bigcatdiary 3,168 Posted February 9, 2013 A lot has been said about Batchelor being allowed to ride where he likes after March 1st but his inclusion at Swindon is only complete when the BSPA approve the Swindon team deceleration for 2013. Its worth noting that the BSPA have in the past come into conflict with several clubs over the years with regards to team declerations without any real or notable victories for clubs and the SCB are well and truly controlled by the BSPA MC bearing in mind Harkess and CVS are both on the SCB governing body. For Batchelor to ride for Swindon this year surely requires a BSPA climb down or Swindon to buy him. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve0 5,517 Posted February 9, 2013 BSPA climb down it is - after all it's not good for the image of the sport that a rider (whatever nationality he is) is unable to earn a living because the BSPA won't budge - and will need to explain their reasons why a rider who is not being used by their parent club is not allowed to go out on loan as per the BSPA rules - that would be interesting. Just for Crump99 :rolleyes: 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BluTiger 21,712 Posted February 9, 2013 BSPA climb down it is - after all it's not good for the image of the sport that a rider (whatever nationality he is) is unable to earn a living because the BSPA won't budge - and will need to explain their reasons why a rider who is not being used by their parent club is not allowed to go out on loan as per the BSPA rules - that would be interesting. Just for Crump99 :rolleyes: Dont worry about the image of the sport because it cant get any lower than it is already..domestic speedway had its chance, and they (BSPA) blew it im afraid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crump99 4,481 Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) BSPA climb down it is - after all it's not good for the image of the sport that a rider (whatever nationality he is) is unable to earn a living because the BSPA won't budge - and will need to explain their reasons why a rider who is not being used by their parent club is not allowed to go out on loan as per the BSPA rules - that would be interesting. Just for Crump99 :rolleyes: Well they say things come in threes so it's good to see you get something right for a change! And just for you - put the rulebook down a minute it'll not save you: “The BSPA Management Committee have also ruled that Troy Batchelor must leave on a full transfer in consideration of public statements he has made over his desire to not return to Peterborough. We are happy with this decision as we believe we were unfairly forced into buying Troy on a full transfer when we signed him in the winter of 2009. Therefore it is only right that any club who wishes to use him should also buy him." (65Sarge is right in that it would have helped to have had this in there: 'if he goes to Swindon' or 'but he can join Belle Vue on loan') It seems a bit woolly throughout and is possibly open to interpretation without searching the rulebook. That might save you although I suspect what has gone before and we don't know about is what's forcing the issue. What would be good for the image of the sport is the BSPA proving that they are capable of running the sport without the need for an independent body as many continue to shout about. That requires consistency and not rolling over as you would like. It'll be interesting to see which way it goes. Edited February 9, 2013 by Crump99 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hans fan 1,001 Posted February 9, 2013 Well they say things come in threes so it's good to see you get something right for a change! And just for you - put the rulebook down a minute it'll not save you: “The BSPA Management Committee have also ruled that Troy Batchelor must leave on a full transfer in consideration of public statements he has made over his desire to not return to Peterborough. We are happy with this decision as we believe we were unfairly forced into buying Troy on a full transfer when we signed him in the winter of 2009. Therefore it is only right that any club who wishes to use him should also buy him." It seems a bit woolly in the first part which is clearly open to interpretation without searching the rulebook. That might save you although I suspect what has gone before and we don't know about is what's forcing the issue. What would be good for the image of the sport is the BSPA proving that they are capable of running the sport without the need for an independent body as many continue to shout about. That requires consistency and not rolling over as you would like. It'll be interesting to see which way it goes. lets not forget we keep on hearing the cack from a certain few that after march 1st the robins can sign him on loan ,even patchett has been quoted( it's not in the rulebook) so people like d&d think if they read it and post it enough it will happen Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crump99 4,481 Posted February 9, 2013 lets not forget we keep on hearing the cack from a certain few that after march 1st the robins can sign him on loan ,even patchett has been quoted( it's not in the rulebook) so people like d&d think if they read it and post it enough it will happen Be fair, it's in SteveO's rulebook, in crayon! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vincent Blachshadow 2,937 Posted February 9, 2013 BSPA climb down it is - after all it's not good for the image of the sport that a rider (whatever nationality he is) is unable to earn a living because the BSPA won't budge - and will need to explain their reasons why a rider who is not being used by their parent club is not allowed to go out on loan as per the BSPA rules - that would be interesting. Just for Crump99 :rolleyes: Oh, for heaven's sake!!! The image of the sport to whom exactly? The devotees already have their own opinions and this won't alter anything, ditto the sport's media, and nobody else gives a toss even if they've heard of the sport. He is able to earn a living, all Swindon need do is comply with a perfectly reasonable (and apparently substantiated) directive from the sport's governing body. Even if Swindon maintain their intransigence and don't comply there's always Kirky Lane. Again, please point out where we can find that rule so we can all have a look-see and discover what it actually says - providing it exists, that is. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skidder1 7,658 Posted February 9, 2013 It's interesting - for a Swindon thread, it seems Crump99 has posted nearly as many times as me. Does this mean I've got a stalker? Anyway only a few weeks to go to find out if Batch will be in or out of work. Silly me, I thought promoters were supposed to look after their assets What? Like Swindon did when they insisted on selling Batch to Panthers in 2009!!!!!! Hardly surprising that Panthers want their money back!! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
trubruv 26 Posted February 9, 2013 I believe he already has a work permit! so they are preventing him from working! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BluTiger 21,712 Posted February 9, 2013 I believe he already has a work permit! so they are preventing him from working! Neither P'boro or the BSPA have stated he will be prevented from riding, as he is available on a full transfer. It would appear that Swindon are preventing him from riding as they dont seem prepared to buy him as P'boro were forced to do originally. Whats good for the goose.......... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
trubruv 26 Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) it would be nice for all of us ,if the true facts from all parties concerned were made available ! but I doubt that will happen! perhaps the bspa will buy him and loan him to swindon Edited February 9, 2013 by trubruv 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve0 5,517 Posted February 9, 2013 Well they say things come in threes so it's good to see you get something right for a change! And just for you - put the rulebook down a minute it'll not save you: “The BSPA Management Committee have also ruled that Troy Batchelor must leave on a full transfer in consideration of public statements he has made over his desire to not return to Peterborough. We are happy with this decision as we believe we were unfairly forced into buying Troy on a full transfer when we signed him in the winter of 2009. Therefore it is only right that any club who wishes to use him should also buy him." (65Sarge is right in that it would have helped to have had this in there: 'if he goes to Swindon' or 'but he can join Belle Vue on loan') It seems a bit woolly throughout and is possibly open to interpretation without searching the rulebook. That might save you although I suspect what has gone before and we don't know about is what's forcing the issue. What would be good for the image of the sport is the BSPA proving that they are capable of running the sport without the need for an independent body as many continue to shout about. That requires consistency and not rolling over as you would like. It'll be interesting to see which way it goes. Consistency is EXACTLY what I want!! NKI goes to KL for a third season on loan and Batch cannot do a second season on loan?!?!?! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vincent Blachshadow 2,937 Posted February 9, 2013 I believe he already has a work permit! so they are preventing him from working! Peterborough wanted to use him back in '09, Swindon said fine, as long as you buy him. Peterborough bought him. Swindon want to use him in 2013, Peterborough say fine, as long as you buy him. Swindon won't buy him but want him on loan (on the cheap). Where is the difference and how is it Peterborough who are preventing him from working? All Swindon have to do is buy him, as Peterborough did, and he rides. Sorted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Midland Robin 27 Posted February 9, 2013 Peterborough wanted to use him back in '09, Swindon said fine, as long as you buy him. Peterborough bought him. Swindon want to use him in 2013, Peterborough say fine, as long as you buy him. Swindon won't buy him but want him on loan (on the cheap). Where is the difference and how is it Peterborough who are preventing him from working? All Swindon have to do is buy him, as Peterborough did, and he rides. Sorted. Firstly, it was 2010. Batch rode at Swindon and Ipswich in 2009. The difference, as you want to know, was that we wanted him back in 2010. Boro wanted him despite that and that is why they bought him. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crazy robin 2,966 Posted February 9, 2013 Peterborough wanted to use him back in '09, Swindon said fine, as long as you buy him. Peterborough bought him. Swindon want to use him in 2013, Peterborough say fine, as long as you buy him. Swindon won't buy him but want him on loan (on the cheap). Where is the difference and how is it Peterborough who are preventing him from working? All Swindon have to do is buy him, as Peterborough did, and he rides. Sorted. I hope Swindon sign him but 2009 was a different economic climate than what we live in today both in normal life & in speedway. Swindon have been told to buy him so either sit down with Peterborough & sort it out or sign another rider or this will happen every season. I don't know where this March 1st came from but I hope it gets blown out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
