SCB's excuse for Artem Laguta

[Big Al 710]

2 minutes ago, noaksey said:

Clearly this particular rule needs to be amended and instead of a 7 day ban which may cover no meetings it should be a certain number of matches regardless of when they are ridden as per the football disciplinary process

I don't agree, because that would entail a rider being unduly penalised for being ill and lead to unfair situations. 7 days is a reasonable time to use, to allow recovery, but obviously there will be instances of more severe illnesses which require extension of that time.

The use of the word "ban" is generally overdone and used inappropriately. A ban is something imposed when someone has broken a rule or regulation.

Being ill isn't doing anything unlawful (except on occasions when it's done fraudulently or to gain unfair advantage, but even then, proving it is difficult).

[bellevueace 917]

4 hours ago, 1 valve said:

Why (if you are referring to the Laguta case) do you think that?
There is a a statutory rule banning riders for 7 days who present a medical note relating to a none speedway illness.
Laguta is not due to ride in UK for 7 days so no meetings missed - other than the Wolves fixture which is "explained" by the medical note.  

I would question the validity of many of these medical notes where a rider is injured one day and rides the next, i doubt any rider would struggle to obtain one, the SCB need to amend the rule, but with many other decisions theyve taken apart from a disregard of the fans they just makes the sport look ridiculous, hence the lack of mainstream interest from media sources and sponsors.

Edited June 28, 2023 by bellevueace

[Lord Skid 434]

5 hours ago, Flappy said:

Yes punish him 

Try punishing your boss and see what happens.

[2ndbendbeerhut 1,781]

Wonder what would happen if there was no guest facilities.... 

[Hackett 220]

31 minutes ago, 2ndbendbeerhut said:

Wonder what would happen if there was no guest facilities.... 

Buster would save money. 

[Waspman 40]

Must have been  food poisoning after his withdrawal he could not speak English?

Edited June 28, 2023 by Waspman

[mikebv 10,377]

3 hours ago, 2ndbendbeerhut said:

Wonder what would happen if there was no guest facilities.... 

They would have a fit for purpose R/R operating model? 

They would have less riders per team to create a surplus of unattached "subs on the bench"?

They would stop running meetings on nights when they 100% know key riders who should be there are already booked to be elsewhere, or, are likely to be elsewhere as they have made it clear at the start of the season that they are pursuing individual ambitions, eg GP Challenge qualifying, U21, U19 domestic and world qualifiers etc?

They wouldnt be agreeing so readily to meetings where they know they would be allowed to improve their team by bringing in a better rider on a higher average, or a better rider at a specific track?

They wouldn't have such ridicule based on much of the nonsense and manipulation that is allowed to pervade by having guests in the first place? 

The sport may be taken seriously by the wider media and fans?

Sponsors may come on board to support credible sporting contests? 

Ex fans who still closely follow the sport may start to return? 

 

 

[Roger Jacobs 554]

5 hours ago, mikebv said:

They would have a fit for purpose R/R operating model? 

They would have less riders per team to create a surplus of unattached "subs on the bench"?

They would stop running meetings on nights when they 100% know key riders who should be there are already booked to be elsewhere, or, are likely to be elsewhere as they have made it clear at the start of the season that they are pursuing individual ambitions, eg GP Challenge qualifying, U21, U19 domestic and world qualifiers etc?

They wouldnt be agreeing so readily to meetings where they know they would be allowed to improve their team by bringing in a better rider on a higher average, or a better rider at a specific track?

They wouldn't have such ridicule based on much of the nonsense and manipulation that is allowed to pervade by having guests in the first place? 

The sport may be taken seriously by the wider media and fans?

Sponsors may come on board to support credible sporting contests? 

Ex fans who still closely follow the sport may start to return? 

Bravo!  That's the clearest explanation I've seen for a new/different operating model that might just work.

[ouch 1,199]

7 hours ago, mikebv said:

They would have a fit for purpose R/R operating model? 

They would have less riders per team to create a surplus of unattached "subs on the bench"?

They would stop running meetings on nights when they 100% know key riders who should be there are already booked to be elsewhere, or, are likely to be elsewhere as they have made it clear at the start of the season that they are pursuing individual ambitions, eg GP Challenge qualifying, U21, U19 domestic and world qualifiers etc?

They wouldnt be agreeing so readily to meetings where they know they would be allowed to improve their team by bringing in a better rider on a higher average, or a better rider at a specific track?

They wouldn't have such ridicule based on much of the nonsense and manipulation that is allowed to pervade by having guests in the first place? 

The sport may be taken seriously by the wider media and fans?

Sponsors may come on board to support credible sporting contests? 

Ex fans who still closely follow the sport may start to return? 

 

 

Whilst we might like the “subs on the bench” idea as apposed to the guest system, it’s just not going to happen. The powers that be rewrote the rule book to stop it when teams are faced with injuries, at a time when the sport in this country gets its greatest exposure. It’s also evident, given posts on the subject that BSF are dead against the idea and prefer guests. 

 

[ouch 1,199]

Belle Vue “Can we sign a number one even though he doesn’t want to do all the away meetings?”

Cartel “No”

Kings Lynn “Can we sign a number one even though he doesn’t want to do all the away meetings?”

Cartel “Yes”

Don’t agree with it btw. 

[arnieg 3,696]

24 minutes ago, ouch said:

Belle Vue “Can we sign a number one  Robert Lambert even though he doesn’t want to do all the away meetings?”

Cartel “No”

Belle Vue: We've got lawyers

Cartel: oh well 

Kings Lynn “Can we sign a number one even though he doesn’t want to do all the away meetings?”

Cartel “Yes, remember what happened with Belle Vue

Don’t agree with it btw. 

 

[wtf 621]

10 minutes ago, arnieg said:

Belle Vue “Can we sign a number one  Robert Lambert even though he doesn’t want to do all the away meetings?”

Cartel “No”

Belle Vue: We've got lawyers

Cartel: oh well 

Kings Lynn “Can we sign a number one even though he doesn’t want to do all the away meetings?”

Cartel “Yes, remember what happened with Belle Vue

Don’t agree with it btw. 

The double standards are breath-taking 

[Fatfingers 8]

23 hours ago, Bald Bloke said:

Just the truth is all we want.

Whether Buster inherited the deal from Alex, or this has come from Lagtua/ Poland. Or has Buster felt he had to do it to keep running to the end of the season. Any of those 3 isn't  really damming on Buster in fairness. Well 2 out of 3 deffo ain't any fault of Buster. The 3rd  might of been either that, or close now.   The transparency is whats needed here from Buster . Not being honest It's giving people the chance to get on his back.. again ..Honesty  goes a long way imho.

I think your question has been answered in the Press Release of May 24th 

http://www.kingslynn-speedway.com/news.php?extend.31349

i.e. “All of the financial and team matters at King’s Lynn are taken on by Alex Brady and Dale Allitt, although obviously I still have responsibility for the stadium."

That clearly indicated where responsibility lies for any agreements re the Team, therefore as the stadium owner he has inherited any issues and problems leaving him to deal with them however he is able to. I note that "financial" matters specifically were not his responsibility. It leaves me thinking he has been left to pick up the financial sh*tty stick after those that have dropped it!

Edited June 29, 2023 by Fatfingers

[Bald Bloke 3,296]

7 minutes ago, Fatfingers said:

I think your question has been answered in the Press Release of May 24th 

http://www.kingslynn-speedway.com/news.php?extend.31349

i.e. “All of the financial and team matters at King’s Lynn are taken on by Alex Brady and Dale Allitt, although obviously I still have responsibility for the stadium."

That clearly indicated where responsibility lies for any agreements re the Team, therefore as the stadium owner he has inherited any issues and problems leaving him to deal with them however he is able to. I note that "financial" matters specifically were not his responsibility. It leaves me thinking he has been left to pick up the financial sh*tty stick after those that have dropped it!

I read that when it came out. Unless I'm missing something, that tells us that Alex did the Laguta deal, as we all know. But what it don't tell us is since Alex did the deal, has Laguta/ Poland or Buster re gigged the deal. Or was it  in fact Alex's original deal, and hasn't been changed at all. 

What did cross my mine is that being as you appeared around the same time as David Haggart, you are close to it all, and know what happened . Sorry if i'm miles away 

[Fatfingers 8]

34 minutes ago, Bald Bloke said:

I read that when it came out. Unless I'm missing something, that tells us that Alex did the Laguta deal, as we all know. But what it don't tell us is since Alex did the deal, has Laguta/ Poland or Buster re gigged the deal. Or was it  in fact Alex's original deal, and hasn't been changed at all. 

What did cross my mine is that being as you appeared around the same time as David Haggart, you are close to it all, and know what happened . Sorry if i'm miles away 

Miles away; just reading up on it and that seemed to be a logical conclusion. 

I do enjoy a forum discussion but like to follow the evidence, if it is there.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Fatfingers