eastern wolf 0 Posted December 21, 2010 Deary deary me, ive never Laughed or read such drivel in my life. Eastern Wolf and Steve Shovlar make some good points, and they get shot down in flames!! Oh, and by the way, if 140k is lose change to Mr Frost could he lend, no, give me 30k, i know just the Horse!! Oh dear, Starman, I reckon you're in trouble now Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The White Knight 9,039 Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) A fair minded fan would be one that want to see the rules adhered to that were voted in at the AGM, not one that uses bully boy tactics to gain an unfair advantage over the rest of the league. Sorry Steve - you are wrong on this one. IF undue pressure was put on other Promotions to Vote a certain way - then that is wrong. That would mean that the ONLY way to protest would be to walk out. I am not suggesting that this is what happened - I don't know, neither does anybody else except the Promoters, we weren't there - but if it had I might have walked out too and so I suspect would a lot of other people. Even in a democratic Vote there needs to be fairness and equality. Bully boy tactics can be employed by both sides in this sort of situation - so your statement COULD apply the other way round. The bully boys COULD be the BSPA. The real point here is - WE DON'T KNOW. Edited December 21, 2010 by The White Knight Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DarrenCook 0 Posted December 21, 2010 But Palicki at reserve won it for them. Sure we rode poorly but when you have a rider score 20 odd points at reserve it was no suprise. Steve, there's an "r" in surprise just like in Holder, Ward, Ford, Shovlar & losers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Starman2006 2,354 Posted December 21, 2010 Oh dear, Starman, I reckon you're in trouble now Nah, it just all goes over my head EW Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eastern wolf 0 Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) Sorry Steve - you are wrong on this one. IF undue pressure was put on other Promotions to Vote a certain way - then that is wrong. That would mean that the ONLY way to protest would be to walk out. I am not suggesting that this is what happened - I don't know, neither does anybody else except the Promoters, we weren't there - but if it had I might have walked out too and so I suspect would a lot of other people. Even in a democratic Vote there needs to be fairness and equality. Not criticising your post WK but what is this undue pressure? It's a recurring theme but I don't get it. Who could get away with putting pressure on the likes of Uncle Bob and Jon Cook? Unless they were the ones asserting the pressure on Ford and CVS? Edited December 21, 2010 by eastern wolf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
no-brakes-uk 76 Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) Sorry Steve - you are wrong on this one. It's hardly an isolated incident. Edited December 21, 2010 by no-brakes-uk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigFatDave 258 Posted December 21, 2010 could be a massive can of worms about to explode here... That'll keep you robins chirping - must be hard getting a feed this weather. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YerRopes 3,009 Posted December 21, 2010 You obviously haven't read my response to your previous post yet. And with my back I ain't running anywhere Whatever EW....I can't be arsed to argue with such a laptop warrior as youself - esp with the constant crap you regurtitate time and time again.. Have a good Christmas.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
javw 21 Posted December 21, 2010 Oh dear, Starman, I reckon you're in trouble now No, Starman is absolutely correct. Definition of 'shot down in flames':- a. To put an end to; defeat: b. To expose as false; discredit. Sounds about right to me . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eastern wolf 0 Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) Whatever EW....I can't be arsed to argue with such a laptop warrior as youself - esp with the constant crap you regurtitate time and time again.. Have a good Christmas.... and you've just given me the bit of abuse as evidence! May you have an excellent Christmas too. And I think I mean that most sincerely folks Edited December 21, 2010 by eastern wolf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigFatDave 258 Posted December 21, 2010 Guess that's a truce then Don't get yerropes up, EW. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve Shovlar 10,439 Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) Here's one for all you Sandhu and Trump lovers out there. From the 2010 rulebook. 17.4.1.2 Where a team have been issued with new CMA's as per S.R. 17.1.1.1 which includes riders who have not achieved 12 fixtures but have ridden in a minimum of 8, than a new CMA will be used in the case of a re-declaration if the new CMA is higher. This was brought in after the Joe Screen issue at Poole a couple of seasons ago. What happens at the beginning of every season? Redeclaration? Pawlicki gets an average, as does every other rider that rode between 8 & 11 meetings. Next!! Edited December 21, 2010 by Steve Shovlar Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
no-brakes-uk 76 Posted December 21, 2010 But Palicki at reserve won it for them. Sure we rode poorly but when you have a rider score 20 odd points at reserve it was no suprise. I think it was 17 actually, but whatever it was you have to hand it to the kid. Performances like that are what speedway is all about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
190557 17 Posted December 21, 2010 Why doesn't Shoveler tell everyone exactly what Poole did with Davey Watt in 2003 when he was doubling up with Kings Lynn. Davey Watt was restricted to 11 meetings by Poole in 2003 in order that he could be brought into thePoole team on half his Pl average in 2004. I believe his EL average for 11 meetings was much higher than half his PL average but Poole considered doing what they did was good tacticts. No question of injuries, unavailabilty etc ,just plain good tacticts. Oh how time makes Poole supporters forget, especially Shoveler. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCB 0 Posted December 21, 2010 Why doesn't Shoveler tell everyone exactly what Poole did with Davey Watt in 2003 when he was doubling up with Kings Lynn. Davey Watt was restricted to 11 meetings by Poole in 2003 in order that he could be brought into thePoole team on half his Pl average in 2004. I believe his EL average for 11 meetings was much higher than half his PL average but Poole considered doing what they did was good tacticts. No question of injuries, unavailabilty etc ,just plain good tacticts. Oh how time makes Poole supporters forget, especially Shoveler. And they tried it with Kennett but had to give him a 12th meeting to sneak into the play-offs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites