Scunthorpe V Berwick

[phillwhitewasmad 1,487]

Can't disagree screm but if the mc are happy with it what is the endless debate about it opinions don't count if you ain't making the decision unfortunately

[bullet 72]

is Lewy still on his vendetta against scunny and everyone ignoring the fact that the assesed Number 1 sub section is relating to 28 day facility not an individual meeting.

Assesed or not if they have a legitimate reason for not being there like a FIM meeting then they get the facility as per the first part

 

The whole purpose of the sub section rule is to stop a club bringing in an assessed rider discovering he is rubbish so claiming he is injured and getting guests in at number 1 who are better than them

 

If that was not the rule then scunny would have lined up totally different with R/R at 1 and Nicolai as a guest for Ryan!!

[Halifaxtiger 5,318]

is Lewy still on his vendetta against scunny and everyone ignoring the fact that the assesed Number 1 sub section is relating to 28 day facility not an individual meeting.

Assesed or not if they have a legitimate reason for not being there like a FIM meeting then they get the facility as per the first part

 

The whole purpose of the sub section rule is to stop a club bringing in an assessed rider discovering he is rubbish so claiming he is injured and getting guests in at number 1 who are better than them

 

If that was not the rule then scunny would have lined up totally different with R/R at 1 and Nicolai as a guest for Ryan!!

 

I think you're right. Not, as you also point out, that it made the slightest difference either way nor did it detract from a very good meeting.

[thebaron 434]

Went to Berwick on Saturday; I have placed my impressions on the Bandits v Somerset thread. Thommy and Theo aside the Bandits were run out of town. But if we have problems at Scunny trust me there equally bad if not worse at Berwick the crowd was very sparse and minus the Rebels faithful would I imagine probably make it unviable.

 

Tough tough times for speedway and I know that the speedway family has far far more immediate concern for one of our fallen stars right now.

Edited August 25, 2015 by the outsider

[SCB 15]

I know I'm late to the discussion but 16.5.2.2 is a sub rule of 16.5.2. As 16.5.2 IS relevant then 16.5.2.2 IS. It's only R/R for an assessed #1

[lucifer sam 3,960]

I know I'm late to the discussion but 16.5.2.2 is a sub rule of 16.5.2. As 16.5.2 IS relevant then 16.5.2.2 IS. It's only R/R for an assessed #1

 

But 16.5.2 is not relevant. It's about 28-day-facilities. Scunny haven't applied for one of those for Holub. 16.5.2 is not relevant and therefore neither is 16.5.2.2.

 

The rule is obviously there to stop a team signing someone on an assessed average, then the next moment saying they are in dispute with the club, and getting away with using guests for 28 days. It's there to close that loophole. Why stop a guest for a rider competing in a FIM event for his country?

 

All the best

Rob

[Black Angus 79]

Went to Berwick on Saturday; I have placed my impressions on the Bandits v Somerset thread. Thommy and Theo aside the Bandits were run out of town. But if we have problems at Scunny trust me there equally bad if not worse at Berwick the crowd was very sparse and minus the Rebels faithful would I imagine probably make it unviable.

 

Tough tough times for speedway and I know that the speedway family has far far more immediate concern for one of our fallen stars right now.

 

But you liked our nice video man, didn't you?

[Shrimmy 144]

Where's motormouth lewy ??✊

[lewy 2,354]

Where's motormouth lewy ??✊

I,m here,why you going try to argue that u didnt cheat aswell I think its become quite clear you did so wind your neck in:-)