screm 8,054 Posted November 20, 2012 Great, screm can buy a brick now. Yes it appears I was wrong,and Bigeddiechek has a brick with his name on it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MD 1,307 Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) i'm not bitter about bellego being confirmed as a berwick asset, it was quite obvious that would happen 9 months ago when the BSPA said they would re-evaluate the issue at the end of the season. so no suprises there. i'm just annoyed that the bspa continue to change the rules to suit themselves when the sport is struggling enough to bring in new supporters. if people read this kind of stuff they wouldn't bother their arse with the sport. Glasgow have played their part in this sorry saga by not signing him up again for 2012 and putting the matter beyond doubt. It was obvious he was a real find, having more than achieved his starting average of 5 in a short space of time. Instead we signed two 5.00 point Aussies, one of whom we had to go begging to the authorities for a work permit, who it turns out were right to initially decline that he wasn't up to standard. The other hasn't quite achieved his assessed 5.00 avaerage but won't ride for us in 2013. I am acutely aware our 2012 signings were to cut costs, and we couldn't agree terms with Bellego, but the risks had been taken to get him into the side and he confirmed he had something about him. Quite incredibly he then signed for Berwick who I refuse to believe Glasgow couldn't match wages with. Some harsh lessons have been dealt with this and Campton's non return. Hopefully the new Glasgow owner will become a more shrewd operator. Edited November 20, 2012 by MD 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
screm 8,054 Posted November 20, 2012 Glasgow have played their part in this sorry saga by not signing him up again for 2012 and putting the matter beyond doubt. It was obvious he was a real find, having more than achieved his starting average of 5 in a short space of time. Instead we signed two 5.00 point Aussies, one of whom we had to go begging to the authorities for a work permit, who it turns out were right to initially decline that he wasn't up to standard. The other hasn't quite achieved his assessed 5.00 avaerage but won't ride for us in 2013. I am acutely aware our 2012 signings were to cut costs, and we couldn't agree terms with Bellego, but the risks had been taken to get him into the side and he confirmed he had something about him. Quite incredibly he then signed for Berwick who I refuse to believe Glasgow couldn't match wages with. Some harsh lessons have been dealt with this and Campton's non return. Hopefully the new Glasgow owner will become a more shrewd operator. If it came down to a choice of Campton over Bellego,even as far as costs go,then Glasgow did indeed drop a clanger,as you say had Glasgow declared Bellego in their 1-7 last season there would never have been this debate. Course you could always loan him from Berwick for 2013. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steelman 77 6 Posted November 20, 2012 There should never have been a debate as the rules were clear. He should be a Glasgow asset. It beggars belief to be honest but is typical speedway farce. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
screm 8,054 Posted November 20, 2012 There should never have been a debate as the rules were clear. He should be a Glasgow asset. It beggars belief to be honest but is typical speedway farce. Best information Ive got is this,Bellego rode for Glasgow in five home PL meeting,against Newport x2,Sheffield,Somerset,Scunthorpe,he rode in 3 away meetings in the PL,at Newport,Somerset and Scunthorpe,he rode in 4 KOC meeting home and away against Newport and then Newcastle.All in all thats 7 home meetings and 5 away meetings,if the asset rule was 6 home and 6 away then clearly he did not do enough away meetings,though whether that rule was still around is up for debate. Whatever the rights and wrongs the BSPA have ruled,and Bellego is a Berwick rider,time to move on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steelman 77 6 Posted November 20, 2012 It was twelve meetings. I agree it is "time to move on" but I daresay that's going to easier for you given its panned out in your favour whilst Glasgow have been treated like mugs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulco 7,075 Posted November 20, 2012 Best information Ive got is this,Bellego rode for Glasgow in five home PL meeting,against Newport x2,Sheffield,Somerset,Scunthorpe,he rode in 3 away meetings in the PL,at Newport,Somerset and Scunthorpe,he rode in 4 KOC meeting home and away against Newport and then Newcastle.All in all thats 7 home meetings and 5 away meetings,if the asset rule was 6 home and 6 away then clearly he did not do enough away meetings,though whether that rule was still around is up for debate. Whatever the rights and wrongs the BSPA have ruled,and Bellego is a Berwick rider,time to move on. Yes , i agree . What's done is done . We'll just have to learn from this and not make the same mistake in the future . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Goldmember06 90 Posted November 20, 2012 It was twelve meetings. I agree it is "time to move on" but I daresay that's going to easier for you given its panned out in your favour whilst Glasgow have been treated like mugs. As has been said already Glasgow dropped a clanger by not declaring David in their line up this year thus putting the matter firmly to bed Yes , i agree . What's done is done . We'll just have to learn from this and not make the same mistake in the future . Harsh reality of being a speedway promoter, maybe both promotion need some lessons from our neighbours up/along the road Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lioness 1,453 Posted November 20, 2012 Yes , i agree . What's done is done . We'll just have to learn from this and not make the same mistake in the future . Paul perhaps you can elaborate what the 'mistake' was? Under the rules of 2011 David rode the requisite number of meetings to become a Glasgow asset - fact. I dont see anywhere in the rules of that season (or any other in recent years) that says to be an asset you must be signed for the following year. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tyretrax 2,253 Posted November 20, 2012 I'm surprised Glasgow don't have to pay compensation to the B.S.P.A, for taking up their valuable time for having to come to this decision. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lioness 1,453 Posted November 20, 2012 ....not to mention pay a loan fee for using him in 2011 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JakeDaniels 11 Posted November 21, 2012 Think the most annoying thing is if Glasgow hadn't took the risk on Bellego then Berwick would never even have looked at him. Even more annoying when he matched the criteria to be an asset Along the same lines as Campton, Glasgow took a risk and brought him half way round. Leicester & Workington think they're favourites to sign him, if he was waiting on them taking a risk on him he'd still be waiting in Oz. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
glasgowmicktiger 142 Posted November 21, 2012 Hope glasgow demand a huge loan fee for campton and price him out a team place 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freddyfivetoes 157 Posted November 21, 2012 Hope glasgow demand a huge loan fee for campton and price him out a team place A bit late, I fear! He's been already sold to Workington Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scaramanga 902 Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) Hope glasgow demand a huge loan fee for campton and price him out a team place Hope glasgow demand a huge loan fee for campton and price him out a team place the club dosnt set the loan fee from what i believe the loan fee is set by the bspa and they are bassed around riders average Edited November 21, 2012 by scarra Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
