Peterborough Panthers 2018

[All4back]

18 minutes ago, Stainlesssteelride said:

Does people think their is an agenda against Ged? Or just unfortunate circumstances

Bit of both. 

[Tsunami]

29 minutes ago, Stainlesssteelride said:

Does people think their is an agenda against Ged? Or just unfortunate circumstances

Surely it has been Ged's decisions that has caused the problems and attracted opposition, especially his actions on Holdergate. The Scott affair was deemed illegal and now been corrected, but Ged has not played a straight bat with this matter, and could and should have acted in a less combative way. I think there has been a bit of twit for tat between Ged and the BSPA, but there is a way of working with your partners in any organisation and this is not a good case of that.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Tsunami

[jenga]

youre spelling is terrrablee  how can youmiss sphell tat !

[wealdstone]

1 hour ago, Tsunami said:

Surely it has been Ged's decisions that has caused the problems and attracted opposition, especially his actions on Holdergate. The Scott affair was deemed illegal and now been corrected, but Ged has not played a straight bat with this matter, and could and should have acted in a less combative way. I think there has been a bit of twit for tat between Ged and the BSPA, but there is a way of working with your partners in any organisation and this is not a good case of that.

I would have thought suspension and a punitive fine to say nothing  about being ordered to to give free admission was pretty combative.

[Tsunami]

1 hour ago, wealdstone said:

I would have thought suspension and a punitive fine to say nothing  about being ordered to to give free admission was pretty combative.

Your opinion, but others could say a person who breaks rules he has signed to uphold, deserves sometimes a harsh sentence.

[wealdstone]

1 hour ago, Tsunami said:

Your opinion, but others could say a person who breaks rules he has signed to uphold, deserves sometimes a harsh sentence.

I do not and never have supported Ged regarding Holder. However I do believe his version of events as it would seem do others when the matter escalated and went to a higher authority.

[Tsunami]

9 minutes ago, wealdstone said:

I do not and never have supported Ged regarding Holder. However I do believe his version of events as it would seem do others when the matter escalated and went to a higher authority.

There could be two versions of the truth though.

[Crump99]

36 minutes ago, Tsunami said:

There could be two versions of the truth though.

There's always only one and it usually sits in the middle of the supposed two options given.

[bigcatdiary]

38 minutes ago, Tsunami said:

There could be two versions of the truth though.

Of course their is

The BSPA issued a press release saying they and the SCB had thrashed out a solution, when in truth the SCB/ACU had said it was unlawful and wouldn’t be included in this years rulebook.

 

[ruffdiamond]

1 hour ago, Tsunami said:

There could be two versions of the truth though.

Yeah,,, one'll be right and one'll be wrong

[Crump99]

9 hours ago, Tsunami said:

Not everything makes it to the News release as well we all know.

 

Actually I might have to revise my previous statement when I said that Ged had signed Scott in December or January. I'm told he signed him before the AGM and it was well known.

That's got to be a joke surely. That's surely the no1 not to do and anyone at Peterborough should know that.

[New era Panthers]

10 hours ago, Tsunami said:

Not everything makes it to the News release as well we all know.

 

Actually I might have to revise my previous statement when I said that Ged had signed Scott in December or January. I'm told he signed him before the AGM and it was well known.

Nice to know that you are admitting that you may have got things wrong  , if only the BSPA would show a willingness to do the same instead of saying they had worked out a compromise that was acceptable to all parties.

[Tsunami]

11 hours ago, New era Panthers said:

Nice to know that you are admitting that you may have got things wrong  , if only the BSPA would show a willingness to do the same instead of saying they had worked out a compromise that was acceptable to all parties.

Getting things wrong, Hmmmm. Bit of a tenuous link that .

It was stated on here that Scott had been signed in December/January and I quoted that, but I have now been told that he was signed before the AGM, early November I hear, and I reported that.

Edited February 28, 2018 by Tsunami

[wealdstone]

Ged  has always admitted that regarding Holder he broke the rules, the issue has always been that he asked "the Lincolnshire poacher on a Friday night" what the consequences would be. The highest authority chose to believe Ged's  version..

[Halifaxtiger]

On ‎26‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 10:15 PM, Tsunami said:

- and No, that's an over statement. It was agreed at the AGM when Peterborough was not represented. Ged signed Nicholls in about December or January,  when he could/should have known it was not allowed under the AGM decisions. Far better to highlight is illegality and test the decision, and not sign Scott, which really was an attempt to rock the boat rather than seek clarification of its lawfulness. Problem is when onlookers dislike the BSPA, along comes someone who breaks the rules and rigidly flaunts actions against a AGM decision , and he suddenly becomes the peoples champion. Sad Sad. Swop the personalties and substitute Matt for Ged and the speedway world would go mad with such arrogance.  

It is and has to be a closed shop, embracing ALL the BSPA, how else can a committee in charge of British Speedway operate ? The latter part of that para is way over the top IMO.

Which is exactly what I said. They ALL need to work together to run speedway, even if they have natural leanings for or against other promotions. Again spite and vindictiveness is way over the top IMO.

The decision was not only made at the AGM, it was subsequently confirmed on 1 February 2018  - despite the fact that Peterborough challenged it. As such, they did test the decision and were refused. Three weeks (BCD has stated it was less) later - apparently after solicitors were contacted - the BSPA backed down completely. According to Phil Rising, the SCB were fully aware that the Nicholls decision was illegal and refused to ratify it. 

I am therefore asking myself whether the decision to retain the rule after review  in early February and then reverse it a matter of weeks later  was a matter of incompetence, viciousness or both.

I don't regard Rathbone as the peoples champion - and I suspect those that do are motivated by their own prejudices - but I do regard him as someone who stood up to a ruling in the interests of his promotion, his team, his fans and his sponsors.  That is very hard to condemn.

The problem with a closed shop is that no-one is allowed to challenge it. That means however illegal, corrupt or biased their rulings are they must be adhered to. That surely cannot be right, and the answer must be not to punish dissent or dissension but not make such rulings in the first place. Decisions that are fair, open, justifiable, subject to precedent and legal are far harder to challenge.

There are those who bash the BSPA at every opportunity - again, almost certainly as a result of their own prejudices. The thing is though is that the BSPA themselves have, to a degree, created such an attitude. Personally, I take pleasure that an illegal ruling has been struck down and I doubt very much that I am the only one with that view.

I have made no secret of my respect and admiration for the promotion at Isle Of Wight and its clear Barry Bishop and Martin Widman have put a huge amount of time, money, effort and enthusiasm into ensuring that the Warriors are a paying success. Yet last season, time after time, rulings went against them, be that because they were turned down (despite precedents) or that others received ludicrously beneficial judgements. That undoubtedly contributed to their final league position and no doubt there were times that they would have felt utterly disillusioned by events around them.

The thing is I - and I would stand on my own reputation for fairness and impartiality -  can well believe that they were denied their share of discretion through simple jealousy, provoked by the remarkable (and totally justified)amount of credit and praise they have received from speedway fans across the country.

Ged Rathbone was heavily fined and had his promoters licence suspended as a result of allowing Holder to ride in Poland. 

Two seasons ago, I went to a meeting where a promoter took part in a sit on the track during that meeting. He, one of his riders and a number of the home support sat on the track on one side of the tapes while on the other side were riders ready to race. I thought that was a grossly irresponsible act and an awful breach of health and safety regulations. 

To my knowledge, that promoter was never fined, punished or disciplined in anyway and, in my view, there is no question about what was the more serious offence.

Any organisation that treats its members with such appalling inconsistency - and, seemingly, favouritism - can also make decisions in precisely the same way and therefore deserves at least some of the odium and criticism it gets.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Halifaxtiger

[Noodles]

12 minutes ago, Halifaxtiger said:

The decision was not only made at the AGM, it was subsequently confirmed on 1 February 2018  - despite the fact that Peterborough challenged it. As such, they did test the decision and were refused. Three weeks later - apparently after solicitors were contacted - the BSPA backed down completely. According to Phil Rising, the SCB were fully aware that the Nicholls decision was illegal and refused to ratify it. 

I am therefore asking myself whether the decision to retain the rule after review  in early February and then reverse it a matter of weeks later was a matter of incompetence, viciousness or both.

