Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

Jack Holder And The (lack Of A) 9 Month Ban


SCB

Recommended Posts

This is the bit that people seem to be missing out. the regulations don't say anyone from a team.

 

What stinks to me as that nothing has been done about it. Maybe when it was said it benefits all parties, maybe that included the bspa, maybe they got a little sweetner to.

Its certainly going to cost my club and any others that I visited money, cos I won't be handing any more over, apart from one last one on Saturday, cos that's already been arranged.

exactly this.

 

Ipswich and others will miss out as the likes of Baldy are simply p!$$ed off with one shambles after another and situayions like this.

 

I wont be attending next Thursday (have now booked a few days away instead) as I decided I would not attend any meeting Holder rides in if no action was taken.

 

Redcar will miss out as Baldy and I had originally intended to travel up together but with his current apathy neither of us will be there now.

 

Im sure Newcastle would have seen and Scunny will see some reductions in view of the weaker opposition.

 

At least Ged and Jack are happy 😠

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many times, it doesn't matter. The rules don't allow a rider to miss a meeting, even with permission.

 

Steve Worrall did the other night for the birth of his child.

 

I think there's huge difference between a rider just not turning up and one who is given permission by his club to be absent. In the first, it is completely down to him, absolutely no-one else. In the second, the club must bear the overwhelming responsibility for him not being there because they have agreed to it. It is almost akin to the difference between an employee going AWOL and one being granted leave.

 

To me, Rathbone takes most of the can. Holder might deserve a ban and/or fine, but nothing to the extent that his brother does.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Steve Worrall did the other night for the birth of his child.

 

I think there's huge difference between a rider just not turning up and one who is given permission by his club to be absent. In the first, it is completely down to him, absolutely no-one else. In the second, the club must bear the overwhelming responsibility for him not being there because they have agreed to it. It is almost akin to the difference between an employee going AWOL and one being granted leave.

 

To me, Rathbone takes most of the can. Holder might deserve a ban and/or fine, but nothing to the extent that his brother does.

I'd agree.What i find appaling from a club promoter is he basically threw in the towel before it was necessary.When he said they still had a possible chance to reach the play-offs but was unlikely,he crossed a line.Nobody with in a cllub should give up until it is impossible.Even then it is letting the faithful fans down,to say we have no chance,we are letting our best rider pop off to Poland when he is needed......

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Steve Worrall did the other night for the birth of his child.

 

I think there's huge difference between a rider just not turning up and one who is given permission by his club to be absent. In the first, it is completely down to him, absolutely no-one else. In the second, the club must bear the overwhelming responsibility for him not being there because they have agreed to it. It is almost akin to the difference between an employee going AWOL and one being granted leave.

 

To me, Rathbone takes most of the can. Holder might deserve a ban and/or fine, but nothing to the extent that his brother does.

You can't even come close to compare the two.

 

 

Stave was granted compassionate leave to attend the birth of his daughter, as any employer in any industry would do. In fact I believe it's part of employment law nowadays.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't even come close to compare the two.

 

 

Stave was granted compassionate leave to attend the birth of his daughter, as any employer in any industry would do. In fact I believe it's part of employment law nowadays.

Yes you can compare the two.

 

Just because Jack hasn't chose to be a father doesn't mean he can't have a day off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't even come close to compare the two.

 

 

Stave was granted compassionate leave to attend the birth of his daughter, as any employer in any industry would do. In fact I believe it's part of employment law nowadays.

 

 

Yes you can compare the two.

 

Just because Jack hasn't chose to be a father doesn't mean he can't have a day off.

 

In actual fact, Leander is right. You can't compare the two.

 

My comment was a response to the remark that you can't miss a meeting even with a club's permission. Quite clearly, you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anybody any proof that money changed hands ? As mentioned in a previous post it seems that Holder had every intention of riding in Torun regardless. Personally I think Peterborough should have said if you ride in Torun you are finished here.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve Worrall did the other night for the birth of his child.

 

He would have had a doctors note. I queried this in the past and was told he riders get signed off.

 

Tbh, I think any reasonable person fully understands this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anybody any proof that money changed hands ? As mentioned in a previous post it seems that Holder had every intention of riding in Torun regardless. Personally I think Peterborough should have said if you ride in Torun you are finished here.

Should be gone,if that's the case.

If Rathbone had a bung,then should be fukced off asap.poison to the sport

Edited by Bald Bloke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point I was making is that as far as I know suggestions of a bung are nothing more than supposition and unless anybody knows different such claims are dangerous and irresponsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many times, it doesn't matter. The rules don't allow a rider to miss a meeting, even with permission.

If my boss gave me permission to take a day off work against company rules we'd BOTH be in trouble

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one to blame but yours and Poole's very own village idiot

 

And then people say why bite. It's because some will believe and actually use as their evidence what the looney posts. It's often tw*ttish to ignore.

The point I was making is that as far as I know suggestions of a bung are nothing more than supposition and unless anybody knows different such claims are dangerous and irresponsible.

 

That's true so why feed the fire. Rathbone didnt want to explain why and Chapman said that they had evidence of the reason but that's it. The only place that money was mentioned is on here wasn't it? Not the most reliable source for facts.

Edited by Crump99
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't even come close to compare the two.

 

 

Stave was granted compassionate leave to attend the birth of his daughter, as any employer in any industry would do. In fact I believe it's part of employment law nowadays.

 

It is, but it doesn't apply to the self-employed. What they have to adhere to is the contract they sign at the start of the season and it will allow for compassionate 'time-off'. I agree, no comparison with Holder and Rathbone has clearly broken the rules by letting him ride in PL rather than at league meetings in the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Steve Worrall did the other night for the birth of his child.

 

I think there's huge difference between a rider just not turning up and one who is given permission by his club to be absent. In the first, it is completely down to him, absolutely no-one else. In the second, the club must bear the overwhelming responsibility for him not being there because they have agreed to it. It is almost akin to the difference between an employee going AWOL and one being granted leave.

 

To me, Rathbone takes most of the can. Holder might deserve a ban and/or fine, but nothing to the extent that his brother does.

it is now law that employers allow parrents both mam and dad paid leave when there child is born

now it maybe law to give paid leave but as speedweay riders are classed as self employed that will mean the club must allow the time off but it wont have to pay them like most of us would get paid when our kids are born

suerly rathbornes cash insentive is breaking some sort of sporting code never mind the bspa rules regarding missing riders

we all know that speedway in this country is strugling to survive and clubs need every penny they can get but allowing 1 off your top riders to miss a run of home meetings for a cash payment in most sports would be classed as match tampering/fixing

i agree with the rest of your post the club are more guilty than holder

but your out of order listing stevie worrall as a example

Edited by scarra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy