs and I would say that isn't long term. What if Hans had been injured at the start of June - he would have missed 0 or 1 meetings in the same period - so number of meetings isn't a fair indication on its own. However, the rule is for injury replacement for the play-offs. There was 1 play-off meeting and then Hans rode so I am pretty sure that isn't long term either! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halifaxtiger Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 Correct. The issue here is quite simply, this isn't an isolated incident.. indeed, it's not even isolated for this season, or even this month! There's two incidents involving Poole causing fans to say "Not again". It's pretty much every single season there is some scam pulled by Poole which is why we get the same debates every single season and even on this forum they involved increasingly less people. Why? Because many of those who were vocal in previous years are now lost to this forum and more importantly, lost to the sport. The problem is not the scams that they pull, but the fact that they are allowed to do it. Its all very well to blame Matt Ford, but to my mind every single other member of the BSPA is culpable because they let it happen. Its far from just Poole either. Bewley can double between clubs that ride on the same night but Cook can't. Hall has an NL average from years ago but Bowen has a converted PL one. Davey can guest for Bewley but not Ayres. All of those rulings are from 2016 season, all of them are contradictory and all are almost certainly made from self interest. So basically no rules were broken. The anti Poole brigade are trying anything they can to say Matt Ford cheated when in truth no rules were broken and no cheating has taken place at all. Nothing to see here. Move along. I'd say its more like the pro Poole brigade desperately trying to justify both a rule that has unquestionably been broken and a bent BSPA ruling. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimli27 Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 As a long time Poole supporter i am trying to be impartial and yes Matt does pull a few moves and for some reasons the powers that be either dont see anything wrong or he has some magic wand but surely as so many have posted on here completely transparent rules are the only way to go then we would not have to interpret the rules as we all have different views of right and wrong and perhaps even morals wont be an issue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 According to your website - it was 5 before the playoffs and I would say that isn't long term. What if Hans had been injured at the start of June - he would have missed 0 or 1 meetings in the same period - so number of meetings isn't a fair indication on its own. However, the rule is for injury replacement for the play-offs. There was 1 play-off meeting and then Hans rode so I am pretty sure that isn't long term either! it is a play off replacement for a long term injury, probably your right i haven't counted exactly but 5 is still a fair amount and could be considered long term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damosuzuki Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 They should get themselves to Monmore tomorrow for a great meeting,they are only denying themselves. Exactly, If I was anywhere near Monmore I'd be there, loving it. Make a banner, get a good chant of CHEATS going etc etc... Get behind Wolves and make Matt Ford know he's not welcome. That's what going to an event like this is all about. Make it as intimidating as possible for Poole and hand them a thrashing. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 it is a play off replacement for a long term injury, probably your right i haven't counted exactly but 5 is still a fair amount and could be considered long term. It was 2 weeks (from the date of his injury to your last EL league match) - still think it's long term? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Beevers Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 BWitcher, please can you stop constantly whining about people walking away from the sport and Poole scamming continously because this is not the case as you have no evidence. Whilst I believe a punishment should be handed out to Poole if in fact this ruling is true, but in truth we are going on hearsay and noone has actually provided any evidence that the injury most be 'long term' so if you can put your energies into finding that rule because that SCB rule website is dreadful and is like finding gold nuggets. Poole have not scammed in any other way so far and only this one maybe the only one but to harp on about the credibility of the sport is tiring reading because I know real speedway fans go and watch their club, have a cheapish night out for some entertainment, watch their home team win or lose and go home. The credibility of the sport has been the same for the last 25 years in my opinion. Sure, crowds have gone down but only due to the increasing prices and the top rider demands but speedway is still going strong and if you think a few loopholes being exploited and a few teams breaking the odd rule here and there are going to affect crowds, then you are barking up the wrong tree in my opinion. Only a few rule sticklers maybe disgruntled but their passion at wanting teams to play fair is still not enough to stop going and watching their favourite team every week and the odd comment on the forum of, I am fed up with speedway is replaced by a single man who went speedway and begins a family who he decides to take to speedway as well. Like he cares about the difference between a club using a slightly better guest for an injured rider. Poole have not scammed with Pedersen or the Lindback average but this is a rule that needs to be clarified and I would expect the chairman to act. If not, I won't lose sleep over it as I am a neutral and want to see great speedway between two world class lineups and preferably full strength teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bald Bloke Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 The problem is not the scams that they pull, but the fact that they are allowed to do it. Its all very well to blame Matt Ford, but to my mind every single other member of the BSPA is culpable because they let it happen. ^^ Yep. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 It was 2 weeks (from the date of his injury to your last EL league match) - still think it's long term? Longer than a week is long term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouch Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 In a way I'm an example of a fan deciding not to attend anymore. I use to go to all Aces away fixtures, open meetings, fixtures from other leagues and if I was in a particular part of the country with a track an hour or so away I'd pay it a visit. I watch 20-30 less meetings now as a result of the cheating etc that goes on. I'd never think of penalising Belle Vue so I have a season ticket and go to every match apart from the play offs, I've never seen one as it doesn't fit right so I give them a wide berth. I was interested in the post from a Poole fan saying crowds in 2003 were around 4000 put now they are half that. Even Poole fans can't stomach what Fraud gets up to and it was around then that his modus operandi kicked in (2004 to be exact, remember "self confessed cheat" Matt Ford). True fans can see the damage he does to the club and the sport as a whole, save for a few devote followers. I think I'm correct in stating the Ford is the least successful Poole promoter in terms of bums on seats. Great shame. 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.