I don't regard Rathbone as the peoples champion - and I suspect those that do are motivated by their own prejudices - but I do regard him as someone who stood up to a ruling in the interests of his promotion, his team, his fans and his sponsors.  That is very hard to condemn.

The problem with a closed shop is that no-one is allowed to challenge it. That means however illegal, corrupt or biased their rulings are they must be adhered to. That surely cannot be right, and the answer must be not to punish dissent or dissension but not make such rulings in the first place. Decisions that are fair, open, justifiable, subject to precedent and legal are far harder to challenge.

There are those who bash the BSPA at every opportunity - again, almost certainly as a result of their own prejudices. The thing is though is that the BSPA themselves have, to a degree, created such an attitude. Personally, I take pleasure that an illegal ruling has been struck down and I doubt very much that I am the only one with that view.

I have made no secret of my respect and admiration for the promotion at Isle Of Wight and its clear Barry Bishop and Martin Widman have put a huge amount of time, money, effort and enthusiasm into ensuring that the Warriors are a paying success. Yet last season, time after time, rulings went against them, be that because they were turned down (despite precedents) or that others received ludicrously beneficial judgements. That undoubtedly contributed to their final league position and no doubt there were times that they would have felt utterly disillusioned by events around them.

The thing is I - and I would stand on my own reputation for fairness and impartiality -  can well believe that they were denied their share of discretion through simple jealousy, provoked by the remarkable (and totally justified)amount of credit and praise they have received from speedway fans across the country.

Ged Rathbone was heavily fined and had his promoters licence suspended as a result of allowing Holder to ride in Poland. 

Two seasons ago, I went to a meeting where a promoter took part in a sit on the track during that meeting. He, one of his riders and a number of the home support sat on the track on one side of the tapes while on the other side were riders ready to race. I thought that was a grossly irresponsible act and an awful breach of health and safety regulations. 

To my knowledge, that promoter was never fined, punished or disciplined in anyway and, in my view, there is no question about what was the more serious offence.

Any organisation that treats its members with such appalling inconsistency - and, seemingly, favouritism - can also make decisions in precisely the same way and therefore deserves at least some of the odium and criticism it gets.

Great post, well said.

[Tsunami]

4 hours ago, Halifaxtiger said:

The decision was not only made at the AGM, it was subsequently confirmed on 1 February 2018  - despite the fact that Peterborough challenged it. As such, they did test the decision and were refused. Three weeks (BCD has stated it was less) later - apparently after solicitors were contacted - the BSPA backed down completely. According to Phil Rising, the SCB were fully aware that the Nicholls decision was illegal and refused to ratify it. 

I am therefore asking myself whether the decision to retain the rule after review  in early February and then reverse it a matter of weeks later  was a matter of incompetence, viciousness or both.

I don't regard Rathbone as the peoples champion - and I suspect those that do are motivated by their own prejudices - but I do regard him as someone who stood up to a ruling in the interests of his promotion, his team, his fans and his sponsors.  That is very hard to condemn.

The problem with a closed shop is that no-one is allowed to challenge it. That means however illegal, corrupt or biased their rulings are they must be adhered to. That surely cannot be right, and the answer must be not to punish dissent or dissension but not make such rulings in the first place. Decisions that are fair, open, justifiable, subject to precedent and legal are far harder to challenge.

There are those who bash the BSPA at every opportunity - again, almost certainly as a result of their own prejudices. The thing is though is that the BSPA themselves have, to a degree, created such an attitude. Personally, I take pleasure that an illegal ruling has been struck down and I doubt very much that I am the only one with that view.

I have made no secret of my respect and admiration for the promotion at Isle Of Wight and its clear Barry Bishop and Martin Widman have put a huge amount of time, money, effort and enthusiasm into ensuring that the Warriors are a paying success. Yet last season, time after time, rulings went against them, be that because they were turned down (despite precedents) or that others received ludicrously beneficial judgements. That undoubtedly contributed to their final league position and no doubt there were times that they would have felt utterly disillusioned by events around them.

The thing is I - and I would stand on my own reputation for fairness and impartiality -  can well believe that they were denied their share of discretion through simple jealousy, provoked by the remarkable (and totally justified)amount of credit and praise they have received from speedway fans across the country.

Ged Rathbone was heavily fined and had his promoters licence suspended as a result of allowing Holder to ride in Poland. 

Two seasons ago, I went to a meeting where a promoter took part in a sit on the track during that meeting. He, one of his riders and a number of the home support sat on the track on one side of the tapes while on the other side were riders ready to race. I thought that was a grossly irresponsible act and an awful breach of health and safety regulations. 

To my knowledge, that promoter was never fined, punished or disciplined in anyway and, in my view, there is no question about what was the more serious offence.

Any organisation that treats its members with such appalling inconsistency - and, seemingly, favouritism - can also make decisions in precisely the same way and therefore deserves at least some of the odium and criticism it gets.

Lots of points there Chris, some of which I will challenge. Others I will either PM you or discuss them when we next meet.

 

The ruling might have been passed at the AGM but would have been known weeks before at the PreAGM meeting, so the decision could have been pre-empted. 

The decision would have been made with the best intentions of clarifying who could drop down, but unfortunately for Kennett and Nicholls they had no Championship average to fall back on, like say Harris. Presumably the ruling was for genuine stabilisation between the two leagues and that was the AGM decision. That's the way an organisation operates cos it is the ruling body for the sport. To say a member in a 'closed shop' can't challenge things is rather ignoring reality. All matters are discussed, voted for and a decision arrived at, and in many cases by a majority vote as few things are unanimous. That's how all committees generally operate. The difference in this case is the legality of that decision. The BSPA, obviously having made the decision, thought it was legal and enforceable, and therefore would have tried to uphold it. When faced by objections from the SCB and a legal challenge, they had no alternative to overturn their own decision. That is not as you say "incompetence, viciousness or both" unless  you are preprogrammed to the mantra that the organisation "deserves at least some of the odium and criticism it gets".

I have no information to what you allude to with the IOW matters, but I would have thought that generally within the BSPA ranks and other fans that Barry and Martin, their efforts have been applauded and are in the vest interest of the continuance of our sport. The fact that Barry has just won an award  just recently would suggest your 'jealousy' tag may be a bit offline.

You say Ged was 'fined heavily'.  Hmmm. Yes he was by the BSPA to the tune of £28K, which coincided with the amount of what he received by breaking rules of the organisation, which he signed before the season started as agreeing to uphold the rules of he organisation.  Everyone seemed to think that was rather relevant and justified. In the subsequent review by the SCB, that fine was cancelled and replaced to about £1k and scrubbed the free meeting I believe. Who thinks that the SCB decision was better or more appropriate than the original one from the BSPA. I think the BSPA got it spot on and I am disappointed in the level of the SCB revised fine. So we have rules that get broken and Ged makes a profit of about £26k is a punishment ?   Not right.

Rob, who you have championed before for his style and achievements with the Scunny track, was stupid to do what he did. No argument with that. It is not unprecedented but cannot be accepted under any circumstances. There has to have been some review of his actions and maybe his warning or punishment has not been published, I don't know. But what I do now is that that meeting was under the control of the referee acting for the SCB, and it is them not the BSPA  to take any appropriate action. if you accept the SCB acted according regarding the reversing of an illegal decision with the over 6 rule, I would hope you will also hold a similar view regarding the view that the SCB with Rob's actions. 

As I said earlier, there are things I can't put on here as you will understand. Will be in touch.

 

[bigcatdiary]

31 minutes ago, Tsunami said:

Lots of points there Chris, some of which I will challenge. Others I will either PM you or discuss them when we next meet.

 

The ruling might have been passed at the AGM but would have been known weeks before at the PreAGM meeting, so the decision could have been pre-empted. 

