BigBoaby

There is a world of difference between making a point that a theory is 'rubbish' - and conversely stating personal insults that are clearly intended to be derisory. The detailed points made in my post #479 remain unanswered. Should you answer them or address me then please refer to the points only. Thank you.

Oh don't worry.

Entertaining as always cyclone. I think you mean post #479. You want to try answering the points on that post - which remain unanswered, no doubt because they are indefensible which is why the Edinburgh mob have given it a wide berth. The reason why the stuff in red wasn't mentioned is because they were rendered redundant and effectively superseded by the points I made in post #479. The historical agreement and close nearby thing is a load of rubbish. How come the two clubs happily co-existed and both ran on a Friday through the 70's, 80's and 90's. So all that nonsense about close proximity and different night is the biggest load of garbage. Glasgow raced on a Friday night anyway and when Edinburgh were forced to move to Powderhall in the 70's and the only night they could run speedway there was on Fridays (Glasgow's racenight) Glasgow allowed or didn't object to Edinburgh also running on a Friday. So what's the problem now. Answer - none. Try actually answering the points in my detailed post #479. Bet you can't.

A well reasoned and well put post. I also came within about 2 seconds of clicking the "Like" option. There's a couple of things though if you could help clarify or explain. You mention about this agreement existing from 1965 and being in place in some form since about 1946 etc. So how can we explain Glasgow and Edinburgh both running on the same night, Friday, for years e.g. when Glasgow were at Blantyre, then Blantyre 2, then Shawfield, covering the 70, 80's and 90's. Both Glasgow and Edinburgh ran on a Friday night and happily co-existed so what's the problem with them both running on a Friday now. Was it not the case that Friday was always Glasgow's race night anyway (I don't know fer sure so it is a question). And then when Monarchs had to move to Powderhall in the 70's they could only get Friday racing there and they were allowed, or not objected to, by Glasgow. If that's the case then is it not reasonable to expect Edinburgh to "return the favour". Then there's the modern day aspect. Times have changed. The sport has changed. The world is a different place and even speedway has changed, different engines, different rules that keep changing every season or so. The needs and circumstances, the business world, etc, have all changed. If any business, or sport for that matter, doesn't keep up with the times it will fall by the wayside. Poland has a much bigger influence now and riders tend to race there on Sundays to the extent that riders that would otherwise be available the rest of the week are not available on Sundays. Tracks which race on other days now have an unfair advantage that didn't used to be there. To put it another way, tracks that race on Sundays are at an unfair disadvantage, a situation that did not exist when the rules or agreement you refer to was made. It is no longer fit for purpose. Then there's the big city teams aspect. The sport has advocated over the years that such teams benefit the sport overall. On that score it would surely be in the interests of the sport to have a big city team that is thriving and that would also point to changing the raceday back to Fridays as was always Glasgow's racenight anyway - and which Glasgow allowed Edinburgh to also race on in the 70, 80, and 90's. Food for thought.

A well reasoned and well put post. I just happen to disagree with a number of the points. For example, it seems to me that it is the Edinburgh management that have been childish, petulant and unprofessional as well as somewhat arrogant and dictatorial. Lets be clear: Edinburgh's fans will not desert Armadale en mass and go to Ashfield instead, that is just ridiculous. I have also found a number of Edinburgh's fans to be extremely hostile and arrogant, including acting in a foul mouthed, aggressive and intimidating manner even towards innocent bystanders. And less than gracious and overly boastful and arrogant in their win which they diminish by such arrogant behaviour and which I find very undignified on the part of a number of arrogant Edinburgh fans, yourself excluded. Some it seems have never heard of the term "magnanimous in victory", again I exclude yourself from this. Back to the aspect of Edinburgh's management, It seems to me to be so childish to do anything other than be neighbourly, instead it seems Edinburgh's management and a number of its fans delight in being arrogant and hostile towards others. I find it all very sad.

