Coventry 99 % Certain To Be In Elite Next Season Acording To Sandu

[BongoBrian 0]

Link removed. copyright infringement of YouTube video.

 

Sorry if poster was not aware.

[SCB 0]

The version of events I was told was that, initially, 6 (SIX!) clubs were in favour of the 45-point limit, but when it came to the vote it suddenly became 3. Again, just what I've been told, although I have no reason to doubt it.

Well frankly, the 3 who changed their minds deserve a fair bit of credit for realising what a stupid idea 45 is.

 

BV are struggling to sign a number 1 with a 40 point limit, imagine other teams had another 5 points to play with, BV would have Hougarrd, Gjedde and a load of assesed 4 point foreignors in their team.

 

There are NOT enough riders for a 45 point limit, infact, 40 is not a bad figure at all, if anything, with 2 new teams 40 is a little higher and 38-39 would have been better.

[Sprog1 79]

If it is legally required, waiving it would surely open the door for still further legal action.

Indeed, are Coventry and Peterborough still members of the BSPA and entitled to attend an EGM? Certainly it appears that Avtar Sandhu is not and never has been a member of the BSPA and that is something that really needs to change, since it appears that he did not attend the AGM and was not part of the "walk out", unless his representatives sought his counsel during the course of the AGM and he ordered them to "walk out". If he did not then surely his subsequent actions are based solely on hearing "one side" of the story. Even if they did seek his counsel, his subsequent actions are still based solely on hearing "one side" of the story.

Too often in the past Coventry's representatives at the BSPA have entered into conflict with the organisation and Avtar Sandhu has finally entered the arena himself to settle matters. It would surely be better if he just took it upon himself to become a member of the BSPA himself.

 

 

If Sandhu is not a member of the BSPA and is not a promoter it is difficult to see how he has any sort of case against the BSPA even if they were wildly wrong. I can understand how Trump and Pratt have the legal right to claim that their business has been damaged if they can prove the BSPA were wrong because they are in competition with the other promoters, but if Sandhu is just the owner and nothing more than that why should he have any more entitlement to compensation than, for example, the owner of one of the stadium burger bars ? As long as he gets rent off Trump and Pratt whats it to do with him ? And if Trump and Pratt don't honour their agreement to pay the rent then he sues them. No causal link between him and the BSPA as far as I can see.

Perhaps Mr Colin Cooke QC can elucidate for us ?

Edited December 29, 2010 by Custer Mouse

[alan_boon 1]

Well frankly, the 3 who changed their minds deserve a fair bit of credit for realising what a stupid idea 45 is.

 

BV are struggling to sign a number 1 with a 40 point limit, imagine other teams had another 5 points to play with, BV would have Hougarrd, Gjedde and a load of assesed 4 point foreignors in their team.

 

There are NOT enough riders for a 45 point limit, infact, 40 is not a bad figure at all, if anything, with 2 new teams 40 is a little higher and 38-39 would have been better.

I disagree. The limit should always be 42 - or 42.5 - otherwise you get inflated averages. Give or take the odd race that finishes with 2 riders only, you are always going to end up with 84 points in the heats that count towards averages. Anything less than 42 points per side is going to end a season with riders over their natural ability, and a situation where all the riders who finish one season can't start the next.

 

45 may be too high for some - and I'm not convinced myself - but if you are trying to attract people through the turnstiles you want to serve up the best quality product you can. Going for a weaker points limit is one thing, going for one that - for the past three years - has resulted in riders averaging over their natural ability is quote another.

[Pollyanna 1]

Where's this 'evidence' then because as I posted it certainly isn't on Swindon's web-site where it was stated as being.

 

It was under one of the Fans' forum threads (I think), Vincent.

I definitely read it there before Christmas, but I can't find it there now! Sorry about that.

Maybe info has been posted somewhere on the Swindon thread of this Forum?

[alan_boon 1]

If Sandhu is not a member of the BSPA and is not a promoter it is difficult to see how he has any sort of case against the BSPA even if they were wildly wrong. I can understand how Trump and Pratt have the legal right to claim to claim that their business has been damaged if they can prove the BSPA were wrong because they are in competition with the other promoters, but if Sandhu is just the owner and nothing more then why should he have any more entitlement to compensation than the owner of one of the stadium burger bars ? As long as he gets rent off Trump and Pratt whats it to do with him ? And if Trump and Pratt don't honour their agreement to pay the rent then he sues them. No causal link between him and the BSPA as far as I can see.

Perhaps Mr Colin Cooke QC can elucidate for us ?

I imagine there is something hidden in the paperwork. For instance, Hicks & Gilette (and the new owner) were not allowed to represent Liverpool at Premier League AGMs, that fell to the chairman, Martin Broughton. But they owned the club. It's certainly a grey area.

[Aces51 2,778]

The version of events I was told was that, initially, 6 (SIX!) clubs were in favour of the 45-point limit, but when it came to the vote it suddenly became 3. Again, just what I've been told, although I have no reason to doubt it.

Your version may be correct. We are in no position to know exactly what did happen on this voting issue and like many, I suspect, I have a degree of scepticism about what I read in the press.

 

Howevr, on this occasion I see no reason to doubt the veracity of these reports. Messrs. Russell and Ford are each simply commenting to show that they were in favour of a higher limit, along with other clubs, but were outvoted. The story is about them, not the other clubs. Matt Ford doesn't even name the other clubs and it is two reports from two completely different news organisations.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Aces51

[Vincent Blachshadow 2,937]

If Sandhu is not a member of the BSPA and is not a promoter it is difficult to see how he has any sort of case against the BSPA even if they were wildly wrong. I can understand how Trump and Pratt have the legal right to claim that their business has been damaged if they can prove the BSPA were wrong because they are in competition with the other promoters, but if Sandhu is just the owner and nothing more than that why should he have any more entitlement to compensation than, for example, the owner of one of the stadium burger bars ? As long as he gets rent off Trump and Pratt whats it to do with him ? And if Trump and Pratt don't honour their agreement to pay the rent then he sues them. No causal link between him and the BSPA as far as I can see.

Perhaps Mr Colin Cooke QC can elucidate for us ?

 

Do you know that it's compensation they're after then? Might it not just be fair play they're going for?

[alan_boon 1]

Do you know that it's compensation they're after then? Might it not just be fair play they're going for?

Maybe not "fair" but certainly "level"

[Vincent Blachshadow 2,937]

Howevr, on this occasion I see no reason to doubt the veracity of these reports. Messrs. Russell and Ford are each simply commenting to show that they were in favour of a higher limit, along with other clubs, but were outvoted. The story is about them, not the other clubs. Matt Ford doesn't even name the other clubs and it is two reports from two completely different news organisations.

 

Russell used the precise terms 'wanted' when talking about 45 points and 'vote went for' when mentioning 40. To me, that indicates two separate procedures. Could have been hours or even days apart. We know two teams left at some stage.

[Pollyanna 1]

Russell used the precise terms 'wanted' when talking about 45 points and 'vote went for' when mentioning 40. To me, that indicates two separate procedures. Could have been hours or even days apart. We know two teams left at some stage.

 

Here is the Statement from Russell - found it in the Swindon thread and it was also in the SS.

 

 

20101130.

 

".

 

AGM anarchy

Russell admitted that Swindon were not too pleased with the outcome of the recent AGM, which has seen the Elite League turned on its head with champions Coventry and Peterborough both pulling out.

 

And Russell stated that Swindon opted to carry on rather than 'spitting their dummy out' and walking away.

 

"Poole, Peterborough, Coventry and ourselves all wanted the team points averages raised to 45 and we would have accepted a compromise of 42.5," said Russell."But in a very volatile atmosphere - the worst at an AGM I have ever attended in more than 20 years - the vote went for 40 points which is only marginally more than the 39.5 we started with last season.

 

"Attendances dropped markedly in 2010 and we at Swindon made an operating loss of £154,000.

 

"One of the problems was the inability to accommodate Grand Prix riders in the points structure. It is a nightmare. The system is broken and it needed fixing.

 

"However, we could have spat our dummy out of the pram but we didn't.

 

(Actually, Ronnie the points limit last season was 40.95! )

Edited December 29, 2010 by Pollyanna

[Sprog1 79]

Do you know that it's compensation they're after then? Might it not just be fair play they're going for?

 

I don't know what remedy they are after, and as far as i know it has never been made clear.. However that does not alter the fact that IF Sandhu is just the owner and nothing more it is difficult to see what his legal interest is, even though he is clearly pulling the strings behind the scenes. Like most of us on here I am not an expert in competition law but I would imagine the remedy is compensation, and I can see Trumps legal entitlement to claim, but not Sandhu's, unless he is merely financing it on behalf of Trump.

 

 

[SCB 0]

If Sandhu is not a member of the BSPA and is not a promoter it is difficult to see how he has any sort of case against the BSPA even if they were wildly wrong. I can understand how Trump and Pratt have the legal right to claim that their business has been damaged if they can prove the BSPA were wrong because they are in competition with the other promoters, but if Sandhu is just the owner and nothing more than that why should he have any more entitlement to compensation than, for example, the owner of one of the stadium burger bars ? As long as he gets rent off Trump and Pratt whats it to do with him ? And if Trump and Pratt don't honour their agreement to pay the rent then he sues them. No causal link between him and the BSPA as far as I can see.

Perhaps Mr Colin Cooke QC can elucidate for us ?

Sandhu is the owner, it is his business, as are the burger bars and everything else in the stadium. He owns the rights to Coventry Speedway and owns the stadium.

 

Trump, Pratt and Rosco are employed as promoters.

 

It's no different to the way Tony Mole has done things in the past, club owner but employs a promoter.

[Starman2006 2,354]

Well frankly, the 3 who changed their minds deserve a fair bit of credit for realising what a stupid idea 45 is.

 

BV are struggling to sign a number 1 with a 40 point limit, imagine other teams had another 5 points to play with, BV would have Hougarrd, Gjedde and a load of assesed 4 point foreignors in their team.

 

There are NOT enough riders for a 45 point limit, infact, 40 is not a bad figure at all, if anything, with 2 new teams 40 is a little higher and 38-39 would have been better.

 

You think so, then join the PL then mate. The product is diluted enough as it is. But then again, its not going to concern you!!!

[Vincent Blachshadow 2,937]

I don't know what remedy they are after, and as far as i know it has never been made clear.. However that does not alter the fact that IF Sandhu is just the owner and nothing more it is difficult to see what his legal interest is, even though he is clearly pulling the strings behind the scenes. Like most of us on here I am not an expert in competition law but I would imagine the remedy is compensation, and I can see Trumps legal entitlement to claim, but not Sandhu's, unless he is merely financing it on behalf of Trump.

 

Seems clear to me that the remedy is the right to compete in the EL next year.