The decision would have been made with the best intentions of clarifying who could drop down, but unfortunately for Kennett and Nicholls they had no Championship average to fall back on, like say Harris. Presumably the ruling was for genuine stabilisation between the two leagues and that was the AGM decision. That's the way an organisation operates cos it is the ruling body for the sport. To say a member in a 'closed shop' can't challenge things is rather ignoring reality. All matters are discussed, voted for and a decision arrived at, and in many cases by a majority vote as few things are unanimous. That's how all committees generally operate. The difference in this case is the legality of that decision. The BSPA, obviously having made the decision, thought it was legal and enforceable, and therefore would have tried to uphold it. When faced by objections from the SCB and a legal challenge, they had no alternative to overturn their own decision. That is not as you say "incompetence, viciousness or both" unless  you are preprogrammed to the mantra that the organisation "deserves at least some of the odium and criticism it gets".

I have no information to what you allude to with the IOW matters, but I would have thought that generally within the BSPA ranks and other fans that Barry and Martin, their efforts have been applauded and are in the vest interest of the continuance of our sport. The fact that Barry has just won an award  just recently would suggest your 'jealousy' tag may be a bit offline.

You say Ged was 'fined heavily'.  Hmmm. Yes he was by the BSPA to the tune of £28K, which coincided with the amount of what he received by breaking rules of the organisation, which he signed before the season started as agreeing to uphold the rules of he organisation.  Everyone seemed to think that was rather relevant and justified. In the subsequent review by the SCB, that fine was cancelled and replaced to about £1k and scrubbed the free meeting I believe. Who thinks that the SCB decision was better or more appropriate than the original one from the BSPA. I think the BSPA got it spot on and I am disappointed in the level of the SCB revised fine. So we have rules that get broken and Ged makes a profit of about £26k is a punishment ?   Not right.

Rob, who you have championed before for his style and achievements with the Scunny track, was stupid to do what he did. No argument with that. It is not unprecedented but cannot be accepted under any circumstances. There has to have been some review of his actions and maybe his warning or punishment has not been published, I don't know. But what I do now is that that meeting was under the control of the referee acting for the SCB, and it is them not the BSPA  to take any appropriate action. if you accept the SCB acted according regarding the reversing of an illegal decision with the over 6 rule, I would hope you will also hold a similar view regarding the view that the SCB with Rob's actions. 

As I said earlier, there are things I can't put on here as you will understand. Will be in touch.

 

Well you make some points in the reply that I take some issue with

1. Scott Nicholls himself states he was contacted by Damien Bates before the AGM asking if he was interested in riding for Sheffield in 2018, it appears he wasn’t adverse to the idea but said his preference was Peterborough, he heard nothing more from Sheffield from then on, so if a new member of the MC didn’t know about the proposed rule how on Earth was a suspended promoter likely to know.

2. You and me both know from experience that challenging the MC or the BSPA gets you nothing but aggravation as the promoters who do so know from bitter experience. They don’t follow precedence and make decisions on the basis of who is asking rather than general common sense or fairness to everyone. The fact that Ged Rathbone made some serious money from the Holder deal is what sticks in the BSPA throat, that and the fact he picked up two trophies didn’t help either.

The organisation as far as new rules is pathetic as last years Fours was with rules not coming out until a few days before the event and we’ll after the date teams declared their teams, then we had the laughable situation where teams were in, out and then back in in the space of a week during which some of the teams had riders then committed to Poland. And he were in March and the 2018 regulations are still not published. 

3. It’s clear that the governing body for Speedway in the UK (the ACU) don’t hold either the BSPA or the SCB in a good light and after all the problems of 2017 and recent events it’s no real surprise is it.

As for publishing results of some hearings, it’s been plainly obvious to some that the BSPA have no stomach at all in publishing its own shortcomings as the recent Rathbone appeal and Godfrey finding showed, for some reason the BSPA seem to think that if they don’t mention it no one will be any the wiser but in this day and age nothing is secret for very long with most discretion’s being fully dissected on the BSF and being taken to task by the Speedway star.

I have said before until the BSPA start acting with honesty, openness and fairness nothing will change and this sport will lurch from one PR disaster to another.

[IronScorpion]

After reading about the last 10-12 posts on here, if we were all perfect, the World would be a better place

[Alan_Jones]

3 minutes ago, IronScorpion said:

After reading about the last 10-12 posts on here, if we were all perfect, the World would be a better place

No it wouldn't. We genuinely perfect people wouldn't have anything to be pretentious about.