Poole V Swindon 30 September 2013 Second Leg

[Seymour Dix 2,008]

And you can prove all that can you?

 

Yes - , Tony Rickardson a few years back , throwing heat 13 on TV to prevent an old style tac sub being used in heat 14, Ryan Sullivan not crossing the line in one race to allow a tactical to be used by Poole in the following race, A match at Oxford where a heavy defeat was suffered after qualification for the play - offs, the match at Swindon a couple of years back when everyone knew what was happening, how much more proof do you want ?

[The Know 221]

And the Poole team is hugely different to the previous meeting !

 

A lot of Poole fans seem to be negative about our chances but I'm hopeful and think the guys can pull this off , 4-2 or 5-1 in the first heat to get things off to a good start to get everyone upbeat and I see it happening ! Though I respect swindons strength it'll definitely be great viewing.

. I believe we have a good chance. If the riders can ride how we know they can and hit umm hard early their heads and roscoes will drop. As I said before there best riders last visit was pretty poor so let's prepare the track the same. I am even thinking of offering them a win bonus to help spur them on.

[Gavan 5,050]

its not the use of the tac sub rule and the like that is the problem with Poole speedway. i would expect my team to not win a race to stop a tac sub being used thats called tactics.

 

its all the underhand stuff Poole use every season to corrupt the sport

 

what happened at Belle Vue was the final straw for true speedway fans.

 

Im just sorry to see one of the true legends in Hancock riding for the most detested promoter in the sport, i just hope he doesnt ride for them next year

[E I Addio 15,845]

Calm down, no need to cry about it...

 

At the time of the postponement there was an update on the Poole Pirates website stating that this was a mutually agreed postponement.

 

I am quite calm and not crying about it. I do like people to read words that are actually written though, and not what they would like them to say. I read the update on the Poole website very carefully at the time. It did NOT say there was a mutually agreed postponement. It was written to the usual vague and wishy-washy Ford-speak to try to imply Lakeside had agreed to the postponement and those who think the sun shines from Matt's posterior might well have read it that way but it did not actually say that that. Go back and read it again. It was because of this attempt to implicate Lakeside that Jon Cook issued a second statement the following day clarifying the situation and stating clearly that the decision to postpone was Poole's alone, and virtually calling Ford a liar. The key point is that Poole never came back an denied what Cook said .

 

 

[stevebrum 6,824]

You are correct but Holder would have definately got more than 9 on monday, Greg said he has struggled with set ups on tracks he hasn't ridden for years, in my view the Swindon lead would have been no more than 6 with Chris riding.

 

Likely not definetly.

[E I Addio 15,845]

Must be true then.

 

I have always had respect for Cook but it was disappointing that he failed to condemn the cancelled meeting particularly following the ruling from the BSPA that Poole should revert to their original 1-7.

 

 

There was very limited action that Cook could have taken, since the visiting promoter has no say in it under the rules. None of us know what went on behind the scenes and the SCB are not the mast transparent organisation in the world when it comes to keeping fans informed. In an announcement on the Lakeside website a week or two back the promotion said they were going to make their views on certain matters known "behind closed doors" (which presumably means the AGM) and I would be astonished if this matter was not one of the matters included, or indeed the main matter. The trouble is that unless and until the SCB are prepared to keep the fans fully informed all we can ever do is speculate.

 

Bottom line is that we all know why Poole postponed the meeting and given the circumstances its inexplicable that Belle Vue should have got a £5000 fine and three points deducted while Poole have no points deducted and no fine. Then again given the farce of the Belle Vue-v- Poole Sky broadcast a few weeks ago we can all speculate on why Poole had no points deducted.

