colincooke 0 Posted December 26, 2010 Yes, and Cov were the ones trying to change the agreed rules on ages to save themselves Contrived rules is what this should say, which is where the problem lies. Grasp it now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ladyluck 1 Posted December 26, 2010 Contrived rules is what this should say, which is where the problem lies. Grasp it now. So, what is wrong with the rules? It seems clubs are struggling to build sides to a 40.0 limit, which surely proves that a higher limit was fantasy and the suggested 45.0 limit was lunacy, unless of course Coventry wanted to decrease competition by only having three or four clubs in the EL. That, however, cannot be the case since Coventry are all for increased competition. While it is clear that Coventry acted completely within the rules in relation to Przemyslaw Pawlicki, it is equally clear that what Coventry did was fundamentally manipulation. I don't think even Coventry fans dispute that, they just want Coventry to get away with it and the only line of defence I've seen is that Belle Vue got away with it a season earlier (as did Edinburgh). That is to say that in the eyes of Coventry two wrongs (or three) make a right. The BSPA have dealt with it and all we have to look forward to, sadly, is some club or other manipulate the new, improved rule by "resting" a rider signed late in the season ahead of his eighth meeting. Ah, the pettiness of the speedway promoter. A limit on riders above 8.01. Granted, the ".01" is a bit silly, but given the struggle currently taking place in relation to riders in that bracket the rule seems sensible enough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beesknees 23 Posted December 26, 2010 So, what is wrong with the rules? It seems clubs are struggling to build sides to a 40.0 limit, which surely proves that a higher limit was fantasy and the suggested 45.0 limit was lunacy, unless of course Coventry wanted to decrease competition by only having three or four clubs in the EL. That, however, cannot be the case since Coventry are all for increased competition. While it is clear that Coventry acted completely within the rules in relation to Przemyslaw Pawlicki, it is equally clear that what Coventry did was fundamentally manipulation. I don't think even Coventry fans dispute that, they just want Coventry to get away with it and the only line of defence I've seen is that Belle Vue got away with it a season earlier (as did Edinburgh). That is to say that in the eyes of Coventry two wrongs (or three) make a right. The BSPA have dealt with it and all we have to look forward to, sadly, is some club or other manipulate the new, improved rule by "resting" a rider signed late in the season ahead of his eighth meeting. Ah, the pettiness of the speedway promoter. A limit on riders above 8.01. Granted, the ".01" is a bit silly, but given the struggle currently taking place in relation to riders in that bracket the rule seems sensible enough. The 8.01 rule is nonsense and results in "clone" teams which have the same make-up and kills the variety that used to exist with more freedom over team make-up. The only art of picking a good side now is to find one or two 4-point foreigners that are clearly under-valued (ala Andersson and Pawlicki) as the route to win the league. All too predictable now I'm afraid and the main reason why the sport is dwindling further. Pawlicki has been done to death and I see no sense in treading over that old ground again personally. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
colincooke 0 Posted December 26, 2010 Personally i have no gripe with the 8.01 rule simply because pretty soon there will be 10 teams in the EL & there are only 9 riders plus Bjarne on 8.00 if you want that are above that mark, seems fair. The BSPA is an association, a committee, a group of people working together for the good of their cause & all involved in it. It's not a group of people that should be thinking, haa look at these 2, they've got themselves the 2 best prospects from the PL. We''ll put a stop to that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
orion 7,618 Posted December 26, 2010 So, what is wrong with the rules? It seems clubs are struggling to build sides to a 40.0 limit, which surely proves that a higher limit was fantasy and the suggested 45.0 limit was lunacy, unless of course Coventry wanted to decrease competition by only having three or four clubs in the EL. That, however, cannot be the case since Coventry are all for increased competition. While it is clear that Coventry acted completely within the rules in relation to Przemyslaw Pawlicki, it is equally clear that what Coventry did was fundamentally manipulation. I don't think even Coventry fans dispute that, they just want Coventry to get away with it and the only line of defence I've seen is that Belle Vue got away with it a season earlier (as did Edinburgh). That is to say that in the eyes of Coventry two wrongs (or three) make a right. The BSPA have dealt with it and all we have to look forward to, sadly, is some club or other manipulate the new, improved rule by "resting" a rider signed late in the season ahead of his eighth meeting. Ah, the pettiness of the speedway promoter. A limit on riders above 8.01. Granted, the ".01" is a bit silly, but given the struggle currently taking place in relation to riders in that bracket the rule seems sensible enough. The fact is Coventry nver broke any rules so hence they have not got away with anythink ....so no need for anyline of defence . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ladyluck 1 Posted December 26, 2010 The fact is Coventry nver broke any rules so hence they have not got away with anythink ....so no need for anyline of defence . The fact is the BSPA AGM agreed new rules and that is what happens at the BSPA AGM. Coventry had the same opportunity to voice their opinions and clearly only Peterborough were listening. Love it or leave it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedibee 3,091 Posted December 26, 2010 The BSPA is an association, a committee, a group of people working together for the good of their cause & all involved in it. do you really think that there is any truth in this statement in fact has there ever been any truth in that statement ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevebrum 6,827 Posted December 26, 2010 It epitmoses everything that is wrong within the BSPA, there are promoters willing to do deeds to stop others in their tyre tracks & promoters that are willing to take the hand outs they offer. We all know what it is that that is seen as in the eyes of the law, and the eyes of the law don't take kindly to those sort of practices. This is why talks are going on & will continue. The lawyers for the BSPA have demanded it. The rules this season that many said were wrong allowed Coventry to make LEGAL changes that helped them to the title. The BSPA must be really bad then eh?! How do we know what the lawyers have demanded tho Col? I see the Christmas cheer has done nothing to help with your bitterness What a load of cl@prt@p!! Contrived rules is what this should say, which is where the problem lies. Grasp it now. Contrived rules that Coventry have abused again and again tho. It's not a group of people that should be thinking, haa look at these 2, they've got themselves the 2 best prospects from the PL. We''ll put a stop to that. Its not Poole and Wolves (the guilty promoters according to some know nothing Coventry fans) are affected this and most seasons by rules and regulations. Im sure Wolves were looking to use Wolbert as a double up rider next season but the rules look to have put paid to that. IF the talks mean Coventry get there way then the rules will stink very highly indeed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
orion 7,618 Posted December 26, 2010 The fact is the BSPA AGM agreed new rules and that is what happens at the BSPA AGM. Coventry had the same opportunity to voice their opinions and clearly only Peterborough were listening. Love it or leave it. No the fact is the new rules were not lawful hence why they are being changed i guess the others have to love it or leave it now Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ladyluck 1 Posted December 26, 2010 (edited) No the fact is the new rules were not lawful hence why they are being changed i guess the others have to love it or leave it now Why were they not lawful? To suggest they were is just supposition on your part, unless of course there has been a legal judgement delivered by a judge in a court of law and all the appeals processes have been undertaken. What if the rest decided to "leave it", as I would? Leave Coventry and their "justifying and endorsing" allies Peterborough to it? An EL with just two teams. Edited December 26, 2010 by ladyluck Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve0 5,517 Posted December 26, 2010 Personally i have no gripe with the 8.01 rule simply because pretty soon there will be 10 teams in the EL & there are only 9 riders plus Bjarne on 8.00 if you want that are above that mark, seems fair. The BSPA is an association, a committee, a group of people working together for the good of their cause & all involved in it. It's not a group of people that should be thinking, haa look at these 2, they've got themselves the 2 best prospects from the PL. We''ll put a stop to that. Not just bitter but twisted too - take a chill pill and relax - it's Christmas after all :rolleyes: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve0 5,517 Posted December 26, 2010 No the fact is the new rules were not lawful hence why they are being changed i guess the others have to love it or leave it now Who says the rules are being changed? As yet no statement has said rules will be changed or that Coventry and Peterborough will be running any speedway next season!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
orion 7,618 Posted December 26, 2010 Why were they not lawful? To suggest they were is just supposition on your part, unless of course there has been a legal judgement delivered by a judge in a court of law and all the appeals processes have been undertaken. What if the rest decided to "leave it", as I would? Leave Coventry and their "justifying and endorsing" allies Peterborough to it? An EL with just two teams. Are the Bspa fighting Coventry legal challeage ? of course not as they were advised there rules were not lawful Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
orion 7,618 Posted December 26, 2010 Who says the rules are being changed? As yet no statement has said rules will be changed or that Coventry and Peterborough will be running any speedway next season!! Me Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parsloes 1928 nearly 495 Posted December 26, 2010 Hmm, haven't been @rsed to follow this daft soap opera but I find it hard to believe that ANYONE seriously believed that Coventry or Peterborough wouldn't end up lining up at the tapes inn the 2011 Elite League... Throwing rattles out of prams rarely leads to long term 'heroic gestures'... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