That's just nonsense. There is no logical basis for it. And what's all this arrogance "find another day" attitude. Are you one of these guys in your car that thinks you own the flaming road, you think you "own" Friday as well do you. So how come in other counties they run all the speedway league meetings on the same day then. Are you trying to say that speedway in such as Poland and Sweden is on its knees? Obviously it isn't. Are you seriously suggesting that you will somehow be lured by the prospect of attending Ashfield instead of your beloved Armadale? As Mr McEnroe once said, you cannot be serious. "I seriously doubt attendance is the issue". - so it is recognised that Glasgow won't steal Edinburgh's support. "Plus there is Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday & Thursday to use" - so why don't Edinburgh use it then!

No, my post certainly was not "a total anti all things Edinburgh post". I answered points one by one of another poster and which I did in good faith. I'm surprised at you Scotsman, your posts are usually of the more intelligent variety on this forum. If you read my post you will see that it sets out reasoned points and that is all it does. If you have anything constructive to actually respond to my points then you are of course welcome.

You say: "Usual guff" in reference to my post. My post made reasoned points and you should not be so ill mannered, discourteous and insulting as to refer to my reasoned points in such manner. Instead your post as quoted above is full of vitriol and which I find vulgar. It appears you have never heard of the saying "magnanimous in victory". Instead your post is full of derisory insulting language e,g, "Slashfield" and which is rather churlish, uncouth and unbecoming, then going on to be full of self-proclaimed boasting and yob-like behaviour including other juvenile yob-like acronyms as "GIRUYT". What age are you twelve? All rather unseemly and every such post that is made and yob-like proclamation such as your post quoted above devalues the achievement of winning a league title and you lose the respect of others. And it was not at all "spot on" as you errantly put it, you are well wide of the mark and you clearly know nothing about me. It also appears that you overlook that I originally mentioned a foul-mouthed Edinburgh fan at Armadale on Saturday whose behaviour was aggressive, using foul mouthed language, inciteful and deliberately intimidating to innocent bystanders. I then only answered the points of another poster and which I did in good faith. If you wish to behave in a juvenile-like and yob-like manner then kindly do not involve me. Thank you.

The circular you mention or what you refer to as a "letter", which you say "crossed it line" - having read it I cannot find anything unreasonable in it. It also does not state that Glasgow fans should "boycott" Armadale, it simply says that the Glasgow management themselves will not be attending - a different thing entirely. And at no point is the word "boycott" mentioned - that appears to be an invention by Edinburgh fans. So, no, it did not cross a line, that is just nonsense. It appears that it is the Edinburgh management that are juvenile in all this, and which the Glasgow management have understandably become tired of. You say Glasgow made 2 fundamental errors, in answer to your points: 1. It seems that they were surprised by how juvenile the Edinburgh management were. 2. It appears that Edinburgh management are jealous of Glasgow's financial position Can we be very clear: it is complete nonsense for Edinburgh to object to Glasgow riding on a Friday, Edinburgh's apparent claim that Glasgow would somehow steal significant numbers from Edinburgh's gate/crowd is not valid and has no real basis in fact: the Edinburgh management unilaterally withdrew the mutual discount arrangement between the two clubs on the basis of there having been only 2 supporters that had used it. Edinburgh's argument just doesn't add up. Clearly, fans of each camp follow their own team and will attend accordingly. Are you seriously suggesting that you and a whole shedload of other Edinburgh fans will somehow desert Armadale en mass and instead flock to Ashfield? That argument just doesn't hold water at all. The stance on this by Edinburgh's management does seem rather pathetic. It also seems pathetic and rather childish that the Edinburgh management withdrew from what was clearly a mutual cooperation gesture originated by the Glasgow management, re the joint discount arrangement. It seems that at every turn Edinburgh have sought to be deliberately uncooperative and have shunned every attempt by the Glasgow management regarding mutual cooperation and Glasgow's attempts to encourage a more friendly atmosphere between the two sets of fans for the benefit of all. Edinburgh's management have shown themselves to be aloof at best and deliberately obstinate. This appears to have had the knock on effect of encouraging Edinburgh's supporters to follow suit and take umbrage at anything emanating from Glasgow and thereby stoking up a hostile atmosphere among its own fans towards Glasgow. There is therefore no actual basis for Edinburgh to object to Glasgow running on a Friday, no actual basis at all. Edinburgh fans will not desert Armadale and flock to Ashfield instead, that is just nonsense. It seems Edinburgh have just objected because they can, for the sake of objecting and putting a spanner in the works over at Glasgow. So that again really is childish on the part of the Edinburgh management whom it would appear are just being deliberately obstructive. Then there is the position of Alex Harkess. He should surely not play a part in deciding on this issue or various issues upon which Edinburgh are involved. There is far too much self interest in the sport and conflict of interest by those running it. It appears that Edinburgh's position is one of sheer jealousy that Glasgow are doing alright financially and with their stadium etc and they don't want Glasgow to be successful. That's what its about. Sheer jealousy and childishness by the Edinburgh management. And from there total non-cooperation in anything by Edinburgh. Little wonder that the Glasgow management became tired of it all and hence the circular you refer to which in fact contains nothing which crosses any line at all. The summary of the riders, yes I agree with much of your summary. You missed one aspect though. Wolbert substantially lowered his average at Glasgow last season and by some coincidence substantially raised it again. This raises a serious question i.e. was it deliberate on his part? If it was then that brings the sport into disrepute and begs a number of other questions including fraud and corruption of those involved. He isn't the first rider to do so and I'm sure won't be the last. The dreadful performance of Glasgow's team at Armadale, the track does tend to suit the home team more than most and if you aren't dialled in then no matter how hard a team tries they will get nothing, not as neutral and fair as Powderhall was so that kind of one sided result was always on the cards at Armadale, a bit like Berrington Lough used to be.

That is no excuse for vile and despicable abuse directed at innocent bystanders, foul mouthed language including the F*** word, etc. It was disgraceful and inexcusable behaviour by the individual I mentioned earlier, and it would appear there were others as mentioned by Gazc. As for the leaflet you refer to it did not contain foul mouthed language nor did it state much of what's been misinterpreted by some.

Attending Armadale last night I found the behaviour of one of the Monarchs supporters to be in poor taste and a poor example to others. Surrounded by what appeared to be mainly Glasgow supporters who were rather quiet as their riders began to go through a losing streak heat after heat, the Monarchs supporter in question began shouting antagonistic comments for the "benefit" of Glasgow's supporters, straight after heat wins shouting such as "Get it right up ye Glasgow!!" and angrily shouting "F*** off back to Glasgow". He did this a few times. Applauding your team is one thing, inciteful behaviour is another, especially when it is in close proximity to others whom inciteful hatred would appear to be directed. I don't know if anything came of it as I happened to go to another part of the stadium soon after that but it didn't seem to be a very clever thing to be doing in public and in what is supposed to be a family sport. It seems there will be a minority of idiots in the sport regardless of club and the thought does occur that if that had been a Glasgow supporter in the middle of Edinburgh supporters they would have been up in arms, I was surprised at how the Glasgow supporters around this lunatic just let it pass.

Seems you haven't been? Easily 1,200 minimum this season, although half of them kids right enough.

The words you are highlighting and disagreeing with are not my words - they are in quotes as they are Steve Park's words, I was only answering them. Cheers

To answer your points: 1. "Barker was loaned to Berwick, until he got injured then Berwick took him out of the 1 - 7" This misses my point - that it wasn't so much that Berwick dropped him, more the case that Barker declared himself unfit for the rest of the season, and it was only then that Berwick 'dropped' him, however according to the Berwick statement they say they made clear to Barker that upon his recovery his team place would still be there. Under those particular circumstances the least Barker could have done was to even make just one 'courtesy call' phone call to Berwick rather than just swan off elsewhere. Your point that: "so, when he signed for Peterborough, he wasnt on loan at the Bandits" - again this misses my point that this was brought about by Barker's self-declaration to Berwick that his season was over. Also key to this is that Berwick say in their statement that they made clear to Barker that upon recovery from injury his team place would still be there. 2. I'm fully aware of how contracts work, and I did use the 'may' when I myself referred to his loan terms. However that misses my point that were it not for the injury - and Barker's self-declaration to Berwick that his season was over due to injury - then Barker would still be under his loan conditions. In other words, the sole reason for Barker being 'dropped' was Barker's own declaration as to fitness and that his season was over. 3. I agree that he may or may not have misled Berwick, and would probably have been based upon medical advice. However, ultimately it seems Barker declared to Berwick that his season was over due to injury and it was for that sole reason that Berwick 'dropped' him. However, also key here is that Berwick say in their statement that they made clear to Barker that should he recover then his place was still there. That is where it seems to me that Barker should have had the grace to at least make a 'courtesy call' telephone call to Berwick - if he's a 'hired hand' then fine, but he was still being given employment by Berwick. I've been in the situation of being freelance myself but I know I would have given far more courtesy to a client - even if I didn't 'technically' need to do so. That's where it stinks to high heaven to me. Barker seems to be morally bereft in my eyes and he doesn't come out of this well at all. 4. It may mot stink to you and that's fine, but it sure does stink to high heaven to me.

Isn't the issue that: 1. Barker was loaned to Berwick - for the whole of the 2015 season - therefore not contractually available to be loaned to other Prem clubs including Peterborough 2. Barker wasn't so much "dropped" by Berwick - rather wasn't it Barker who effectively dropped himself of his own volition by declaring to Berwick that his season was over due to injury - so on that basis Berwick should surely have first refusal upon Barker's return to fitness. In the wider world if a worker phones in "sick" for the week or the month or whatever and part way through there is some miraculous recovery surely it doesn't give the worker freedom to just swan off and instead work for somebody else. The worker would surely have to go through the proper channels and follow proper procedures of such as giving notice or asking permission or the like. 3. It seems to me Barker has misled Berwick and/or ridden roughshod over proceedings, i.e. he's either misled Berwick as to the extent of his injury to begin with - and which was the only reason Berwick 'dropped' him (they do say in their statement that Barker knew and was made aware that upon his return from injury his place would still be there), or alternatively if Barker didn't mislead Berwick re his initial estimate of his injury and he's had some better than expected recovery (which is of course to the good) then surely Barker should have had the decency to at least consult with Berwick and discuss it with them first - rather than just swanning off elsewhere without so much as a 'courtesy call' phone call. The Berwick statement does appear to show that Barker did exactly that - no consultation with Berwick whatsoever, which doesn't seem to me to be morally right at all. And it may also be a breach of Barker's loan terms / contract. Something doesn't smell right with this and it seems as if Berwick are right to feel aggrieved and right to issue the statement in all of its explanatory detail - it does appear as if Barker has conducted himself very poorly on this one.

Best wishes to all at Berwick speedway. Here's hoping better times are just around the corner. Fingers and everything crossed. All the best.

Good heavens, that's an about turn...... so your earlier point that you thought riders "Disgraceful" in not congratulating each other was just made up? You've got me confused now.

I dunno so much Blobby. After all a quid is only worth about 30p these days. And, if my memory serves me correctly, speedway admission prices generally seem to have frozen and stayed flat over the last ten years or so whereas wages and salaries (in the UK economy in general that is) have doubled in that time. So in real terms the speedway admission price has fallen over the last several years..... I can see you're convinced. As to the line-up its a far better line-up than the usual PL serving of a couple of heat leaders, guests of varying quality, the rest made of r/r, a second string and a couple of reserves per side. So anyway, have I convinced you yet?!! Seems to have been a good meeting and congrats to Cook on winning it. Hi there Scotsman, I share your disgust and/or dismay at there being a lack of handshakes and congratulation exchanges between riders these days. However, I regret to say that I've found the biggest culprit to be Cook - I've lost count of the number of times Cook has failed to congratulate an opponent that has beaten him and indeed I've never seen him do it at all, it just doesn't seem to be in his nature - I'm sure you will disagree but I'm sorry that's what I've seen for myself. For me Les Collins was a gentleman and a true sportsman but I've felt for some time that Cook would do well to emulate the conduct of Collins and its in that department that I feel Cook has a long long way to go. As to Lawson not congratulating Cook today, that appears contrary to what's quoted of Richard Lawson on the Glasgow website whereby he appears to sportingly acknowledge Cook, acknowledging how well Cook rode, and giving Cook credit for the manoeuvre to pass him. But yes, sportingly offering an actual handshake or whatever on track - yes there seems to be rather less of it about these days sadly.

If that is true then I don't understand the extreme over reaction by some and the apparent bitter hatred - condoning two fingered offensive gestures in a public place, condoning the shouting of vile expletives and vulgar obscenities in front of children (as also stated on this thread). It doesn't exactly bode well for the sport. I say bring back Les Collins - now there was a guy that conducted himself as a true sportsman that you could respect, have a genuine regard for and look up to regardless of team allegiances and when standards among supporters seemed rather more family friendly and the sport was a joy to be a part of.

If that is true then it seems to me that there are a number of individuals that claim to be Edinburgh "supporters" that surely need to take a long hard look at themselves - condoning two fingered offensive gestures in a public place, condoning the shouting of vile expletives and vulgar obscenities in front of children (as also stated on this thread). This, added to my earlier point about never having seen Cook offer a handshake when he has lost an on track duel, he never seems to have the good grace to do so. It doesn't exactly bode well for the team and the sport they claim to support or supposedly represent. I say bring back Les Collins - now there was a guy that conducted himself as a true sportsman that you could respect, have a genuine regard for and look up to regardless of team allegiances and when standards among supporters were rather more family friendly and the sport was a joy to be a part of.

Yes, Cook is a very talented speedway rider, I absolutely agree. However, in my humble opinion he doesn't do himself any favours by the way he conducts himself. Speedway fans across the sport in general would have more respect and regard for him if he conducted himself more like for example Les Collins when he rode for Edinburgh. Many speedway fans, including those of Glasgow, had a respect and a regard for Les that they don't have for Cook because of the way he conducts himself. I can't remember the last time I saw Cook offer a handshake after a race - especially when Cook has been beaten fair and square. Collins had the good grace to offer his hand after a duel on track - Cook tends to never do so that I've ever seen. He comes across to me as being maybe a bit petulant and immature, and I apologise to any Edinburgh supporter and to the rider himself - I don't mean to be unfair - but in my humble opinion Cook doesn't do himself any favours by the way he behaves. Now you may well say that he isn't there to do favours etc - yes he is there to win races - but after the race is over he should have the good grace to be sportsmanlike and all too often he appears to me to show petulance and immaturity and of being a bad loser and a poor sportsman. Les Collins wasn't like that and that's where I personally had loads of respect and regard for Les Collins that I don't have for Cook. Just my personal opinion.

I must admit that a similar thought crossed my mind re the folk that set the tapes up, although of course its easy to criticise on the sidelines. I did wonder why they seemed to focus on the side that was going up instead of focusing on the side that was sticking. Even when both sides were rising virtually simultaneously they seemed oblivious to the fact that the tapes themselves were far too slack, so much so that when the tapes went up the sides were higher much quicker than the middle which was sagging badly - thus blocking the riders in the middle from gating just that vital fraction which was what held back Morris in Heat 9 - the tapes rose to allow the outside gates away quickly but the middle was sagging badly and inhibitted Morris just that fraction from gating at the same time - hence Morris was only third in that heat as he was blocked for a split second by the tapes rising later in the middle of the track where Morris gated from that heat.

So true. A completely injury free season is probably too much to hope for, let's hop injuries are as few and as light as possible.

By the photos the track doesn't look "waterlogged", looks both raceable and safe to me and certainly not dangerous as some seem to have wrongly inferred, I can't see what the fuss is about.

Hi Blobby, To be honest 2,000 on the first meeting is possible. Couple of things to remember - the opening match of 1988 season at Shawfield attracted something like 8,000 according to an article I read last few weeks in the SS. Secondly, Ashfield had more than 2,000 a few years ago when Glasgow staged the Pairs, ok that was with a few other teams punters as well. And, thirdly, isn't the opening match against the Monarchs - they usually bring a few don't they. Not sure I understand your point about Morris. If Morris is capable of winning races, and you say Edinburgh who are the defending chanps aren't keen on him and he presents a challenge to Edinburgh's title - is that not the whole point anyway, or am I missing something. Anyway, best of luck to all this coming season, let's see some good racing, no injuries at all is maybe too much to hope for so lets hope injuries are as few and as light as possible.