eastern wolf

Problem is mate it'd be stamped down because it goes against "democracy". We always end up having to accept it. Democracy certainly has its failings. The BSPA has its failings, no question. But that's the system we live under both in government and the BSPA.

I hope you're not suggesting that everybody who didn't vote for the "democratically-elected" ConDem coalition should take a mardy pill and not play any more? Withold our taxes perhaps? Or better still those that didn't vote should form a new government.

Unfortunately Sandhu and Frost probably wouldn't be bankrupted. This is why rich bullies get their way so often in this world.

It always makes me laugh when people who are rabid, myopic and biased accuse other people of being rabid, myopic and biased. Just a thought

"It is with the deepest regret that we confirm Peterborough Speedway will not compete in the 2011 Elite League". (Peterborough statement Nov 28th 2010) Care to translate THAT into English for me?

Yes I understand your point. I certainly wasn't being anti-Peterborough and my original argument wasn't about the rights and wrongs of Frost's stance. My point is the way his statement was worded. I could have worded it for him and charged nothing. If he is (or was) taking legal action he has to get his wording right. Nothing more sinister than that.

Any idiot can say "rubbish". In what way is any of what I posted wrong? In fact, don't bother.

That's OK then. He can't justify or endorse losing 140k a year by joining the EL. Which is what he says. If I can't justify or endorse spending £50 a year joining a gym it means I'm not going to join. So now we know.

The rubbish is you misinterpret what I mean. Or maybe I just didn't say it how I should (a bit like Frost's statement!!). As I said I want to know what the legal action is. And what I meant was Frost's stance could be blown out of the water as it's been so inconsistent (plus the badly worded statement). For all I know his legal argument may be valid. Is that OK? Perhaps you could just disagree without resorting to abuse. Or maybe not.

Correct. I think Peterborough's whole stance has been very inconsistent. I'd really like to know on what grounds they want to take legal action because the way they've behaved so far I would have thought any good lawyer could blow them out of the water on a number of points.

That's just a total assumption and doesn't appear in his statement. I also suspect he can afford it but the point is any law court viewing his statement can't work on yours and my assumption. It's him that's threatening legal action so his wording has to be perfect.

I never used the word "afford" - and incidentally neither did Frost (he didn't say he COULD afford it)!! He did say he can't justify or endorse it which means he isn't prepared to continue.

You're right that the Peterborough situation has been much cloudier than Coventry's. Coventry have been quite consistent whereas Panthers have been taking action, then not, then taking it again. Then this statement that is being interpreted differently by various people. Also with Bjerre and NKI having gone it makes it even less clear cut. I can see how the Cov situation can be solved but Peterborough baffles me.

Mate, we've been talking about legal action being taken so the wording of any statement has to be correct or it'll be ripped apart in court. You have to admit that the way that statement was worded it says he can't justify remaining in the EL with losses of 140k (remember those losses weren't made under the 2011 rules). If that isn't exactly what he meant to say the advice he was being given was very poor.

It certainly isn't the same thing. Ignore the "feels" bit which is just an addendum to his statement. He clearly says he can't justify remaining in the EL with losses of 140k.

That isn't quite what he said. He actually said (see below) that he can't justify remaining in the EL. He says he FEELS (doesn't know) that rule changes would add to that. We cannot justify or endorse losses of c£140,000 per season in order for Peterborough Speedway to remain in the Elite League and feel that some of the rule changes voted in at the recent BSPA AGM will only serve to increase such losses.

So it's quantity as well as quality, eh Dogstar? I appreciate the compliment

That gets my vote. There are too many similar threads and everybody knows everybody else's view by now.

By the same thinking shouldn't the Cov-Pet fans stop convicting the BSPA without evidence?

I agree that Peterborough's plans were to run EL which is why I can't understand the statement he put out. If he put that statement out on legal advice then I'd say the advice he's taking is very poor. The wording doesn't seem to do his case any good at all.

That's exactly what he said in his statement. Peterborough won't ride in the EL next season. I'm sure any judge, who presumably would have quite a good command of the English language, would interpret it that way.

Are they the same EU employment and competition laws that your allies at Coventry managed to break while becoming play-off champions last season?

Don't worry, Moorski. You won't end up with either of them.

I'd love to know how many Cov and Pet fans were present when King's Lynn and Birmingham supposedly received their backhanders. Well I'd suggest it was ZERO. Doesn't seem to stop them making disgraceful accusations. In the meantime the rest of us are entitled to give our less outrageous opinions about what may or may not have occurred at the AGM. Thank you.

The ConDem coalition certainly don't have 100% of the UK population behind them. But the fact is they have 100% of the government. The only way for the opposition to change the government is to make a good argument for what they believe in and persuade people to change the government at the next election. That's what Sandhu has to do. Put forward his argument and hope that enough people agree with him at the next AGM.