Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

Peterborough Panthers 2018


Recommended Posts

Its certainly not the first time it has happened

Sadly last years example at Ipswich springs to mind!

Presumably until a newly declared team takes to the track the previously declared team remains the official 1-7

The grey area (isnt there always with speedway) would be where the replaced rider signs elsewhere starightaway *sadly for Emil not possible

Its not impissible for example had Emil been fit that he couldve signed and ridden for another team before Kennett was injured - what then?? 

Could we have had the situation where Emil was named in 2 teams 1-7 with a facility for Boro??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said:

Its certainly not the first time it has happened

Sadly last years example at Ipswich springs to mind!

Presumably until a newly declared team takes to the track the previously declared team remains the official 1-7

The grey area (isnt there always with speedway) would be where the replaced rider signs elsewhere starightaway *sadly for Emil not possible

Its not impissible for example had Emil been fit that he couldve signed and ridden for another team before Kennett was injured - what then?? 

Could we have had the situation where Emil was named in 2 teams 1-7 with a facility for Boro??

That situation arose just a few days ago with Redcar, Thomas Jorgenson and Theo Pijper.

(and no, a rider cannot appear in two 1-7s)

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

8 minutes ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said:

Its certainly not the first time it has happened

Sadly last years example at Ipswich springs to mind!

Presumably until a newly declared team takes to the track the previously declared team remains the official 1-7

The grey area (isnt there always with speedway) would be where the replaced rider signs elsewhere starightaway *sadly for Emil not possible

Its not impissible for example had Emil been fit that he couldve signed and ridden for another team before Kennett was injured - what then?? 

Could we have had the situation where Emil was named in 2 teams 1-7 with a facility for Boro??

Panthers , replaced him because they knew it would quite a while before he would declared fit so that doesn't really fit in this scenario ,but yes there could be a grey area there in another instance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, NeilWatson said:

This situation arose just a few days ago with Redcar, Thomas Jorgenson and Theo Pijper.

In that case though Redcar are sticking with the redeclaration with TJ and ran a NL guest rather than use a facility and reversion to the previous 1-7 wasnt possible

What wouldve happened had they wanted to revert as the new team going by the Kennett scenario was not yet the official 1-7

Edited by dontforgetthefueltapsbruv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said:

In that case though Redcar are sticking with TJ and ran a NL guest rather than use a facility

 

Agreed, my point was that Pijper was already declared elsewhere, so Redcar couldn’t revert had they wished to. Their use of an NDL guest WAS a facility (albeit the no-facility facility) - no other facility was available as Jorgensen hadn’t completed a meeting.

Edited by NeilWatson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I added a bit after you quoted - Sorry Neil!

My point was Pjiper was still officially in the Redcar 1-7 until TJ rode or a facility was used for him (even a non facility facility) yet he was already declared elswhere as well

Under the Kennett/Grondal principle they were within their rights to still use Pjiper

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this situation you have to feel for Peterborough as its not their fault that Kennett injured himself before he rode for his new club. Their re-declaration is quite fair though you still feel a change on the cards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said:

I added a bit after you quoted - Sorry Neil!

My point was Pjiper was still officially in the Redcar 1-7 until TJ rode or a facility was used for him (even a non facility facility) yet he was already declared elswhere as well

Under the Kennett/Grondal principle they were within their rights to still use Pjiper

That’s not correct, Pijper was not in the Redcar 1-7 once he was replaced by THJ - hence why he was free to be declared elsewhere.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Massive blow losing EK as I fear we will not be able to find another rider of that quality on such a low average...on a positive note at least the championship shield progression is now in our own hands after Yesterday's draw at Workington.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NeilWatson said:

That’s not correct, Pijper was not in the Redcar 1-7 once he was replaced by THJ - hence why he was free to be declared elsewhere.

By that Emil is not in the Boro 1-7 once replaced by Eddie if in theory Emil was then free to be declared elsewhere

To reintroduce him then must need his 'permission' to re-sign and even if he were to be happy (no reason why not) surely you cant redeclare with an injured rider and expect a facility

Dont get me wrong whats happening makes complete common sense but is directly in conflict to the Redcar situation IMO

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said:

By that Emil is not in the Boro 1-7 once replaced by Eddie if in theory Emil was then free to be declared elsewhere

To reintroduce him then must need his 'permission' to re-sign and even if he were to be happy (no reason why not) surely you cant redeclare with an injured rider and expect a facility

Dont get me wrong whats happening makes complete common sense but is directly in conflict to the Redcar situation IMO

If we follow that path we will be ‘reverting’ not ‘redeclaring’ which is quite legitimate and doesn’t have the restrictions you suggest.

Should Emil have already appeared in another 1-7 the option to revert would simply have not been available.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeilWatson said:

If we follow that path we will be ‘reverting’ not ‘redeclaring’ which is quite legitimate and doesn’t have the restrictions you suggest.

Should Emil have already appeared in another 1-7 the option to revert would simply have not been available.

You have said that Redcar didnt have the option to revert as Pjiper wasnt available (signed elsewhere)

It could be said Emil isnt available as he is injured.......

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said:

You have said that Redcar didnt have the option to revert as Pjiper wasnt available (signed elsewhere)

It could be said Emil isnt available as he is injured.......

Replied to wrong post

Edited by Noodles
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