|
|
Post by Genghis on Jul 5, 2008 15:53:12 GMT
And so here we go again.
After Marron's excellent choice of Graham "the Golem" Flint, will Flint be able to defend the award? It's been two referees on the trot in the last couple of weeks - with Wojaczek and then Flint.
If Rigsby is around next Saturday, he can choose the award if he likes. Is that OK Rigsby?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2008 16:51:43 GMT
I'm nominating Fozzie for fucking about with my updates on the updates site but still getting it wrong.
Cheeky Swine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2008 17:28:43 GMT
Would have be john louis for carried on a pointless appeal witch he can't win and even if he did win would piss everyone off .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2008 17:59:29 GMT
I'll nominate Orion for being a poisioness little prick on BSF.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2008 18:13:03 GMT
I'll nominate Orion for being a poisioness little prick on BSF. Good choice but take out the bsf ;D ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2008 18:15:30 GMT
I'll nominate Orion for being a poisioness little prick on BSF. Good choice but take out the bsf ;D ;D I'll have to withdraw that nomination now as it appears you have a sense of humour, unlike most on BSF. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2008 18:22:37 GMT
I'll have to withdraw that nomination now as it appears you have a sense of humour, unlike most on BSF. I know what you mean. Pity everyone on there isn't a laugh a minute like what you are. |
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Jul 5, 2008 19:46:38 GMT
Would have be john louis for carried on a pointless appeal witch he can't win and even if he did win would piss everyone off . Hortonfan - so Swindon should be allowed to break the rules??  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2008 20:16:49 GMT
Would have be john louis for carried on a pointless appeal witch he can't win and even if he did win would piss everyone off . Hortonfan - so Swindon should be allowed to break the rules?? So you argree with me then that ipswich appeal is void then because it was put into late according to that rule book you like . Also they allowed swidelski to ride for belle vue at covertry witch again the rule books states than no guests are allowed for riders involved in polish league matches . John louis states that what is the point of haveing a rule book if you are not going to stick to it ........looks like he don't mind breaking it himself when it suits him |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 5, 2008 20:19:30 GMT
Hortonfan - so Swindon should be allowed to break the rules?? But Swindon didn't deliberately set out to break the rules. That has to be made clear. Ipswich's problem appears to be with the golem Graham Reeve and the SCB, rather than Swindon. So, maybe your quote above should be something like: "so, Graham Reeve should be allowed to disregard rules?" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2008 20:22:12 GMT
It is indeed Graham Reeve who John is unhappy with the behaviour of. Reeve first changed the rules, then lied about his reasons for doing so. That is unacceptable for someone in his position.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2008 20:26:51 GMT
Would have be john louis for carried on a pointless appeal witch he can't win and even if he did win would piss everyone off . Hortonfan - so Swindon should be allowed to break the rules?? Swindon didn't break the rules. The SCB broke their own rules due to the circumstances. And, according to rule 3.1.1: The SCB shall be the sole interpreter of these Regulations. So, in effect, they didn't really break any rules anyway, they applied rule 3.1.1 - which is my new favourite rule. Ipswich really have no argument because of that rule alone, therefore should just forget it because they are starting to make arses of themselves. If John Louis is such a stickler for the rule book, maybe he should be a stickler for my new favourite rule and accept that this has gone against them rather than keep it going. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 5, 2008 20:31:33 GMT
And diverting his energies towards something more useful. And no I don't mean searching for a replacement for Chris Louis, although some Ipswich supporters might advocate that. I mean ensuring that Graham Reeve is kicked out of his position at the SCB ahead of next season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2008 20:45:18 GMT
It is indeed Graham Reeve who John is unhappy with the behaviour of. Reeve first changed the rules, then lied about his reasons for doing so. That is unacceptable for someone in his position. Lol thats rich .....at the appeal is was said that ipswich had banded about incorrect facts about what had happen over the whole affair . Pot ,kettle black . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2008 21:07:34 GMT
It is indeed Graham Reeve who John is unhappy with the behaviour of. Reeve first changed the rules, then lied about his reasons for doing so. That is unacceptable for someone in his position. Lol thats rich .....at the appeal is was said that ipswich had banded about incorrect facts about what had happen over the whole affair . Pot ,kettle black . Graham Reeve said that Swindon had "insufficient time to find a replacement rider for Parsons" which, as I suspect you know, is nonsense. However, as I said, the gripe is nothing to do with Swindon, and everything to do with Reeve, who is a pillock of the highest order. Please note also that I have not said that I agree with Ipswich pursuing this further.  |
|