[Tom Turner 347]

I am quite calm and not crying about it. I do like people to read words that are actually written though, and not what they would like them to say. I read the update on the Poole website very carefully at the time. It did NOT say there was a mutually agreed postponement. It was written to the usual vague and wishy-washy Ford-speak to try to imply Lakeside had agreed to the postponement and those who think the sun shines from Matt's posterior might well have read it that way but it did not actually say that that. Go back and read it again. It was because of this attempt to implicate Lakeside that Jon Cook issued a second statement the following day clarifying the situation and stating clearly that the decision to postpone was Poole's alone, and virtually calling Ford a liar. The key point is that Poole never came back an denied what Cook said .

 

Rubbish. If Jon Cook was upset he would of made a complaint. If not then bigger fool him. Is there even a rule against postponing matches upon mutual consent?

 

And yes, whatever I read at the time said that Lakeside was happy with the postponement. Hence why Lakeside don't care.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Synikalle

[E I Addio 15,845]

Rubbish. If Jon Cook was upset he would of made a complaint. If not then bigger fool him. Is there even a rule against postponing matches upon mutual consent?

 

And yes, whatever I read at the time said that Lakeside was happy with the postponement. Hence why Lakeside don't care.

 

Now you have lost your marbles completely. You have jumped from saying Lakeside agreed to the postponement to saying Lakeside was actually happy with the postponement. And still you can't provide us with a link to back up what you have said.

 

 

EDIT: According to Speedway Star this issue was due to be discussed by the SCB on 10th July but that was the last anyone seems to have heard of it. No doubt it has been put on the back burner and forgotten about by the SCB with nothing heard since, much the same as the King Lynn -v- Peterborough matter was, except the Boro'-v-KL issue was suddenly bought out just when needed.

Edited September 25, 2013 by E I Addio

[Crazy robin 2,963]

You are correct but Holder would have definately got more than 9 on monday, Greg said he has struggled with set ups on tracks he hasn't ridden for years, in my view the Swindon lead would have been no more than 6 with Chris riding.

 

In my view Swindon would've won by 30 points if we had Leigh Adams, Barry Briggs & Jimmy Nilsen at reserve.

 

Oh wait a minute how can I be sure of that.

 

That's it I can't just the same way you can't be sure what Chris would've scored.

 

He didn't ride so can't see the point of saying it really

 

Poole can still win this easy & Swindon will have to be at their very best to stop it happening.

[Agrotron 955]

We will beat Swindon

[A ORLOV 8,628]

We will beat Swindon

You hope

[stevebrum 6,824]

Rubbish. If Jon Cook was upset he would of made a complaint. If not then bigger fool him. Is there even a rule against postponing matches upon mutual consent?

 

And yes, whatever I read at the time said that Lakeside was happy with the postponement. Hence why Lakeside don't care.

 

Some Poole fans do come out with classics. Mutual consent, love the comedy.

 

 

We will beat Swindon

 

We will beat Swindon ................................in my dreams. (you missed the last part out).

Edited September 25, 2013 by stevebrum

[Tom Turner 347]

Some Poole fans do come out with classics. Mutual consent, love the comedy.

 

If Matt Ford is the big bad wolf then why don't the other promoters get some balls and do something about it?

 

Because it's starting to look a lot like sour grapes.

[stevebrum 6,824]

If Matt Ford is the big bad wolf then why don't the other promoters get some balls and do something about it?

 

Because it's starting to look a lot like sour grapes.

 

Its not sour grapes!

Ford called off the Lakeside match and Cook stated it was Poole`s decision alone.

 

That is all we need to know about who made the decision. But it was anything but Mutual consent!

[Gloves 70]

Wow Matt Ford is the permanent villain. What surprises me is that everything seems to rest with him. Am surprised as isn't the lakeside promoter the chair!!!! If there had been a case to answer it would of happened by now. Will be sorry not to see the 9pt riders in the elite league next year but needs must. At least Brummies will hopefully have Harris on a bargain average. Am surprised no posters have said anything about his average dropping so much while not at his parent club. Am absolutely sure if it was a loaned Poole rider there would have been outrage!!!! Go you Brummies so want our first Elite title!!!!