screm 8,057 Posted August 28, 2015 Ivan Mauger, Hans Neilsen, Per Jonsson, Gary Havelock, Mark Loram, Nicki Pedersen, Tai Woffinden, Greg Hancock, Billy Hamill, Tony Richardsson? With you with all of the names except Tony Rickardsson who I don't think rode at Berwick, maybe Berrington. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fromafar 10,375 Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) With you with all of the names except Tony Rickardsson who I don't think rode at Berwick, maybe Berrington.Rickardsson rode at Berrington and was beaten by Kevin Little !! If I remember correctly.( for Ipswich) Edited August 28, 2015 by Fromafar 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
screm 8,057 Posted August 28, 2015 Rickardsson rode at Berrington and was beaten by Kevin Little !! If I remember correctly.( for Ipswich) Well remembered. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
screm 8,057 Posted August 28, 2015 Did Peter Collins ever race at Berwick, maybe not in an actual league meeting but in some demonstration races. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fromafar 10,375 Posted August 28, 2015 Barry Briggs for Hull at Shielfield Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
To The Point 356 Posted August 28, 2015 A thousand years at the most, no such thing as 'England' until around the 10th century. And not for much longer, come the revolution! No such thing as Scotland until 950ad under Constantin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Black Angus 79 Posted August 28, 2015 Jan O Pedersen was at Berrington for Cradley Heath in the same team as Hancock and possibly Hamill...... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fromafar 10,375 Posted August 28, 2015 Jan O Pedersen was at Berrington for Cradley Heath in the same team as Hancock and possibly Hamill......He was. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GS550 449 Posted August 30, 2015 (edited) Let's (from an ousiders view) break this down: 1 - Barker was loaned to Berwick, until he got injured then Berwick took him out of the 1 - 7, so, when he signed for Peterborough, he wasnt on loan at the Bandits and therefore entitled to sign for the Panthers (or anybody else, in fact). 2 - Who "dropped" Ben barker has nothing to do with it. the Worker thing is a red herring on your part. I'd have a sick-note saying I'm off for a month (or whatever) but If I sign back off the sick before then, I can still go and work for who I like - depending on the contract. Barker isn';t employed by Berwick so is under no pressure to go back there at all. 3 - Barker may or not have misled Berwick. He was told his season was prob over and reported such to Bandits. Medical opinion can be often wrong and this one of those cases it seems to me. 4. Nothing smells iffy. To answer your points: 1. "Barker was loaned to Berwick, until he got injured then Berwick took him out of the 1 - 7" This misses my point - that it wasn't so much that Berwick dropped him, more the case that Barker declared himself unfit for the rest of the season, and it was only then that Berwick 'dropped' him, however according to the Berwick statement they say they made clear to Barker that upon his recovery his team place would still be there. Under those particular circumstances the least Barker could have done was to even make just one 'courtesy call' phone call to Berwick rather than just swan off elsewhere. Your point that: "so, when he signed for Peterborough, he wasnt on loan at the Bandits" - again this misses my point that this was brought about by Barker's self-declaration to Berwick that his season was over. Also key to this is that Berwick say in their statement that they made clear to Barker that upon recovery from injury his team place would still be there. 2. I'm fully aware of how contracts work, and I did use the 'may' when I myself referred to his loan terms. However that misses my point that were it not for the injury - and Barker's self-declaration to Berwick that his season was over due to injury - then Barker would still be under his loan conditions. In other words, the sole reason for Barker being 'dropped' was Barker's own declaration as to fitness and that his season was over. 3. I agree that he may or may not have misled Berwick, and would probably have been based upon medical advice. However, ultimately it seems Barker declared to Berwick that his season was over due to injury and it was for that sole reason that Berwick 'dropped' him. However, also key here is that Berwick say in their statement that they made clear to Barker that should he recover then his place was still there. That is where it seems to me that Barker should have had the grace to at least make a 'courtesy call' telephone call to Berwick - if he's a 'hired hand' then fine, but he was still being given employment by Berwick. I've been in the situation of being freelance myself but I know I would have given far more courtesy to a client - even if I didn't 'technically' need to do so. That's where it stinks to high heaven to me. Barker seems to be morally bereft in my eyes and he doesn't come out of this well at all. 4. It may mot stink to you and that's fine, but it sure does stink to high heaven to me. Edited August 30, 2015 by justere2cgoodspeedway 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
allthegearbutnaeidea 1,735 Posted August 31, 2015 This was all cleared up on Saturday, just leave it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
To The Point 356 Posted August 31, 2015 This was all cleared up on Saturday, just leave it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsunami 10,219 Posted August 31, 2015 To answer your points: 1. "Barker was loaned to Berwick, until he got injured then Berwick took him out of the 1 - 7" This misses my point - that it wasn't so much that Berwick dropped him, more the case that Barker declared himself unfit for the rest of the season, and it was only then that Berwick 'dropped' him, however according to the Berwick statement they say they made clear to Barker that upon his recovery his team place would still be there. Under those particular circumstances the least Barker could have done was to even make just one 'courtesy call' phone call to Berwick rather than just swan off elsewhere. Your point that: "so, when he signed for Peterborough, he wasnt on loan at the Bandits" - again this misses my point that this was brought about by Barker's self-declaration to Berwick that his season was over. Also key to this is that Berwick say in their statement that they made clear to Barker that upon recovery from injury his team place would still be there. 2. I'm fully aware of how contracts work, and I did use the 'may' when I myself referred to his loan terms. However that misses my point that were it not for the injury - and Barker's self-declaration to Berwick that his season was over due to injury - then Barker would still be under his loan conditions. In other words, the sole reason for Barker being 'dropped' was Barker's own declaration as to fitness and that his season was over. 3. I agree that he may or may not have misled Berwick, and would probably have been based upon medical advice. However, ultimately it seems Barker declared to Berwick that his season was over due to injury and it was for that sole reason that Berwick 'dropped' him. However, also key here is that Berwick say in their statement that they made clear to Barker that should he recover then his place was still there. That is where it seems to me that Barker should have had the grace to at least make a 'courtesy call' telephone call to Berwick - if he's a 'hired hand' then fine, but he was still being given employment by Berwick. I've been in the situation of being freelance myself but I know I would have given far more courtesy to a client - even if I didn't 'technically' need to do so. That's where it stinks to high heaven to me. Barker seems to be morally bereft in my eyes and he doesn't come out of this well at all. 4. It may mot stink to you and that's fine, but it sure does stink to high heaven to me. Not sure about "he wasn't on loan to Berwick" comment. When you loan a rider, you either stipulate a period(like 28 days), or a whole season for which a scaled payment is calculated and paid. If Barker moves on to another club, it is Berwick that holds this registration for all of the season, and for who gets the new loan payment from Peterborough. The only difference being if Berwick, and Barkers registration holding club, have agreed a reduced loan fee, and handed Barker back to them. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbt 87 Posted August 31, 2015 (edited) Did Peter Collins ever race at Berwick, maybe not in an actual league meeting but in some demonstration races.He may well have done,he was riding at the end of the Maury Robinson era and I saw the bandits at Rochdale,so he probably went up there,! Edited August 31, 2015 by kbt Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fromafar 10,375 Posted August 31, 2015 This was all cleared up on Saturday, just leave itClear as mud,but like you say not worth discussing now,it's over. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
