|
|
Post by schumi on May 30, 2009 16:32:19 GMT
The monumental stupidity of some Coventry fans over at the BSF never ceases to amaze - pleased they all walked away from here after their appointed "leader" took the huff after I called Billy Janniro a joke. Although, ironically, would have been fine if you'd said the same of Harris. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2009 22:02:00 GMT
www.bellevuespeedway.orgBelle Vue have also chucked their twopenneth worth in. BELLE Vue promoters have backed a call by Lakeside speedway for a complete overhaul into the way speedway is being run (see www.lakesidehammers.com for the full statement). David Gordon, Belle Vue's managing director, commented: “It's a sad day that the way speedway is run has come to this. But it needs to be looked at, just like what has been happening over MP's expenses needs to be looked at. “We need to start over again with the sport being run by an independent body which will bring in the transparency and trust which is so essential to any business or sport. They are everything. “I want decisions affecting our business at Belle Vue to be made by an independent adjudicator and not by the rule makers who are also promoters. “There has been a call for an extraordinary general meeting and I think it is the only way to deal with this situation. “It should not have come to this position but the problem has been caused by inconsistent BSPA management decisions. “We must have fair play. We want the best and most successful team possible but not if it means manipulating rules. Manipulating the rules is not smart management.” Co-promoter and team manager Chris Morton said: “I've felt for a long time, even when I was still riding, that the Speedway Control Board didn't control the sport in the way they should and that they were dictated to by the promoters. “Some of the decisions that have to be made should be made by adjudicators who are independent of the clubs. It's difficult sometimes to make decisions which affect your own team because there can be an unacceptable conflict of interests. “There are the people around speedway who could act in an independent way. We should be concentrating on racing on the track, not what is happening off it. “But now allegations have been made, they must be looked at.” Gordon Pairman, the Aces' finance director, said: “I have read the press release from Lakeside with interest and share many of their concerns. We should be competing on the track, not via the rule book or perhaps the cheque book. “There is no doubt that recent team changes have caused significant disquiet amongst supporters and many promoters. “In a year when many teams, like many of their supporters, are fighting for financial survival, it saddens me that a win at all costs mentality still seems to exist, especially as so doing acts to the detriment of many teams. “This is a tough enough year without us having to deal with questions about integrity and fairness, and I would be happy if matters were looked at by an independent party which would ensure that we can recover credibility. “Having said that, any enquiry has to be fast and open to ensure that we can all get back to running our teams without constantly wondering if actions of others will jeopardise our businesses.”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2009 14:54:52 GMT
So, to summarise, we have the following clubs wanting a change to the way things are run........ Lakeside Coventry Swindon Belle Vue Eastbourne Peterborough I've yet to hear any comments from...... Ipswich And, no doubt happy with the current set-up....... Poole Wolverhampton That looks like a huge majority from here.  |
|
|
|
Post by admin on May 31, 2009 14:56:54 GMT
Coventry's position is surely ambiguous, since although they object to Poole's changes they want to be able to make their own changes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2009 15:51:08 GMT
Coventry's position is surely ambiguous, since although they object to Poole's changes they want to be able to make their own changes. Don't you mean they have made changes, and blow the consequences. I'm sure outraged from Dorset said that a meeting was taking place last Friday regarding the ex-British Number 1's inclusion in the whitewash over Ipswich last Monday  , has he got that wrong as well  Editted to add: I'm sure JL would be all for it as well, but bear in mind the trouble Ipswich get into when they query the rules   |
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on May 31, 2009 16:09:54 GMT
Coventry's position is surely ambiguous, since although they object to Poole's changes they want to be able to make their own changes. Don't you mean they have made changes, and blow the consequences. I'm sure outraged from Dorset said that a meeting was taking place last Friday regarding the ex-British Number 1's inclusion in the whitewash over Ipswich last Monday , has he got that wrong as well Editted to add: I'm sure JL would be all for it as well, but bear in mind the trouble Ipswich get into when they query the rules Badge - I reckon you'll have 3 points coming your way regarding last Monday's meeting. Coventry have more-or-less already admitted that they knew putting out an illegal team, and it's just not Nicholls's 10 points to take into consideration either. Harris, Schlein and Kennett were also all riding out of their usual positions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2009 20:22:33 GMT
Another point which has been raised on the unofficial Witches forum, what is the new average??? I thought it was 42 . Coventry's line up: Nicholls - 8.98 Kennett - 8.43 Harris - 7.61 Schlein - 7.43 Frampton - 3.17 Wells - 3.00 Sitera - 4.00 Grand Total: 42.62 |
|
|
|
Post by schumi on May 31, 2009 20:36:47 GMT
This is the bone of contention - Nicholls and Frampton's averages. Some say double-uppers averages don't change (which I don't believe), others are wondering how the weighting for coming into a team late in the season, and the British reduction are applied, if at all. The trouble is, no-one seems to know what the current rules are, and the BSPA aren't saying. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on May 31, 2009 21:06:18 GMT
Another point which has been raised on the unofficial Witches forum, what is the new average??? I thought it was 42 . Coventry's line up: Nicholls - 8.98 Kennett - 8.43 Harris - 7.61 Schlein - 7.43 Frampton - 3.17 Wells - 3.00 Sitera - 4.00 Grand Total: 42.62 The above figures are June's GSAs, which have increased from the initial "new" averages that were handed out after twelve meetings. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2009 22:25:28 GMT
We should be competing on the track, not via the rule book or perhaps the cheque book. “There is no doubt that recent team changes have caused significant disquiet amongst supporters and many promoters. “In a year when many teams, like many of their supporters, are fighting for financial survival, it saddens me that a win at all costs mentality still seems to exist, especially as so doing acts to the detriment of many teams. “This is a tough enough year without us having to deal with questions about integrity and fairness, and I would be happy if matters were looked at by an independent party which would ensure that we can recover credibility. So Hougaard and Jankowski only riding a convenient 11 meetings for the Aces last season when actually exceeding their assessed averages in those they did ride was pure coincidence? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for this new regime of truth and transparency, but it seems a few promoters have taken on the mantle of saintliness and forgotten a few of their own previous creative manoeuvres. |
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Jun 1, 2009 11:52:39 GMT
From the Coventry website:
TEN days on from our team re-declaration, we have still had no word from the BSPA on which regulation means we have exceeded the points limit.
