Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2007 19:46:01 GMT
Steve if you want to twist what I say then that's up to you.
It's not about sacking and replacing riders and you know it. But it's fine if you want to get your digs in at us hey we can take it. There was no need for pure sarcasm but if that's what you need to do to back up your opinion so be it.
I asked a bone fide question. Whether I like Chapman or not had nothing to do with my post. I would have asked the same question of any promoter or club but you believe what you want to.
So laugh away as you find it all so amusing.
What I don't quite understand is the tact you have taken with me but not anyone else. But nevermind next time I will refrain from any discussion re a KL matter.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 20, 2007 20:15:49 GMT
oh sorry ML, i thought this was all about Kings Lynn sacking a rider. was under the impression Edinburgh were the masters of that this year, maybe Chapman should have sought advice from up north before doing anything. As long as the Chapmans don't go to the wrong club up north. If they do, they'll sack a rider and then re-instate him a week or so later before sacking him again a few more weeks down the line.
|
|
|
Post by stevehone on Sept 20, 2007 21:48:24 GMT
I asked a bone fide question. and i gave you a bone fide answer, although you chose to ignore what i wrote. Now the confusing part for me is this. Pray tell when a rider has been sacked how the hell he is still under contract? Surely that contract is broken once he has been sacked you keep saying 'sacked' in your posts, you know, the type of 'sacked' that has happened elsewhere when that's it, contract gone, finished. James wasn't 'sacked', he was given notice that his contract would be terminated but still had a meeting to ride in. now, in my eyes that means he's still contracted until that contract expires, and in this case it was 3 days. it's like an employer giving you notice that you're no longer required at your job ... might be a week or a day or whatever, but until that notice period expires, you're still contracted, although what you do in that time would be between you and your employer. now, that's basically the bone fide answer i gave earlier. there, and i didn't even use the 'fuck' word, or the 'Edinburgh' word. if you don't like the way the rules are and have been like this for quite some time then have a word with your local promoter at some point. people that post on all these forums know damn well that their club has/would try and use the rules to their best advantage at some point, and if they don't/haven't then they are liars/stupid. it will happen for your team at some point, and it will happen against them.
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Sept 20, 2007 22:02:36 GMT
This thread makes far more sense than the BSF one, but as someone who didn't follow this meeting can I ask something please? Did Schramm's score affect the final outcome? I just wondered what was so controversial other than the rule.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2007 0:08:24 GMT
you keep saying 'sacked' in your posts, you know, the type of 'sacked' that has happened elsewhere when that's it, contract gone, finished. James wasn't 'sacked', James Brundle has been sacked by the KL promotion Pardon me for taking the wrong "meaning" when a KL fan even uses the word "sacked" as above. there, and i didn't even use the 'fuck' word, or the 'Edinburgh' word. Who's a clever boy then. if you don't like the way the rules are and have been like this for quite some time then have a word with your local promoter at some point. Well I am glad you have pointed that out to me Steve otherwise I would never have known to go to a promoter and put my point of view/complaint people that post on all these forums know damn well that their club has/would try and use the rules to their best advantage at some point, and if they don't/haven't then they are liars/stupid. it will happen for your team at some point, and it will happen against them. So what? It doesn't make it right and that's the point of principal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2007 4:39:52 GMT
This thread makes far more sense than the BSF one, but as someone who didn't follow this meeting can I ask something please? Did Schramm's score affect the final outcome? I just wondered what was so controversial other than the rule. Hehe Schramm scored at least double what Brundle would have scored . The trouble is that - although Schramm had a slightly lower average , which under the rules KL were entitled to use him . But Schramm has achieved his average riding in the main body of the Newport team this season , while Brundle has been at reserve all year - big difference . But personally i dont have a problem with what they done . They want to hold onto the three trophys they won last year , which would be an even better achievement , and they took steps to see off a troublesome semi-final opponent . The Chapman's are not going to pander to other team's supporter's moral code -they want to win things and they are becoming quite good at doing so .
|
|
|
Post by stevehone on Sept 21, 2007 6:17:26 GMT
Hehe Schramm scored at least double what Brundle would have scored more like quadruple what James would have got ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2007 23:31:28 GMT
The noises coming from the King's Lynn camp about the goings on concerning the Isle of Wight v King's Lynn match are so defensive that the Shakespearean phrase "Methinks thou doth protest too much my lord" comes to mind.
The promoters sat down in November last year and came up with a set of rules for this season. Now all the promotions were represented (as far as I'm aware) so all the clubs knew not only the rules but what was intended to be achieved by them and the spirit in which they should be applied. Unfortunately it seems that these rules were once again poured over to see what anomalies could occur and what loopholes existed so that spirit and intent could be avoided to give a club a clearly unfair advantage without breaking the actual letter of the law due to lack of foresight and poor phrasing.
Integrity and fair play went out of the window in favour of selfish gain while the cry goes up "they were only doing what others would do in the same circumstances - it's all sour grapes etc. etc." Well there may be an element of truth in that claim and that's sad.
However some have long memories and will remember their feelings of injustice while the gloating, morally bankrupt miscreants will continue to laugh and preen themselves at their cleverness in driving a coach and horses 'legally' through the spirit in which the rules were drawn up.
But the lack of integrity and sleekedness will lose them a lot of respect and that may be hard to recover. When they come looking for favours at another time in the future will there be enough goodwill around to accommodate them?
In my view what King's Lynn did at the Isle of Wight was a 'legal' disgrace. If any good is to come from their determination to win through at any cost it will be that the promoters' winter conference will tighten up the rules to stop these things happening again. They should for example set up a sub-committee charged with exactly that remit. Then perhaps we can have a little more faith that the sport is being run in a fair and proper manner capable of weeding out the cowboys who seem to be only too keen to run roughshod over the regulations.
Clearly the Isle of Wight were disgusted in the way they'd been shafted and there seem to be plenty of us who share with them similar feelings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2007 6:30:37 GMT
... In my view what King's Lynn did at the Isle of Wight was a 'legal' disgrace. If any good is to come from their determination to win through at any cost it will be that the promoters' winter conference will tighten up the rules to stop these things happening again. They should for example set up a sub-committee charged with exactly that remit. Then perhaps we can have a little more faith that the sport is being run in a fair and proper manner capable of weeding out the cowboys who seem to be only too keen to run roughshod over the regulations... Totally agree with all of the post but just to pick up on one point, the worry is that this sub committee would then attract all the cowboys to sit on it and pass through whatever they wanted mid season with no recourse to the full BSPA, we need independence at the top of the sport more now than ever
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2007 8:45:59 GMT
Top post Merlin. You sum up very eloquently my feelings on the subject. Queue more defending of what cannot be defended. Rico
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2007 9:21:20 GMT
So people IF a similar scenario occurred at your club, what would you expect your promoting team to do, bring in a CL rider who would probably not score anything at IOW and just let the KOC go??? The press release that our management put out about bringing Adam Allott in did not even mention the word "sacked", here's a quote from it ................. So if James then said he couldn't ride cos he was ill, whether he was or not, although it was better that he was cos if not he'd have be done for witholding his services and receive a ban from the BSPA, what were King's Lynn to do, go with 6 riders, get in that CL rider? ? Given our proud record of achievements over the last couple of seasons I think not!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2007 9:52:26 GMT
Clearly the Isle of Wight were disgusted in the way they'd been shafted and there seem to be plenty of us who share with them similar feelings. Isle of Wight should be more disgusted with the way their team underachieved that night, the meeting was there for the taking whether Chris Schramm rode for KL or not.
Chris Holder was interviewed Weds night at KL by Mike Bennett where when he was asked what happened he was heard to say 'well i did my part, shame the rest of the team didn't'.
Whatever KL did or didn't do, there has to be some blame at the IoW teams door, they only had 5 points to make up and Holder apart, the rest of the team couldn't manage it riding on their own track.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2007 13:16:26 GMT
And which is exactly what Jason Bunyan said after the meeting in the bar, I think the riders know who is to blame as such, if the fans and management can't ................
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2007 8:15:04 GMT
Sorry SS and Trees, but you are missing the point, the issue is not whether Lynn won it is the manner in which they cynically used (abused) the rules to manufacture a more favourable team line up for a cup semi final.
The sport is in dire need of some integrity at the top and JC being pulling a stunt like this is hardly helping his cause. To many who viewed JC in a dim light it is more fuel to the fire and it may well have made some of those who supported him in the past think twice before they do so in the future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2007 8:31:16 GMT
Abused the rules ........... possibly, possibly not! Depends what you chose to believe!
|
|