E I Addio

Your avtar is one of Hull Vikings. Slavery was an important part of the Norse economy I those times. Similarly, are we going to ban Poole Pirates because the Barbary Pirates were slave traders ? How far are these analogies going to go ?These are Speedway teams for goodness sake not political rallies. People’s political , religious or racial outlooks are not governed by which speedway team they support.

No not al all narky , just having a bit of forum fun trying to get you to back up your claims, instead of twisting everything that is said. For example I asked whether you n thought Coventry manipulated the rules and you replied that they didnt break them which obviously not the same thing as manipulating them. Anyway Cityrebel who I like and Phillip Rising are saying its all in the past now so we wont bore them any more and move on. Not important after 10 years

Read my words again. I said driving clubs out of business wasn’t going to be good for the sport , I didn’t say Ford was making all rules for the future of the sport rather than his own club. If you are going to quote someone quote them verbatim instead of your own interpretation of it . You do this all the time as a distraction when we get down to questions you dont want to answer,.

I’ve really enjoyed this thread. I did know a little about Arthur Forrest but I had no idea he was so good at such a young age, or that he retired so young. Anyone know why he retired ? Even though he appears to have already peaked when he retired I imagine he could have been a top dog and earned a decent living in the early years off the Provincial league.

It was in the sense that when Coventry were down at the bottom it would have given them more chance to make the plays offs with Pawlicki riding, instead of being in Poland. Do try to concentrate. I am putting forward the argument that it was not deliberate rule manipulation by Coventry, you now seem to be saying it was. To be clear, are saying Coventry manipulated the rules or not ?

You’ve done it again. “The bigger picture” is your expression.

I know where you are coming from Steve, but going back to the time Coventry signed Pawlicki they couldn’t possibly have know they were going to be in the play off final . It would have made more sense to keep Pawlicki in the team to be sure of making the playoffs rather than just about making the cut. The number 8 rule that allowed this to happen was outdated, as were other things that were really aimed at getting PL riders into the EL , not class acts like Pawlicki. The whole thing needed amending and updating IMO but because it involved the old enemies Poole and Coventry all the conspiracy stories and urban myths sprang up. Incidently I have a copy of the Speedway News dated April 1939 and even back then the editorial was saying that the important thing was to start the season with all teams on a level playing field. It seems that 70 years later the lesson still hadn’t been learned. Bottom line as far as I can see is that did the rules that allowed the Pawlicki situation arise need changing ? If the answer is yes, then the AGM was the appropriate time to do it.

The close season AGM is the time for amending rules.

They didn’t “manage “ to keep Pawlicki at reserve. Coventry didn’t manipulate the rule. Pawlicki was injured for one meeting and apparently needed in Poland , for matches not listed when he signed for Coventry. You must be about the only Coventry fan not moaning about Pawlicki being absent. I don’t think Coventry were manipulating anything, but the Pawlicki situation simply exposed a rule, in fact two rules that needed amending. Fans then started various conspiracy theories.

No I didn’t say he made rules for the good of the sport. That’s your words. What I am saying is I don’t think it all blew up simply because Matt Ford was bitter about losing the Play off. There were other reasons.

The Elite League was already on the way down before that. Ipswich was already dropping to the lower league , and as I said before allegations of Poole cheating were in the air a year earlier when the SCB completely failed to investigate in any meaningful way, plus the TV meetings that got to heat 10 with Poole in front when the track “suddenly “became dangerous . They were appalling decisions and nails in the coffin which were unrelated to the winter of discontent. However there were other things that contributed, like Belle Vue lying about their flooded track, and Kings Lynn cancelling a match because it was supposedly going to take 3 days to change a fuse. Most of them played a part in the decline, which got even worse when Chapman and especially Godfrey got control. As for Coventry Sandhu’s game always was to shut the place and in his words “ cover it in tarmac”

Who were the “select few “ who connived the change ? When was it and who was present ?

There are three possible scenarios here: - 1.Ford decided to somehow punish Coventry because of the play- off result on 4th October 2010 2 . The decision to weaken Coventry was taken at some point before 2010 3. Coventry and Peterborough decided to drive a coach and horses through the points limit that meant less financially sound clubs couldn’t field competitive teams. The points limit in 2010 was 40.95 . Most clubs were already struggling to stay afloat with rider costs even at the level. We know from Stuart Douglas interview in he wanted more transparency about what clubs were paying and to stop riders setting one club against another to see who would pay the most. So, take scenario 1. If Ford wanted to punish Coventry as a result of the play offs it would have mean only out of pure malice and going against what had previously decided and therefor a second best option. However, we know that most clubs wanted a 40-ish points limit anyway. Personally I dont think that scenario stands up. So we come to scenario 2. Why would Ford specifically want to punish Coventry, when they were hardly even play off contenders until quite late in the season, and only just managed to scrape in the top 4. Nobody gave them much chance on paper and to be fair, 5 of them didn’t ride all that well and they only won on the back of great performances by Kasprzak and especially Bomber who rode one of the best meetings of his life. Coupled with that , when Dave Watt was interview half way through he said “ we are choking “ and Poole , frankly under performed on the night. So, now onto scenario 3. Coventry and Peterborough were talking about a points limit of 45, which nobody else wanted but Poole could still have built a strong side on a 45 point limit by replacing Dave Watt with Kasprzak. In effect it really seems to me that taking into account everything we know about Trump and Sandhu they wanted to buy success. In fact they still had a pretty good side as it was, with Sayfudinov and Pawlicki, neither of whom came cheap. So, all in all this is one occasion I wouldn’t lay the blame at Matt Fords door.

Poole were indeed investigated over fiddling averages, and as said earlier it was Lakeside that asked for the investigation. The so-called investigation by the SCB was a farce because nobody from opposing teams was interviewed , as I recall, only Poole riders and a few track staff/ medics who surprise, surprise claimed to know nothing about average manipulation. However that doesn’t prove that not just Ford but the all the other EL clubs conspired with him to turn Coventry over.

Which specific rule favoured Matt Ford ?