Edinburgh 2016

[New era Panthers 2,055]

In what way?

Naughty naughty.

[GWC 495]

With riders being in short supply I would have thought logic should prevail and let these guys ride somewhere.

The whole system of riders and birth place is flawed and has no doubt been caused by our friends at immigration where EU can walk in but our Commonwealth friends cannot - another reason to exit!

[JCookie 753]

Is that because our British reserve has exceeded expectations and now into the main body of the side, oh yeah.......

 

I think everyone expected Perry to be the best #7 and therefore up his average so he hasn't exceeded anything. It was a bending of the rule that has now allowed you to strengthen, although signing a rubbish Czech as a reserve does seem a desperate move.

[New era Panthers 2,055]

 

I think everyone expected Perry to be the best #7 and therefore up his average so he hasn't exceeded anything. It was a bending of the rule that has now allowed you to strengthen, although signing a rubbish Czech as a reserve does seem a desperate move.

That's rich coming from an Ipswich fan who's team are struggling to produce a decent NO7 . Nobody bent any rules , would you care to tell just what rule has been bent, and to suggest we have signed a rubbish Czech rider at reserve , well that's your opinion time will tell As for everybody expected Tom Perry to get anywhere near his 5.58 average you are living in cloud cuckoo land and the B.S.P.A certainly didn't expect it did they. This sounds very much like sour grapes to me , it would have been much nicer if you could have give the lad a bit of credit rather than your told you so approach.

[Arson fire 4,785]

That's rich coming from an Ipswich fan who's team are struggling to produce a decent NO7 . Nobody bent any rules , would you care to tell just what rule has been bent, and to suggest we have signed a rubbish Czech rider at reserve , well that's your opinion time will tell As for everybody expected Tom Perry to get anywhere near his 5.58 average you are living in cloud cuckoo land and the B.S.P.A certainly didn't expect it did they. This sounds very much like sour grapes to me , it would have been much nicer if you could have give the lad a bit of credit rather than your told you so approach.

tom perry should not have been a 3 pointer though, he has had averages of well over 3 in the past, if you supported any other team youd admit that instead of being constantly defensive about everything Peterboro.

 

meaning hes capable, experienced and proven, having heats protected now means hes more likely to increase his average. Bspa fault at the end of the day, but it stinks and isnt fair really imo.

 

Plus all the panthers fans were bleating on about denying a brit a job when cook was first announced and knocked back.... I havent seen many up in arms about holub replacing stokes?? Fickle and hypocritical that.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Arson fire

[junior fan 132]

A quick look at the archives showed Perry finished the 2012 season on 3.53 which is higher than both Clegg and Branford finished 2015 yet both were ruled Ineligable for the new number 7.

That said it's great that Perry has taken the most of his chance , good luck to him but it was a stupid un thought out rule anyway.

 

Junior

Edited June 15, 2016 by junior fan

[New era Panthers 2,055]

tom perry should not have been a 3 pointer though, he has had averages of well over 3 in the past, if you supported any other team youd admit that instead of being constantly defensive about everything Peterboro.

 

meaning hes capable, experienced and proven, having heats protected now means hes more likely to increase his average. Bspa fault at the end of the day, but it stinks and isnt fair really imo.

 

Plus all the panthers fans were bleating on about denying a brit a job when cook was first announced and knocked back.... I havent seen many up in arms about holub replacing stokes?? Fickle and hypocritical that.

Funny I didn't see any comments about Tom Perry being to good to be a NO.7 before the season started , it seems like because the lad has been more successful than anybody credited him for he's getting slated for it by jealous opposition fans. As for Tom Stokes he's our NO.8 was on a 4 match deal never promised the NO.7 position on a permanent basis , so your facts are wrong Holub has not replaced Stokes and he knew he was on a short term deal.

[baba 562]

Hasn't Mitchell been with donna for around 8 years?

Proves that it ain't a scam as some suggest.

