Scunthorpe 2027

[InTheDeepStuff]

1 hour ago, Fozzie4388 said:

Zischke is going to be busy next year riding for Glasgow, Workington and Scunthorpe 🤣

100% Scunthorpe, no room at Glasgow with the riders they’ve already signed (Harris, Thompson, Rowe 3 of them) and Workington’s payment issues this year means he isn’t back there 

[phillwhitewasmad]

59 minutes ago, geoff100 said:

He wont get much much better on a gators track

Shouldn't that be gaters track . 

[lewy]

1 minute ago, phillwhitewasmad said:

Shouldn't that be gaters track . 

They can be quite snappy down south.

[Woke23]

1 hour ago, InTheDeepStuff said:

100% Scunthorpe, no room at Glasgow with the riders they’ve already signed (Harris, Thompson, Rowe 3 of them) and Workington’s payment issues this year means he isn’t back there 

There weren't any payment issues this year

[lewy]

9 minutes ago, Woke23 said:

There weren't any payment issues this year

You're having a laugh. 

[Woke23]

9 minutes ago, lewy said:

You're having a laugh. 

They came out and said there were no debts but financially they didn't know if the staying was viable.

There were issues the season before, but this year there was nothing.

[Neila]

15 minutes ago, lewy said:

You're having a laugh. 

Truth or another of your rumours lewy 😜

[Magicmike]

Congratulations Scunthorpe the true champions this year, the fords, middleditch and havelock should get together and hand that trophy to Scunthorpe, the real Poole fans would accept it,who would to be the owner/ manager of a team which just aren’t the winners, the referee should get a horrendously long ban as well 

[lewy]

11 minutes ago, Neila said:

Truth or another of your rumours lewy 😜

You told me 

[False dawn]

13 hours ago, Magicmike said:

.....the referee should get a horrendously long ban as well 

I support your thinking for the most part. However, inherent in the SCB statement is the strong implication that they declared a breach of the rule only after they'd reviewed the rule in question. In other words, at the time of the breach it wasn't clear (maybe) that the rule was clear enough for the referee to come to same conclusion. Reading this one way means that the SCB has thrown the referee under the bus and used other rules to prevent a change to the announced result. As I've said elsewhere, the SCB could simply have said the rule contained some ambiguity and that the referee ruled on the basis of his interpretation at the time. I think there would have been a much greater acceptance of the result standing.

[Neila]

15 hours ago, lewy said:

You told me 

That was about a certain rider who left the club in the lurch when he decided not to ride anymore, would you pay someone who walked out of your business