Aces51 2,778 Posted May 6, 2016 Any additional away meetings? What about rain-offs that could cause additional clashes? Not saying I agree with BSPA decision, although there is a semblance of logic to it. Edited as you'd just replied.. So he would now be missing 8 meetings in total. Hmm... quite a bit of logic to it then. That wasn't the reason given. It was because both are Friday tracks so the objection relates purely to home matches. Godfrey goes further and says he can sign for any team other than a Friday track so it seems the BSPA are quiet happy about away clashes. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
June01 270 Posted May 6, 2016 (edited) Guess that answers my PL/Peterborough question, but given the Friday night statement, would they also have blocked a return to Edinburgh? Wonder if Cookie will now be forced to choose a full time return to the PL in order to earn a living? Feel so sorry for him at the moment. That's the second blow to the family jewels he's had this week alone. Edited May 6, 2016 by June01 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lucifer sam 3,953 Posted May 6, 2016 So he would now be missing 8 meetings in total. Hmm... quite a bit of logic to it then. Eight... and counting. How many of BV's meetings currently need re-arranging.... Common sense decision by BSPA. You can't allow a rider to double up between two tracks with the same race-night. Doubling up is already enough of a mess, without opening that particular floodgate. All the best Rob 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pointsmeanplayoffs 417 Posted May 6, 2016 Another PR disaster for the BSPA, Peterborough Panthers, in fact everyone involved. Feel sorry for the riders to be honest, trying to make a living in a circus cannot be easy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BWitcher 12,453 Posted May 6, 2016 That wasn't the reason given. It was because both are Friday tracks so the objection relates purely to home matches. Godfrey goes further and says he can sign for any team other than a Friday track so it seems the BSPA are quiet happy about away clashes. No, but it is part of it. As the statement says, doubling up is a necessary evil and comes with problems.. that being riders will miss matches when there are fixture clashes. Fans are crying out all over the forum about that happening. It is common sense that you can't sign a double up rider with the same home race night on both teams as that will just make the issue fans hate, even worse. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ouch 1,191 Posted May 6, 2016 The number of clashes due to Belle Vue & Peterbough being Friday night tracks is 3 There are 2 other clashes due to one or both clubs riding away. Belle Vue ride 5 Friday's, 5 Wednesday's with the rest on Mondays and Saturdays. Less than 35% of the time we are a Friday night club. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crazyb 156 Posted May 6, 2016 Its not hard to see who was the driving force was behind the decision. WHO Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trees 2,814 Posted May 6, 2016 So say OK but no facility, no 8 only? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sparkafag 746 Posted May 6, 2016 If the rule is in place that you cannot sign for two tracks that race on the same night (which seems entirely logical) then the number of clashes is pretty irrelevant. If it was allowed to happen once and “yeah but” is used in that instance it genuinely would suggest favouritism if another side was told no if they attempted the same thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aces51 2,778 Posted May 6, 2016 (edited) No, but it is part of it. As the statement says, doubling up is a necessary evil and comes with problems.. that being riders will miss matches when there are fixture clashes. Fans are crying out all over the forum about that happening. It is common sense that you can't sign a double up rider with the same home race night on both teams as that will just make the issue fans hate, even worse. It isn't part of it. If he can ride for any non Friday PL club, which is what Godfrey said, then away matches played no part in their reasoning. Whether it should have done is an entirely different argument but you can't make up reasons for them. Edited May 6, 2016 by Aces51 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trees 2,814 Posted May 6, 2016 Tbh you could say the Panthers should know the rules .... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCB 0 Posted May 6, 2016 If the rule is in place that you cannot sign for two tracks that race on the same night (which seems entirely logical) then the number of clashes is pretty irrelevant. If it was allowed to happen once and “yeah but” is used in that instance it genuinely would suggest favouritism if another side was told no if they attempted the same thing. There is no such rules. The rule they have used is the rule that says the BSPA can turn down or allow any team declaration they like regardless of the rules. Tbh you could say the Panthers should know the rules .... What rule should they know? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arson fire 4,785 Posted May 6, 2016 I think it makes a lot more sense now... If double uppers sign for same race night team it would be even more farcical than it is now, if cook set a precedent it would be a bench mark for others. Unfortunate on all concerned but sensible imo. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lucifer sam 3,953 Posted May 6, 2016 (edited) What rule should they know? This one: 16.3.5 The BSPA MC monitors all proposed moves and has the sole responsibility to approve all (re-)Declared Team Line-Ups having been satisfied they are in the best interests of the sport. Plus two precedents: 1. Swindon having to release Josh Bates, when he signed for Sheffield (on the same race-night). 2. King's Lynn having to release Lewis Kerr, when they moved to Thursday nights and clashed race-nights with Ipswich (Kerr's PL club). It's pretty clear from that, that a rider is not allowed to sign for two clubs with the same race-night. All the best Rob Edited May 6, 2016 by lucifer sam 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crazyb 156 Posted May 6, 2016 http://www.speedwaygb.co/news.php?extend.30419.1&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook BRITISH Speedway vice-chairman Rob Godfrey is keen to explain why Peterborough's bid to sign star rider Craig Cook has failed. Panthers had announced their intention to bring in the Belle Vue man on a doubling-up basis - but the sport's management committee didn't approve the move. And Godfrey insists Cook is welcome to ride in the Premier League and is also slamming suggestions of a vendetta against the East of England Showground club. He said: "I'm annoyed by the amount of unfair criticism the association are taking over this. "The fact of the matter is that I advised Peterborough promoter Ged Rathbone that any such move was unlikely to be approved, I told him this as a friend. "You simply cannot sign a rider when he already rides for a club on your racenight. King's Lynn switched from a Wednesday to a Thursday and as a consequence they had to lose Lewis Kerr from their team as he was already signed to a Thursday night track. "Here, we have Peterborough who are a declared Friday night racetrack as in the promoter's guide and yet Craig already rides for Belle Vue who are also a Friday track. "I explained all this to Ged but he still went and released riders from his team. "This is not a vendetta against Peterborough and not a vendetta against Craig. Craig is more than welcome to ride in the Premier League, but not for a Friday night track and if we allowed it to happen now, everyone would be trying the same thing. "Doubling-up is a necessary evil in the sport, as an association we have a responsibility to maintain control of the situation. "I hope people, even our fiercest critics, can at least appreciate my explanation as to how this decision was reached." Peterborough have more Sunday meetings than Fridays, so why didn't they put in the Promoters guide Race nights Sunday and Friday. This must be the first time that the Bloody Stupid P****s Assoc have ever taken notice of their guide 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