This is possibly no surprise, as we have already shown that no such rule exists, but the silence from the corridors of power is still disappointing.
There seem to be plenty of people calling for the book to be thrown at us, but what none of them can do is find the rule that we did not abide by when we re-declared our team.
Our team was rejected on the afternoon of Friday, May 22, on the application of a principle suggested by Chris Van Straaten at last November's AGM, in that the Management Committee should "monitor team changes" by applying a rider's average after eight matches if he had not completed twelve at the same time as the team.
We stress again that Mr Van Straaten's suggestion was minuted as exactly that - a suggestion. At no stage did it become an issue which was voted on and carried into the 2009 SCB regulations, nor even did it become a Supplementary Regulation.
It is therefore unacceptable that Mr Van Straaten, who clearly has an interest with his own team at the top of the table, can reject this team for a reason outside of the rulebook.
Mr Van Straaten was the only one pushing for this 'rule' to be put in place, but it was never circulated and nobody else knew about it - but he knew all along that he could use it to benefit his own team. It has been manipulated against us, and we cannot be expected to accept it.
We note that his own 'senior' doubling-up rider, Ty Proctor, conveniently competed in seven of their first twelve matches! Why could he not have ridden one or two more, when he wasn't riding for his Premier League club?
Even had this 'rule' become official, it would have been in place in order to stop a team from manipulating its averages by pulling a rider out of his 12th meeting. We have never even considered doing that. We would never stop our riders from riding.
Following the rejection, we spent the whole weekend as well as Bank Holiday Monday leading up to the Ipswich match in discussions with the BSPA, asking what we had done wrong. Nobody could tell us!
BSPA President Terry Russell was present at the Ipswich match, and after making the decision to run with our team, which is legal within the rulebook, I shook hands with Terry and assured him that if anyone can show me the rule which puts us over the limit, I will be happy to forfeit the points from the match, take a fine and whatever punishment comes our way.
We have made no threats, we are not employing bully-boy tactics, we simply built our team in accordance with the rulebook, and it has not exceeded the points limit.
Why did we not run against Ipswich with our previous team and argue our case later in the week? Because we had spent all weekend arguing our case, and nobody could tell us what we had done wrong, so what was going to change after the match?
Even at the end of last week, new Green Sheet averages were being issued for ourselves and other clubs, stating that the averages are to be used for team positioning, facilities and team changes. Jordan Frampton is still shown on this list as 3.17, not the 4.73 which we are incorrectly being told applies.
The most sensible course of action the BSPA can take is to correct their error in respect of ourselves and the other clubs to which this non-existent 'rule' has been applied, and then continue their investigation into the other serious Elite League matters at present.
However, we call for a decision to be made as it is in nobody's interests for this situation to be allowed to drag, and if necessary we will prove to higher authorities that we have made our changes within the rulebook.
As is our policy, all official news from the club will appear on our website. We provide our information in a professional fashion rather than employing any of our supporters as official or unofficial mouthpieces, as appears to be the case elsewhere.
Our team which rode against Ipswich last Monday remains in place for our matches this weekend.
AVTAR SANDHU
|
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Jun 1, 2009 12:02:13 GMT
It is therefore unacceptable that Mr Van Straaten, who clearly has an interest with his own team at the top of the table, can reject this team for a reason outside of the rulebook. Ouch! Ouch again! And therein lies the problem. Everyone's too busy slinging insults at each other to realise that the BSPA have created this by not knowing their own rule book. If it's CVS who is at fault, rather than the BSPA as a collective, then he should be the one to tell Coventry why their team isn't valid. How bloody hard is it to answer the question? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2009 13:13:08 GMT
Interest point that seems to have slipped under the radar was Swindon's team change with Zagar.
If riders averages that have completed between 8 and 11 matches come into play with regards to team declerations as explained by CVS, then why did it not seem to affect Swindons recent change.
Prior to their match against Peterborough the following averages applied
Adams 11 matches 10.42
Stead 11 matches 6.56
Pavlic 11 matches 5.92
McGowan 11 matches 5.11
Stojanowski 11 matches 3.60
Fisher having completed less than 8 stays on 3.70
Those 6 riders total 35.31 at the time of Zagar being introduced on 7.42, either limit is well exceeded, whether complying with 39.90 or 42.00.
No one seems to have noticed that funnily enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 1, 2009 13:24:35 GMT
Swindon are still building to the initial 39.90 target average, whereas Poole and Coventry are building to the new target average, which seems to be 42.00. I'm sure that no one would complain too much if Coventry and Poole were building to 39.90 either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2009 13:33:33 GMT
Interest point that seems to have slipped under the radar was Swindon's team change with Zagar. If riders averages that have completed between 8 and 11 matches come into play with regards to team declerations as explained by CVS, then why did it not seem to affect Swindons recent change. 2 words.... Tan Man |
|
, has he got that wrong as well 
