Theboss 727 Posted October 28, 2017 More the fool Rathbone for listening to a fellow promoter, and a member of the management committee to boot. I would not call him a fool for seeking the advice of the vice chairman before making a decision. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
screm 8,050 Posted October 28, 2017 I would not call him a fool for seeking the advice of the vice chairman before making a decision. Yes fair enough, but it would be fair to say any of the advise giving hasn't turned out to be all that great. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blackadder 280 Posted October 28, 2017 Regulations for the SGBCL Fours are clear. Asking someone if they can be broken is daft. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crump99 4,474 Posted October 28, 2017 I would not call him a fool for seeking the advice of the vice chairman before making a decision. That's correct and I have said the same but when the advice is allegedly to break the rules (if they were broken) and take the hit then there is no right here anyway. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
balderdash&piffle 720 Posted October 28, 2017 That's correct and I have said the same but when the advice is allegedly to break the rules (if they were broken) and take the hit then there is no right here anyway. The private club will just change the rules to suit Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crump99 4,474 Posted October 28, 2017 The private club will just change the rules to suit Depends what independent judicial review actually means. It sounds very grand but unlikely to be a FIFA type investigation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigcatdiary 3,164 Posted October 28, 2017 (edited) Regulations for the SGBCL Fours are clear. Asking someone if they can be broken is daft. It is interesting that you say that but the supplementary regulations (that should have come out two weeks before the Fours) actually came out 4 days before them and days AFTER all teams had submitted their line ups. The problem here is how much do you trust/have faith in either of them!! Only they know what was discussed during this conversation (if it did take place) - the one factor that would concern/influence me based on what has been reported so far is why this was never raised previously. If I were accused of breaking the rules, and knew of all the comments being thrown about, attended a hearing to explain my actions and then got punished - I would have been shouting very loudly that I had received advice/verbal permission to undertake the actions I had. I certainly wouldn't come out and announce it weeks later! I think you will learn that Rathbone did exactly that from the start and has never changed from that story. Edited October 28, 2017 by bigcatdiary 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Albert 304 Posted October 28, 2017 (edited) You would expect any requests or advice made to the BSPA/SCB would be made in the form of an email/text message?... If it isn't then perhaps it should be, there needs to be a clear audit trail in order to get to the bottom of issues like this. As it is... the mud slinging goes on...there's always three sides to every story... the accusers, the accused and The Truth. In this case I'd guess the truth may never be known. Edited October 28, 2017 by Albert Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crump99 4,474 Posted October 28, 2017 You would expect any requests or advice made to the BSPA/SCB would be made in the form of an email/text message?... If it isn't then perhaps it should be, there needs to be a clear audit trail in order to get to the bottom issues like this. As it is... the mud slinging goes on...there's always three sides to every story... the accusers, the accused and The Truth. In this case I'd guess the truth may never be known. We had the same a few years ago with FrostMahoney & Batchelor/Andersen etc and the same was said at that time but nobody learns. It is interesting that you say that but the supplementary regulations (that should have come out two weeks before the Fours) actually came out 4 days before them and days AFTER all teams had submitted their line ups. Not quite sure of the point here? You have to go with the rules in place at the time. What would these supplementary rules added to the situation. This (HOLDING OUT FOR A HERO) was on the BSPA website two days before the event when it must have been clear to everyone what the situation was? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Scunny2012 Posted October 28, 2017 Hopefully Godfrey finally has the book thrown at him! And if that's the case then it's probably goodbye Scunthorpe speedway but never mind we are inundated with tracks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevehone 3,425 Posted October 28, 2017 And if that's the case then it's probably goodbye Scunthorpe speedway but never mind we are inundated with tracks. and if it's the other way then it's probably goodbye Peterborough speedway but never mind we are inundated with tracks 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wealdstone 3,454 Posted October 28, 2017 It seems very likely that it could be goodbye to both Peterborough and Scunthorpe Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCB 0 Posted October 28, 2017 (edited) I dont see what Godfrey has done wrong. 1. Member of BSPA want to break SCB rules. 2. MC member of BSPA advises the member that in his opinion the SCB will give him a slap on the wrist so go for it 3. The SCB actually properly punish the BSPA member Ged took Godfreys advise, it was only ever advice because Godfrey isnt the SCB or anything to do with the SCB. Edited October 28, 2017 by SCB Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigcatdiary 3,164 Posted October 28, 2017 (edited) Not quite sure of the point here? You have to go with the rules in place at the time. What would these supplementary rules added to the situation. This (HOLDING OUT FOR A HERO) was on the BSPA website two days before the event when it must have been clear to everyone what the situation was? But thats the point, the rules that apply to this competition are issued as a supplementary supposedly two weeks before the event, its not a lot of point going on rules in the regulations if they then change them in the supplementary. Of course then we go through the 10 teams are in it, then 8 and then back to 10 in the space of a few days which of course consequently costs Berwick their no 1 because he has signed to ride in Poland. Its a complete crock of Shyte and until someone sits down and re rewrites the rule book, someone who isnt a promoter (referee or someone on the SCB/ACU) then this type of crap will happen every year. The sections of the rule book need taking away from the promoters as they are just not up to the job or trustworthy enough to keep politics out of it. Edited October 28, 2017 by bigcatdiary 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Scunny2012 Posted October 28, 2017 It seems very likely that it could be goodbye to both Peterborough and Scunthorpe Let's hope neither close as speedway can ill afford any more tracks folding. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
