Vincent Blachshadow

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

As I posted, where's the evidence that Peterborough voted? Absolutely none, just that Peterborough, along with a couple of other clubs, 'wanted' 45 - completely different. What 'evidence', apparent or otherwise do you expect to see to support the contrary view? The BSPA aren't going to say they gave permission for a vote in the pre-agm but rescinded it at the actual agm even if that happened. And Peterborough won't say anything because of the impending legal action.

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It's been posted elsewhere that the pre-agm agreed on that but that permission may have been withdrawn at the agm proper. I don't know one way or the other just answering a post and mentioning that the subject has been broached before in one of the threads discussing this subject. Does anyone know if a vote was taken at all since nothing 'official' has yet been released on this point by the BSPA. Just had a look at Swindon web-site and I can't find anything about the AGM other than the official press-release carried by all teams' sites. I do remember reading something like that but can't find it now!

Three years. Peterborough's promoters at the AGM were Rick Frost and Julie Mahoney, neither have been promoters for the required length of time. Peter Oakes was unable to attend. The possibility that Peterborough may not have been allowed to vote has been raised before and been put forward as a contributing factor for them leaving the meeting.

Why would Peterborough's representatives 'storm out' because Coventry weren't being allowed to use Hans and Bomber? It makes no difference to Peterborough who Andersen rides for as they'd be getting a loan fee anyway.

You can always get bitten on the backside if you sign a rider on any more than a one year deal. That's one of the problems with the way the sport is run with rules changing yearly, or even more often. And it's the 'moral' of the story. There's very little 'morale' in el speedway at the moment I'd say.

We won't know if any 'changes' have been made because we weren't officially informed of any rule changes in the first place.

I believe it was posted somewhere that an EL promoter has stated that a writ had been served a week or so ago on the BSPA/MC/whoever the legal challenge was against.

KL apart - and their team-building does seem to have been done with indecent haste for some reason - all the riders signed so far by the other teams could have been predicted by most posters on here once last season ended and would have been signed regardless of the limit. The agreed-upon EL limit has been lifted before after most, if not all but one, teams had been signed, sealed and delivered. Why is this occasion any different?

Or it could be because a compromise has been reached.