orion 7,631 Posted February 24, 2013 You could argue that but that wouldn't be very bright Imagine your local car dealership having a lean spell and blaming it on the fact that no one was buying their cars! As I've said before, just because you have something to sell doesn't mean anyone is obliged to buy it! Or loan it yea ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WembleyLion 418 Posted February 24, 2013 It really shouldn't be a surprise to us as the club has previous history when it comes to not honouring its obligations. It wasn't too long ago that we were discussing their failure to pay Leigh Adams the money he had earned. Dave do you know if Adams has now been paid all he was owed? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crump99 4,484 Posted February 24, 2013 (edited) As a team man there is no comparison, also shows what a Mickey mouse outfit they are they even loaned Bjerre out to Kings Lynn.Could you ever see us say doing that say with the great Leigh Adams.Also with Niels and look what he has done prospered into a world class performer. Not a good start to look like a fool from the off as it sort of negates the rest of your posts: Frost said: “We have seen a lot of our assets move and we were sorry to see them go, but there is no way we could have stood in their way in case we had to sit out the season.“We owed it to loyal Peterborough servants like Kenneth and Niels to allow them to secure their own futures http://www.peterboro...leave-1-2516836 yeah, and using that logic, you can't be forced to lend someone your stuff. Try and get that car dealer to lend you a car for 12 months, he'll laugh at you. 2 winters ago you told us the BSPA are always right, do as they say. Coventry and Peterborough were wrong for defying them. Yet now they're wrong and Swindon are right. Stump up and shut up or accept you can't afford him and move on. :D And after two winters ago and now this one I read that hansfan can't take it any more and has SteveO on ignore so will not be discussing the motor trade with him Edited February 24, 2013 by Crump99 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve0 5,517 Posted February 24, 2013 Best news I've read - now I just need you to do the same Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crump99 4,484 Posted February 24, 2013 (edited) Thats good then get a loan fee or nothing what would you rather? If you were doing the negotiating I think that Rick would take the hit and let you go with your back up plan! Best news I've read - now I just need you to do the same Well you're ignoring the BSPA this time around so at least you've started your list Edited February 24, 2013 by Crump99 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve0 5,517 Posted February 24, 2013 yeah, and using that logic, you can't be forced to lend someone your stuff. Try and get that car dealer to lend you a car for 12 months, he'll laugh at you. 2 winters ago you told us the BSPA are always right, do as they say. Coventry and Peterborough were wrong for defying them. Yet now they're wrong and Swindon are right. Stump up and shut up or accept you can't afford him and move on. You're right - you can't be forced to loan either - much better having it in the garage gathering dust Surely the right thing to do is to have Batch riding rather than losing a top rider to an already weak league? 2 winters ago the BSPA were right but eventually everyone saw sense and agreed a way forward. This time, the BSPA are not right as I gave examples (e.g. PUK, Judas) where a precedence had been set. If Peterborough wanted to use Batch then it would be a no brainer - Swindon should have to purchase him but that is not the case so a loan was within the rules but, for whatever reason, the MC ruled otherwise. I didn't realise that I always had to agree with what the BSPA do - to suit your argument. I have my own opinions and 2 years ago I agreed with the BSPA and this year I do not - is that ok with you? It is not about what Swindon can afford, it is down to whether Batch rides or doesn't ride this season and I cannot believe anyone would rather see him sit out the season! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BluTiger 21,719 Posted February 24, 2013 I didn't realise that I always had to agree with what the BSPA do - to suit your argument. I have my own opinions and 2 years ago I agreed with the BSPA and this year I do not - is that ok with you? I think its called 'selective opinion syndrome' ...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
65Sarge 148 Posted February 24, 2013 (edited) It would be very interesting to see the actual wording of this BSPA ruling regarding Batchelor, I recall seeing a quote from it in a Peterborough Paper within a Julie No Idea of Her Surname Is press release and I seem to recall it was something along the lines they have ruled Batchelor should be offered for sale if he leaves Peterborough, no destination clubs mentioned which is very different from must be purchased if Swindon want him! I think everybody will have their own soap box rose tinted view of this which is clear from many postings to date some of which appear to have been written with little knowledge of the truth and a high propensity of own team adoration! I just want to see things resolved and move on to having some speedway to watch! Edited February 24, 2013 by 65Sarge 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve0 5,517 Posted February 24, 2013 I think its called 'selective opinion syndrome' ...... I think it's called MY opinion or would it suit if I were a lemming? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LagutaRacingFan 1,944 Posted February 24, 2013 Will be interesting to see what eventually happens, What will happen in March? Will Troy be allowed to go out on loan and if he is then doesn't this set a dangerous precedent? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Noodles 1,337 Posted February 24, 2013 I think it's called MY opinion or would it suit if I were a lemming? Purely coincidence that this year it effects your club? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vincent Blachshadow 2,937 Posted February 24, 2013 (edited) If Peterborough wanted to use Batch then it would be a no brainer - Swindon should have to purchase him but that is not the case so a loan was within the rules but, for whatever reason, the MC ruled otherwise. Maybe the MC think they should have made Swindon buy him last year so are activating that precedent now. As a team man there is no comparison, also shows what a Mickey mouse outfit they are they even loaned Bjerre out to Kings Lynn.Could you ever see us say doing that say with the great Leigh Adams.Also with Niels and look what he has done prospered into a world class performer. To me, Mickey Mouse is agreeing a deal with a club to buy a rider, renege on the deal then blame another club not allowing you to loan a rider the ruling body have decreed you must buy. Having assets you've paid for and wishing to have some say in their future moves is not Mickey Mouse. Edited February 24, 2013 by Vincent Blackshadow 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCB 15 Posted February 24, 2013 Your opinion was the BSPA was always right. Yet now your opinion is they're not. Surely Swindon are now no better than Coventry and Peterborough were? FWIW, I think this all stems back to last years weak decision on meidzinski. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve0 5,517 Posted February 24, 2013 (edited) Your opinion was the BSPA was always right. Yet now your opinion is they're not. Surely Swindon are now no better than Coventry and Peterborough were? FWIW, I think this all stems back to last years weak decision on meidzinski. I disagree with most of your points - I do not believe one person or group is/are always right - whether that is speedway or anything else. I have an opinion and I can select what opinion I have depending on the situation. I think Peterborough are at fault here and as I've said previously it isn't surprising that both Peterborough and Coventry were the ones playing funny beggars this winter too! Fortunately, Birmingham managed to find some extra sponsorship which Swindon don't seem to have been able to do. I do agree that the Miedzinski situation last year was a poor decision but even looking at this year PUK and Batch have been treated differently when I would have thought Batch had a stronger loan case than PUK - as PUK has had an extra season's loan - a decision based on whether your face fits or not? Edited February 24, 2013 by Steve0 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCB 15 Posted February 24, 2013 I do agree that the Miedzinski situation last year was a poor decision but even looking at this year PUK and Batch have been treated differently when I would have thought Batch had a stronger loan case than PUK - as PUK has had an extra season's loan - a decision based on whether your face fits or not? but surely it's the Puk situation that's wrong though, not the Batchelor one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
