65Sarge 148 Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) I may be wrong, but I am sure I read somewhere that if a rider is not signed by 1 March (loan or sale I presume) he has to be made available on loan whether or not the 'owning' club wishes to grant permission to talk to the rider??? Edited January 28, 2013 by 65Sarge 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Know 221 Posted January 28, 2013 These amounts are so little, small change, why dont they just buy them and ave done with it. Would be differant if we were talking vast amounts of cash. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
trubruv 26 Posted January 28, 2013 Swindon have built a very strong team but I'm shocked to see that Nick Morris has EIGHT definate fixture clashes plus a possible one more in August. With him only having an 8.00 PL average at present, guests will be vital on trips to Lakeside and Peterborough while home clashes with Birmingham (Doyle missing too), Coventry (Summers missing) and Kings Lynn (Stead missing) shouldn't be so bad. Can somebody correct me if i am wrong! but surely with Swindon loaning Nick Morris to Somerset! Swindon have first pick of his services? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TonyE 822 Posted January 28, 2013 No - as a 'double-upper' the Premier League club get priority. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
noggin 1,391 Posted January 28, 2013 Can somebody correct me if i am wrong! but surely with Swindon loaning Nick Morris to Somerset! Swindon have first pick of his services? sounds fair to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BuzzCagney 310 Posted January 28, 2013 Well wild west country anyway. Free for all it is then with the bobbins leading the charge - rip up the rule book, scrap the BSPA Scrap the BSPA because Peterborough don't get their way? That the same crap your promotion came out with a couple of years ago when they threatened to quit the league when they couldn't get their own way.They've played silly buggers, again, and failed, again. They need to grow up if they want to play with the grown-ups. And you need to stop following blindly along behind them like some unthinking lemming. Welcome home, Hans, its great to have you back with us. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sherborne Green 320 Posted January 28, 2013 sounds fair to me. yes, but it does not work that way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve0 5,517 Posted January 28, 2013 swindon can't just sign him, they have to follow the rules/decisions of the bspa scb, The rules of the BSPA are such that if he isn't signed by march 1st then he can be loaned Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DC2 11,150 Posted January 28, 2013 Are you suggesting the BSPA ruling should be ignored ? A lawless sport, do what you want, when you want...Thats a wild west attitude. No, I'm suggesting exactly as the Panthers' promotion did two years ago: if the BSPA makes a decision that you disgaree with you can have it tested in court. If Swindon signed Batch without buying him, submitted him to the BSPA for approval & they refused, they could be subject to court action by Swindon or Batch. If Swindon decide to sign Zagar instead & publicly state that they would have signed Batch if the BSPA hadn't insisted they buy him, then Batch should issue a writ for restraint of trade. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vincent Blachshadow 2,937 Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) Scrap the BSPA because Peterborough don't get their way? That the same crap your promotion came out with a couple of years ago when they threatened to quit the league when they couldn't get their own way. They've played silly buggers, again, and failed, again. They need to grow up if they want to play with the grown-ups. And you need to stop following blindly along behind them like some unthinking lemming. Welcome home, Hans, its great to have you back with us. You got that bit well wrong. Peterborough didn't threaten to quit any league, some of the other promoters tried to put them out of business and shut them down and that's entirely different. On this occasion, the MC have backed them and said that Swindon have to buy Batch if they want to use him (just as Peterborough were told, and complied, three or four years ago when they acquired him). The MC/BSPA have ruled - if you (Swindon) want him, buy him. That's clear, so who's the silly buggers here? The rules of the BSPA are such that if he isn't signed by march 1st then he can be loaned Against their own ruling that he has to be purchased? Can't see that happening. If it were true, why didn't Peterborough just wait till March 1st when they were told to pay for him (which they did) and just take him on loan? No, I'm suggesting exactly as the Panthers' promotion did two years ago: if the BSPA makes a decision that you disgaree with you can have it tested in court. If Swindon signed Batch without buying him, submitted him to the BSPA for approval & they refused, they could be subject to court action by Swindon or Batch. If Swindon decide to sign Zagar instead & publicly state that they would have signed Batch if the BSPA hadn't insisted they buy him, then Batch should issue a writ for restraint of trade. The court threat two years ago was over being closed down as a business which is entirely different. Edited January 28, 2013 by Vincent Blackshadow 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skidder1 7,660 Posted January 28, 2013 No, I'm suggesting exactly as the Panthers' promotion did two years ago: if the BSPA makes a decision that you disgaree with you can have it tested in court. If Swindon signed Batch without buying him, submitted him to the BSPA for approval & they refused, they could be subject to court action by Swindon or Batch. If Swindon decide to sign Zagar instead & publicly state that they would have signed Batch if the BSPA hadn't insisted they buy him, then Batch should issue a writ for restraint of trade. Or sign for Belle Vue!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DC2 11,150 Posted January 28, 2013 The court threat two years ago was over being closed down as a business which is entirely different. You miss my point. The facts are different but the principle is the same: any club or rider can test BSPA decisions in court. Or sign for Belle Vue!! And risk losing his restraint of trade case on grounds of insanity? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crump99 4,484 Posted January 28, 2013 Scrap the BSPA because Peterborough don't get their way? That the same crap your promotion came out with a couple of years ago when they threatened to quit the league when they couldn't get their own way. They've played silly buggers, again, and failed, again. They need to grow up if they want to play with the grown-ups. And you need to stop following blindly along behind them like some unthinking lemming. Welcome home, Hans, its great to have you back with us. He's had more homes than Barratts, please buy him, put the 8k back down on the table and leave it there! Blinkers on and same time next year and every year until we get rid 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skidder1 7,660 Posted January 28, 2013 And risk losing his restraint of trade case on grounds of insanity? Shouldn't be too difficult to prove!!!!!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BluTiger 21,719 Posted January 28, 2013 No one is keen on buying Batch because they know its only a matter of time before the toys come flying out of the pram, and he's off again. Maybe he should buy his own contract out, then he can move around without all this fuss.. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
