Noodles 1,337 Posted January 5, 2013 (edited) Mickey Mouse club end of!! Law abiding mickey mouse club, not to be confused with the cheating variety Edited January 5, 2013 by Noodles Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
essaitch 24 Posted January 5, 2013 I thought it widely known that Boro intended to use Bjerre, Harris and Sundstrom and the 2/20 ruling put paid to that. That is why Peterborough were talking to Coventry regarding a transfer for Hans, but ignoring our right to have first option. You contradict yourself. If Bjerre's place is not in doubt, and given Sundstrom already signed, then the other assets are surplus to requirements and were never in the equation. Presumably until the surprise decision, between the ore AGM and the AGM to bring in the 2 from top 20 rule caused a rethink. Where did that come from? Was it not you who insisted Peterborough took Troy on a full transfer for talking to him without permission? Hypocrisy ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratton 1,491 Posted January 5, 2013 Law abiding mickey mouse club, not to be confused with the cheating variety RIght,get in the real world! these riders were not tapped up your Micky Mouse club should of been ahead of the game.Did your club start trying to address your problems on the 25th of October?Should of had these issues sorted weeks ago. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Noodles 1,337 Posted January 5, 2013 (edited) RIght,get in the real world! these riders were not tapped up your Micky Mouse club should of been ahead of the game.Did your club start trying to address your problems on the 25th of October?Should of had these issues sorted weeks ago. Rory? tut tut. Edited January 5, 2013 by Noodles Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sully 274 Posted January 5, 2013 RIght,get in the real world! these riders were not tapped up your Micky Mouse club should of been ahead of the game.Did your club start trying to address your problems on the 25th of October?Should of had these issues sorted weeks ago. you're clearly one of the very few who still want to believe that. Peterborough own the assets so its got nothing to do with being ahead of the game. The advantage of having assets is that you have the first opportunity to speak to them instead if waiting for permission (if you choose to do things the correct way).... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve0 5,517 Posted January 5, 2013 you're clearly one of the very few who still want to believe that. Peterborough own the assets so its got nothing to do with being ahead of the game. The advantage of having assets is that you have the first opportunity to speak to them instead if waiting for permission (if you choose to do things the correct way).... Yes - and when they all say no and that they want to ride elsewhere - you can always "keep the ball" so to speak! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
essaitch 24 Posted January 5, 2013 Yes - and when they all say no and that they want to ride elsewhere - you can always "keep the ball" so to speak! And when that is because they have been illegally approached from elsewhere, what do you suggest? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ian7 0 Posted January 5, 2013 so when Batch tweeted that he had done a deal in the UK who was that with? Perhaps Kings Lynn,they have history..if it was Swindon ,you could conclude it was one of three things 1..midland robin perhaps dosn't know what is going on at his club. 2.. midland robin perhaps is not telling the truth 3..Troy is perhaps not telling the truth.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve0 5,517 Posted January 5, 2013 (edited) And when that is because they have been illegally approached from elsewhere, what do you suggest? Can you prove that Swindon have done that? Talking about rules - the rules say that if you don't want to use a rider then the club that he was out on loan to has first refusal. So why were Coventry given permission to speak to Hans and not Swindon? Edited January 5, 2013 by Steve0 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Midland Robin 27 Posted January 5, 2013 so when Batch tweeted that he had done a deal in the UK who was that with? Ask him! I haven't spoken to him since he went back to Oz. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
E I Addio 15,845 Posted January 5, 2013 Personally, I believe the Panthers Owners and Promoters have already decided that 2013 will be their last year. After making the most noise last year, of the low attendances and the losing of vast sums, this will be the last chance to cash in on their assets. so, they want to get rid of all surplus riders. But the problem now, is that all the other promoters know the score and are not prepared to pay for something that they could get next year at a cut down price. Will be interesting to see how this turns out…………… If that were true how come Peterboro agreed to let Lakeside have Piotr Swiderski on loan without making any noises about selling him ? If they knew they weren't going to use him he would be the first one to try to sell off if your theory were true. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ericd22b 3 Posted January 5, 2013 your have the panthers police after you midland robin you know your not allowed to talk to batch in case you tap him up Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pirate Nick 1,801 Posted January 5, 2013 The only riders we have 'deals' with are those already having named as signed. Ironically one is a Peterborough asset that we asked for permission to speak to and which was granted. We asked for permission to speak to 3 others and that was denied. We are still waiting. Ask him! I haven't spoken to him since he went back to Oz. If speedway goes ** up I think you'd probably have a good career in politics Sully, I think you probably need to rephrase the question. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
essaitch 24 Posted January 5, 2013 Can you prove that Swindon have done that? It's been said, can you prove it didn't happen? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve0 5,517 Posted January 5, 2013 It's been said, can you prove it didn't happen? In this country, it is for the accuser to prove (innocent until proven guilty) 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
