Vincent Blachshadow 2,918 Posted September 19, 2016 You finished moaning ?? Just posting how I see it. Sorry we don't see eye to eye, but not everybody sees this as right or good for the sport. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ouch 1,189 Posted September 19, 2016 BUT why should someone on the MC, Chris van Straaten for example, try and help Poole who are Wolverhampton's opponents in the play-offs. That doesn't make sense. Is it true that only two or three members are needed to rubber stamp a decision, say Chapman, Godfrey & Pratt? It's baffling isn't it. It's not just speedway though, politics, business and other sports have all had some strange decisions made throughout history and nobody can work out why. On an unrelated note is it true Poole get close to 4000 at £25 per head for a play off final? That's £100k. Nice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Starman2006 2,353 Posted September 19, 2016 (edited) Is it true that only two or three members are needed to rubber stamp a decision, say Chapman, Godfrey & Pratt? It's baffling isn't it. It's not just speedway though, politics, business and other sports have all had some strange decisions made throughout history and nobody can work out why. On an unrelated note is it true Poole get close to 4000 at £25 per head for a play off final? That's £100k. Nice. We didn't charge £25 last year, or the year before that nor the preivious 4 years. it was £20 Edited September 19, 2016 by Starman2006 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skidder1 7,617 Posted September 19, 2016 BUT why should someone on the MC, Chris van Straaten for example, try and help Poole who are Wolverhampton's opponents in the play-offs. That doesn't make sense. It makes good financial sense if it puts more on the attendances!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
orion 7,608 Posted September 19, 2016 BUT why should someone on the MC, Chris van Straaten for example, try and help Poole who are Wolverhampton's opponents in the play-offs. That doesn't make sense. Why would they help him with all these other rules that have gone in Poole favour over the years ..it's the question that keeps being asked ...no one can figure out why this keep's happening 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Starman2006 2,353 Posted September 19, 2016 (edited) Why would they help him with all these other rules that have gone in Poole favour over the years ..it's the question that keeps being asked ...no one can figure out why this keep's happening Whats up Orion. You sound very bitter. Must be because you've been shunted out of the play off's, again... Hang on, i can hear something ticking, must be Orions brain, working out what to say, its computerised !! Edited September 19, 2016 by Starman2006 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
orion 7,608 Posted September 19, 2016 Whats up Orion. You sound very bitter. Must be because you've been shunted out of the play off's, again... Hang on, i can hear something ticking, must be Orions brain, working out what to say, its computerised !! If only you had a brain to tick . 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Starman2006 2,353 Posted September 19, 2016 If only you had a brain to tick . And it took you all that time to come up with that.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waiheke1 4,295 Posted September 19, 2016 (edited) I'M the last person to ask about speedway's rulebook, but ... It's obviously legal if that's what MC decided on. As long as Lindback's average is below Andersen's then it's perfectly legal because there's a seven day window before the play off starts - only restriction is rider could not have ridden for another UK club this season. Poole enquired of the BSPA to provide an assessed average for Lindback. They came back with 7.00. And that was sanctioned by their own MC. It would be nice, of course, were the BSPA transparent and revealed how they came to that assessment but the fact that they haven't is hardly the fault of Poole and certainly doesn't, in my humble view, make them "cheating scumbags." If other tracks were unhappy with the assessment they could have appealed to the SCB for clarification. So does that mean the Star won't be investigating this ludicrous decision? Surely this move, which could materially affect the outcome of the play offs, is worthy of at least getting a statement explaining the decision. Fans want to know.If only you had a brain to tick .Does anyone have any straw going spare, I think I've found a use for it! Edited September 19, 2016 by waihekeaces1 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Starman2006 2,353 Posted September 20, 2016 So does that mean the Star won't be investigating this ludicrous decision? Surely this move, which could materially affect the outcome of the play offs, is worthy of at least getting a statement explaining the decision. Fans want to know. Nope, its been ratified, so TOUGH. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waiheke1 4,295 Posted September 20, 2016 Nope, its been ratified, so TOUGH.Not disputing that. It would be good to understand the reasoning though, especially in the new Chapman era of transparency. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Starman2006 2,353 Posted September 20, 2016 Not disputing that. It would be good to understand the reasoning though, especially in the new Chapman era of transparency. Have a word with Chapman then. Maybe he can supply you with the answers.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
capone 35 Posted September 20, 2016 matt always has at least one ace up his sleeve,,,just a case of which one Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
g13webb 4,254 Posted September 20, 2016 matt always has at least one ace up his sleeve,,,just a case of which one Yeah , but most people have only 4 aces to play with, Matt plays with a crocked deck that has far too more aces 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites