|
Post by schumi on Mar 10, 2008 16:59:33 GMT
If the money don't matter why share it the first place ? as for the prestige of the meeting hardly likely to be put or nicki's gravestone . What are you on about? If it did matter they wouldn't have shared it. But I meant the money issue doesn't matter to me - I'm not bothered one iota.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Mar 10, 2008 17:42:19 GMT
As I've said - the money side matters not one iota to me, but the comments I've seen about Nicki are unfair, and, as is my way, I will say something then. Schumi - as you know, despite the odd mischievous dig, I've not really got anything against Nicki - he's good entertainment. I love to see him or Hans lose simply for their little tantrums. I do think there should be sort of punishment against ALL four riders in the final, more for the integrity of the sport than anything else. No the race wasn't fixed, but sharing prize money (especially that kind of money) is still very naughty. It's against sporting ethics. Maybe a fine of £20,000 each - with the proceeds going to the Benevolent Fund.
|
|
|
Post by stuartroad on Mar 10, 2008 17:52:04 GMT
As I've said - the money side matters not one iota to me, but the comments I've seen about Nicki are unfair, and, as is my way, I will say something then. Schumi - as you know, despite the odd mischevious dig, I've not really got anything against Nicki - he's good entertainment. I love to see him of Hans lose simply for thier little tantrums. I do think there should be sort of punishment against ALL four riders in the final, more for the integrity of the sport than anything else. No the race wasn't fixed, but sharing prize money (especially that kind of money) is still very naughty. It's against sporting ethics. Maybe a fine of £20,000 each - with the proceeds going to the Benevolent Fund. good job the online spellchecker is broken genghis. i always said no good would come from having such ludicrously high prize money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2008 18:36:44 GMT
I'm glad to see you're finally coming round to my way of thinking Genghis. It's been reported on Nicki's web site that the four finalists agreed to share the £60,000 prize prior to the final.......I'm not sure that should be allowed myself........what do others think? Why shouldn't it be allowed Kev? It's the winners prize money they should be able to do what they want with it. Did AJ share his winnings from Gelsenkirchen.. whoops nope thought not.. ;D I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed Jacques, I threw it out for debate........but must admit I'm erring on the side of not allowing it at the moment. Of course AJ didn't share his winnings from Gelsenkirchen any more than Nicki did at Poole. Nicki hadn't won the money when the agreement was made. OK, AJ has ridden for Coventry, but that doesn't mean he's completely stupid. In my view, none of the four riders involved have done anything wrong, they've broken no rules and have been totally up front and open about the whole affair............the debate is, "should it be allowed?".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2008 18:41:48 GMT
Now if the authorities decide to take action against the four riders concerned, well maybe I might become less cynical What do you reckon the betting odds on the authorites taking action tho? It could be argued that if they don't they are condoning such behaviour The authorities have no grounds to take any action against any of the riders involved though SL. They've broken no rules!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2008 18:46:21 GMT
Why shouldn't it be allowed Kev? It's the winners prize money they should be able to do what they want with it. Did AJ share his winnings from Gelsenkirchen.. whoops nope thought not.. ;D I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed Jacques, I threw it out for debate........but must admit I'm erring on the side of not allowing it at the moment. Of course AJ didn't share his winnings from Gelsenkirchen any more than Nicki did at Poole. Nicki hadn't won the money when the agreement was made. OK, AJ has ridden for Coventry, but that doesn't mean he's completely stupid. In my view, none of the four riders involved have done anything wrong, they've broken no rules and have been totally up front and open about the whole affair............the debate is, "should it be allowed?". And a good debate it is Kev, however we know that it's more important for Poole fans to argue over how many were there 3,000? nope, 3,500? nope, 4,000? nope, 5,000?nope 5,500 ?nope....I love it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2008 18:49:41 GMT
And a good debate it is Kev, however a lot of Poole fans would rather argue over how many people were actually there...3,000? nope, 3,500? nope, 4,000? nope, 5,000?nope 5,500 ?nope....I love it That, my dear Jacques is what sets this forum apart from the BullShitForum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2008 18:51:47 GMT
And a good debate it is Kev, however a lot of Poole fans would rather argue over how many people were actually there...3,000? nope, 3,500? nope, 4,000? nope, 5,000?nope 5,500 ?nope....I love it That, my dear Jacques is what sets this forum apart from the BullShitForum. Don't think I missed that comment about Coventry either..
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Mar 10, 2008 18:59:52 GMT
Now if the authorities decide to take action against the four riders concerned, well maybe I might become less cynical What do you reckon the betting odds on the authorites taking action tho? It could be argued that if they don't they are condoning such behaviour The authorities have no grounds to take any action against any of the riders involved though SL. They've broken no rules!!! But neither did Simon Wigg and Malcolm Simmons - again it was just money changing hands... but it didn't stop them from being banned from the 1985 World Championship.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Mar 10, 2008 19:01:04 GMT
And a good debate it is Kev, however we know that it's more important for Poole fans to argue over how many were there 3,000? nope, 3,500? nope, 4,000? nope, 5,000?nope 5,500 ?nope....I love it Hey, I've been having fun on there...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2008 19:05:16 GMT
The authorities have no grounds to take any action against any of the riders involved though SL. They've broken no rules!!! But surely they have brought the sport into disrepute?At least they have gone against the whole idea of the meeting.That it was winner takes the 60,000 quid.I mean the promoter goes out and gets sponsorship for the thing and everyone is excited at the idea.Then what if all 16 had agreed to share it out between them before a heat had been raced? People can say "Why risk getting injured at this stage of the season?"Well why have a meeting like this at this stage of the season?The reason.Because the prize money was supposed to be worth taking a few risks for The sport has had a few problems with deals being done and now betting has become more and more a part of the sport it has to be seen to be above board.This sort of thing does the sports credibility no good at all.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Mar 10, 2008 19:09:06 GMT
The authorities have no grounds to take any action against any of the riders involved though SL. They've broken no rules!!! But surely they have brought the sport into disrepute?At least they have gone against the whole idea of the meeting.That it was winner takes the 60,000 quid.I mean the promoter goes out and gets sponsorship for the thing and everyone is excited at the idea.Then what if all 16 had agreed to share it out between them before a heat had been raced? People can say "Why risk getting injured at this stage of the season?"Well why have a meeting like this at this stage of the season?The reason.Because the prize money was supposed to be worth taking a few risks for The sport has had a few problems with deals being done and now betting has become more and more a part of the sport it has to be seen to be above board.This sort of thing does the sports credibility no good at all. That's exactly what Wigg and Simmons were done for - "bringing the sport into disrepute." At the time, there was no proof that money had changed hands or that races had attempted to be fixed (Heat 20 of the British semi-final at Oxford). This only came out with the publication of Simmo's book a couple of years ago. It's quite extraordinary what has been added to Nicki's website. Do they not realise what this will do to the image of the sport to outsiders and also what the implications could be for the riders involved? It's almost incidental that the race itself doesn't appear to have been fixed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2008 19:13:13 GMT
Before the knowledge was made public, did any of the fans who attended notice if the 4 riders in question were just going through the motions or were they actually racing to win the final, this probably is the £60,000 question I feel You've hit the nail on the head there Badge. There was absolutely no indication of it - if the riders had agreed to split the funds they still went out and raced. It was actaully a pretty decent race as well with AJ making a blast around the outside. Watching it again and knowing what we know now, I'm still of the opinion that it was entertaining to watch. There was nothing hinging on this other than the kudos of being named the meeting winner so I really don't see the problem. If anything perhaps Nicki should have just kept quiet and nobody, but nobody would have been any the wiser. Is this any different to a last heat in a testimonial meeting when the other riders decide to let the testimonial man win but still make a bit of a show for the fans? All they did was decide to split the money equally whoever won. Someone still had to go out and win it and Nicki hasn't said they decided that. That is a whole different kettle of fish. Deciding to split the winnings how they wished is not the same as fixing a race.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Mar 10, 2008 19:18:52 GMT
Is this any different to a last heat in a testimonial meeting when the other riders decide to let the testimonial man win but still make a bit of a show for the fans? Squirlie - has there ever been £60,000 involved in the final race of a testimonial? And wasn't one of the bookmakers taking bets on yesterday's meeting? I agree - the race wasn't fixed, and Jonsson was going for it. But it does nothing for the image for the sport. I feel that the riders should be fined for, at least, the amount of money they gained from this race. It's just such a great pity, as so much effort was obviously put into promoting this meeting by Matt Ford and others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2008 19:35:33 GMT
Don't think I missed that comment about Coventry either.. Glad to hear it. ;D There's some excellent points being made for both sides of this debate, and it would be extremely interesting to hear Matt Ford's views on the subject. Is there anyone on here who may possibly bump into him on Wednesday evening who could ask him, I wonder?
|
|