[tyretrax 2,253]

No one said that it was a scam in regard to his relationship with Donna.

[Mad Max 216]

Funny I didn't see any comments about Tom Perry being to good to be a NO.7 before the season started , it seems like because the lad has been more successful than anybody credited him for he's getting slated for it by jealous opposition fans. As for Tom Stokes he's our NO.8 was on a 4 match deal never promised the NO.7 position on a permanent basis , so your facts are wrong Holub has not replaced Stokes and he knew he was on a short term deal.

 

If he didn't replace Stokes who in the declared 1-7 did he replace?

[Arson fire 4,785]

Funny I didn't see any comments about Tom Perry being to good to be a NO.7 before the season started , it seems like because the lad has been more successful than anybody credited him for he's getting slated for it by jealous opposition fans. As for Tom Stokes he's our NO.8 was on a 4 match deal never promised the NO.7 position on a permanent basis , so your facts are wrong Holub has not replaced Stokes and he knew he was on a short term deal.

hes not getting slated? Hes done very well. The Rule or decision by the bspa wants slated though.

[damosuzuki 696]

she's donna davey.

[Mad Max 216]

Funny I didn't see any comments about Tom Perry being to good to be a NO.7 before the season started , it seems like because the lad has been more successful than anybody credited him for he's getting slated for it by jealous opposition fans. As for Tom Stokes he's our NO.8 was on a 4 match deal never promised the NO.7 position on a permanent basis , so your facts are wrong Holub has not replaced Stokes and he knew he was on a short term deal.

 

 

If he didn't replace Stokes who in the declared 1-7 did he replace?

 

 

The silence is deafening!!!!

[New era Panthers 2,055]

 

 

 

The silence is deafening!!!!

OK so you fail to understand my previous comment which stated that Tom Stokes was brought in as a temporary replacement for a 4 meetings deal which was publicly stated he never was a permanent replacement and he was aware of this much the same as Henning Bager at Berwick , maybe to you the silence is deafening as you obviously did not fully comprehend my previous post . I hope this clears it up for you . In short Cook & Holub replaced Palm-Toft &Porsing.

Edited June 20, 2016 by New era Panthers

[Mad Max 216]

Funny I didn't see any comments about Tom Perry being to good to be a NO.7 before the season started , it seems like because the lad has been more successful than anybody credited him for he's getting slated for it by jealous opposition fans. As for Tom Stokes he's our NO.8 was on a 4 match deal never promised the NO.7 position on a permanent basis , so your facts are wrong Holub has not replaced Stokes and he knew he was on a short term deal.

 

OK so you fail to understand my previous comment which stated that Tom Stokes was brought in as a temporary replacement for a 4 meetings deal which was publicly stated he never was a permanent replacement and he was aware of this much the same as Henning Bager at Berwick , maybe to you the silence is deafening as you obviously did not fully comprehend my previous post . I hope this clears it up for you . In short Cook & Holub replaced Palm-Toft &Porsing.

 

I fully comprehended your previous posts, but can you confirm who Stokes was brought in as a temporary replacement for?

 

No matter how short you want to make it Holub cannot have replaced either Palm-Toft or Porsing in your declared team as they were both ousted on 15th May and he was a declared Scunny rider until the 20th!

 

The facts, put very simply to aid your comprehension, are that Cook & STOKES replaced palm-Toft & Porsing and then Holub replaced Stokes - it is total smokescreen to throw in whatever deal Stokes was on - that is irrelevant. He was used as a pawn to get the side Peterborough wanted and additionally it helped when they threw the toys out of the pram to state how it was not helping British speedway by stopping young British riders having a team place - which is where the whole hypocrisy arises to then drop him (after his short term/temporary/1,2,3,4 match deal ended) for a young foreigner.

 

It's you that has the facts totally wrong, as to any opinion as to why the events happened, then you are fully entitled to your own view, however deluded it is.

 

Hope this makes it a bit clearer for you