Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

eastern wolf

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    151

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by eastern wolf

  3. Posted

    Quite right to, there would be a lengthy delay, ultimately, IF it got to the inside of a court room, no one would win apart from a few smug, fat, lawyers, who are second on the "parasites'" list to Bankers for screwing the last penny out of people.

    The BSPA would be bankrupted, Sandhu and Frost as well, and probably quite a few promoters also would be financially damaged.

    that in turn would damage the sport and may result in other clubs having to close their doors.

     

    is that what these two want because they can not accept the majority vote of a democratic committee, irrespective of the perceived rights or wrongs of that vote?

     

     

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

  4. Posted

    Ah, but Steve thinks he speaks for ALL speedway fans, when, in fact, apart from one or two disciples in deepest darkest Dorset, we just tend to laugh at his rabid myopic bias towards the Pirates. One day, he might understand that...

     

    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 :D

  6. Posted

    maybe what he was thinking and yes i am surmising is that he had ideas to put into action which would reduce the amount which was being lost and due to the new regulations he estimates that his costs /losses will increase.

     

    the 140.000 could be a bit irrelevant in that case.

     

    using your scenario, you may have an idea that would mean you pay less than 50 quid which the gym may be prepared to accept but then a different member comes up with a plan that means you pay 60 quid how would you then feel

     

    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.

  9. Posted · Edited by eastern wolf

    So you want to know the grounds on which Peterborough want to take legal action and then you state any good lawyer could blow them out of the water on a number of points.

     

    Which points would they be seeing as you don't even know the grounds on which they are taking legal action?

     

    Absolute rubbish as usual!

     

    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.

  10. Posted

    Actions speak louder than words. The court might be asked to consider why he would be taking legal action in the first place if he were not prepared to run EL speedway under certain circumstances.

     

    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.

  12. Posted

    and where in that statement does he say anything like " i cannot afford elite league speedway".

     

    my wording may not have been 100% accurate but its a hell of a lot closer than not affording it

     

    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.

  13. Posted

    I honestly dont know EW.Things hanve always been clear from a Coventry point of view but not from Pet'bro aprapt from Sundstrom. My personal opinion is this quote was a bit of a smokescreen ,i may be wrong but just what I feel but I dont know what angle Pet'bro were pushing for in this saga,apart from presumably higher points limit.

     

    Its all been a bit cloudy but from Cov v BSPA debate you could see where the problems were there,it was not so clear from panthers side imo.

     

    Lets just hope they get back in the EL

     

    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.

  14. Posted · Edited by eastern wolf

    Yeah,under the rules discussed.Anyone can break any wording down as far as they want to looking for something that is or isnt there.

     

    He felt under the proposed rules we could not justify extra losses he felt would happen.Whether he right or wrong is irrelvant,he is a businessman and he takes the view it will increase losses.He is not gonna just try it and see how it goes to be proven right and further out of pocket 9 months later

     

    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.

  16. Posted

    will you ever state a fact rather than an opinion.

     

    he said he could not justify running elite league under a set of rules that would increase the 140,000 losses he made last season.

     

    he could easily afford it but justifying it is a different matter

     

     

    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.

  20. Posted · Edited by eastern wolf

    The statement made by Rick Frost does appear indeed to be ambiguous, however had it been his intention not to run in the EL why walk out and commence legal proceedings?

     

    It would have been logical to have done what Ipswich have done and apply to join the PL.

     

    His actions imply to me that he had every intention of running in the EL but something in the rule changes for 2011 would increase costs to a prohibitive level.

     

     

    .

     

    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.

  21. Posted

    To be honest, I have always thought you were a Poole basher who spoke a lot of codswallop, but this must have been the first time you have actually said something that I wholeheartly agree with.

     

    essaitch, Frosty the Snowman did say Panthers wouldn't ride EL next season.

     

     

    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.

  24. Posted · Edited by eastern wolf

    Yet another forum member who seemingly claims to have been at the BSPA agm,and knows everything that transpired there.So who else got an invite?I presume Matt's faithful lapdog from Sherborne was lying at his master's feet,and one would guess Tsunami would have been there to take the minutes.Perhaps Coventry and Peterborough walked out,because they were unable to get a seat. :unsure:

    You like so many others seem to have this obsession with the 8:1 or 7:2 vote democracy rules ok,like its the holy grail.Presumbably you were perfectly content with Mugabe winning his election in Zimbwabe,after all he got over 85% of the vote in the 2nd round.Trouble was his opponents risked being murdered if they didn't vote for him.It is doubtful if an independent judiciary would have declared the results as just.

    No one has ever doubted how the votes went,it is the events that led upto that point,that is in dispute.The fact remains that you, like everybody else on this forum doesn't truly knows what went on.The only thing we really know is that Coventry and P'boro were sufficiently angered to walk out,and are sufficiently confident in their position to instigate legal proceedings.

     

    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.

  25. Posted

    These new rules? What are they again? The vote was 5-4 if you believe Ronnie Russell, so do not try and spin it into 8-1. That is like saying 100% of UK are behind a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition, even though 0% voted for that particular outcome.

     

    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.

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy

  I accept