Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2011 18:18:39 GMT
Taken from bees official. Lengthy but interesting read....
THE management of the Coventry Bees would like to both apologise and explain why, last Friday against Belle Vue, the club was only able to track five riders. We also feel that supporters should know of the unsatisfactory circumstances that Coventry are operating under this season.
We have refrained from issuing a statement earlier to allow the BSPA to reply to certain questions we raised and explain the reason why the sequence of events occurred as they did. As yet no explanation has been forthcoming and so we detail the sequence of events and our comments below because we believe that this episode highlights everything that is wrong with the manner in which speedway is run in this country:
On Friday 12th as a result of the suspension of Eddie Kennett and the unproven fitness of Peter Kildemand who was due to ride that night and over the weekend for Workington we redeclared and included Piotr Pawlicki at reserve.
On Monday 15th after speaking to Peter and him having proved his fitness over the weekend we resubmitted a further redeclaration including Peter Kildemand in our 1 - 7.
We subsequently learned that using his privileged position as a Management Committee member thereby pre-empting any other club, Poole Promoter Matt Ford contacted Peter Kildemand on Saturday 13th after being made aware of our Friday 12th redeclaration and informed him that Coventry no longer wished to use him and he was to be included in Poole's 1 to 7. Peter informed Mr Ford that he did not wish to ride for Poole and wished to speak to Coventry on the following Monday (15th). If Coventry did not wish to use him he would speak to Poole again but he made it clear that he intended to remain with Coventry. Peter did no deal with Poole, no agreement was made and as a result he certainly did not consent to Mr Ford's illegal inclusion in Poole's 1-7. Scandalously Peter was informed that if he did not consent to ride for Poole he would be suspended for 28 days.
Peter Kildemand then telephoned Alun Rossiter on Monday morning (15th) and an amended redeclaration was made by Coventry at 12.09 pm on that Monday.
It was confirmed to us verbally by the BSPA office that our Monday 1-7 would just need ratification by the Management Committee. We heard nothing more until 4.30 Wednesday afternoon August 17th at 4.30 pm effectively close of the office's business when we were told that we could not use Peter because he had been included in another unnamed team's 1-7 (Poole). That was the first we had learned of this and incredibly our redeclared 1-7 was not circulated until Friday 19th, 4 hours before the start of our meeting against Belle Vue. Why was there such a delay as any other club wishing to use Peter Kildemand would have been informed one week after Poole's Management Committee member and Vice Chairman, Matt Ford.
We believe this incident reflects the following:
1. Apparent abuse of his position by a Management Committee and BSPA Vice Chairman to gain an advantage over other clubs.
2. An inappropriate approach to our rider by the same MC member on Saturday August 13th.
3. An illegal submission of a 1-7 by the same club which prevented our legal 1-7 from being applied. Poole's illegal submission must have been before 12.09pm on Monday and we require substantiated proof of the time and date of this illegal submission.
4. A dilatory approach by the BSPA office in dealing with our 1-7 resulting in our rider unbelievably being included in another team's 1-7.
5. Further reasons why Promoters who have a vested interest in decision making should not be making key decisions on their competitors.
6. The unsatisfactory nature of the way the sport is run which Coventry and Peterborough sought to change last winter.
7. The unacceptable breach of the agreement made between the BSPA, Coventry and Peterborough on the latter two clubs return to the Elite League at the start of this season. We are now approaching September and there has been no Independent Appeals Panel set up neither have there been any move towards setting one up, of which we are aware.
8. Since Coventry's and Peterborough's return to the Elite league there has been no General Council meeting or convened meeting of Elite League clubs. We believe this to be unacceptable or worse in the extreme.
Peter Kildemand was in the pits ready to race against Belle Vue on Friday 19th August but because of what we believe to be machinations on the part of certain parties we were prevented from using him and as a result we had only five legal riders to use. Nick Morris was unavailable and Josh Auty broke down on the motorway en-route. We therefore believe that the match should be re-run as a result of our being prevented from using Peter Kildemand due to the ratification and enforcement of Poole's illegal 1-7. If our 1-7 had been approved before the Belle Vue meeting we could have used Peter in place of Nick Morris but as it was we could not use Peter effectively guesting in place of the non-show Josh Auty because Peter's average was higher than Josh's.
During the winter we took a stance together with Peterborough to eradicate many dubious and discredited actions which favoured certain clubs against others. After receiving the BSPA's assurance that effectively tainted procedures would be "cleaned up" we alongside Peterborough returned. We returned on the clear understanding that goodwill would be forthcoming from both sides for the betterment of British speedway. So far we have seen little of the promised goodwill. We feel we have met obstruction, obfuscation and inactivity some of which we believe has been designed to frustrate the level playing field we were promised.
Possibly we should just return the Elite League trophy to the BSPA office for them to hold on Poole Pirates behalf indefinitely and thereby avoid the necessity to run meetings and incur the resulting financial losses only to ensure that Poole win the trophy anyway.
The key to our return was the promise that the ruling body would introduce an Independent Appeals Panel. Immediately the season started an unsatisfactory situation occurred involving Poole's Dennis Andersson when previously applied rules were ignored and he came into Poole's pre-season 1-7 on an advantageous 4 points instead of the expected 5 points. So far we have seen absolutely no sign of this and we can only assume that certain favoured promoters, for their own reasons, do not wish to see a diluting of their control and this coupled with the absence of any meetings imply a desire to retain the discredited status quo. The purpose if the IAP is to rule on disputed matters from the rule book. It would never be involved in the running of speedway despite the distorted misinformation put about by those people who would not benefit from a fair and democratically run sport. The IAP would rule on matters such as this and many many other disputes that appear to be settled unsatisfactorily.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2011 18:48:45 GMT
Taken from bees official. Lengthy but interesting read.... THE management of the Coventry Bees would like to both apologise and explain why, last Friday against Belle Vue, the club was only able to track five riders. We also feel that supporters should know of the unsatisfactory circumstances that Coventry are operating under this season. We have refrained from issuing a statement earlier to allow the BSPA to reply to certain questions we raised and explain the reason why the sequence of events occurred as they did. As yet no explanation has been forthcoming and so we detail the sequence of events and our comments below because we believe that this episode highlights everything that is wrong with the manner in which speedway is run in this country: On Friday 12th as a result of the suspension of Eddie Kennett and the unproven fitness of Peter Kildemand who was due to ride that night and over the weekend for Workington we redeclared and included Piotr Pawlicki at reserve. On Monday 15th after speaking to Peter and him having proved his fitness over the weekend we resubmitted a further redeclaration including Peter Kildemand in our 1 - 7. We subsequently learned that using his privileged position as a Management Committee member thereby pre-empting any other club, Poole Promoter Matt Ford contacted Peter Kildemand on Saturday 13th after being made aware of our Friday 12th redeclaration and informed him that Coventry no longer wished to use him and he was to be included in Poole's 1 to 7. Peter informed Mr Ford that he did not wish to ride for Poole and wished to speak to Coventry on the following Monday (15th). If Coventry did not wish to use him he would speak to Poole again but he made it clear that he intended to remain with Coventry. Peter did no deal with Poole, no agreement was made and as a result he certainly did not consent to Mr Ford's illegal inclusion in Poole's 1-7. Scandalously Peter was informed that if he did not consent to ride for Poole he would be suspended for 28 days. Peter Kildemand then telephoned Alun Rossiter on Monday morning (15th) and an amended redeclaration was made by Coventry at 12.09 pm on that Monday. It was confirmed to us verbally by the BSPA office that our Monday 1-7 would just need ratification by the Management Committee. We heard nothing more until 4.30 Wednesday afternoon August 17th at 4.30 pm effectively close of the office's business when we were told that we could not use Peter because he had been included in another unnamed team's 1-7 (Poole). That was the first we had learned of this and incredibly our redeclared 1-7 was not circulated until Friday 19th, 4 hours before the start of our meeting against Belle Vue. Why was there such a delay as any other club wishing to use Peter Kildemand would have been informed one week after Poole's Management Committee member and Vice Chairman, Matt Ford. We believe this incident reflects the following: 1. Apparent abuse of his position by a Management Committee and BSPA Vice Chairman to gain an advantage over other clubs. 2. An inappropriate approach to our rider by the same MC member on Saturday August 13th. 3. An illegal submission of a 1-7 by the same club which prevented our legal 1-7 from being applied. Poole's illegal submission must have been before 12.09pm on Monday and we require substantiated proof of the time and date of this illegal submission. 4. A dilatory approach by the BSPA office in dealing with our 1-7 resulting in our rider unbelievably being included in another team's 1-7. 5. Further reasons why Promoters who have a vested interest in decision making should not be making key decisions on their competitors. 6. The unsatisfactory nature of the way the sport is run which Coventry and Peterborough sought to change last winter. 7. The unacceptable breach of the agreement made between the BSPA, Coventry and Peterborough on the latter two clubs return to the Elite League at the start of this season. We are now approaching September and there has been no Independent Appeals Panel set up neither have there been any move towards setting one up, of which we are aware. 8. Since Coventry's and Peterborough's return to the Elite league there has been no General Council meeting or convened meeting of Elite League clubs. We believe this to be unacceptable or worse in the extreme. Peter Kildemand was in the pits ready to race against Belle Vue on Friday 19th August but because of what we believe to be machinations on the part of certain parties we were prevented from using him and as a result we had only five legal riders to use. Nick Morris was unavailable and Josh Auty broke down on the motorway en-route. We therefore believe that the match should be re-run as a result of our being prevented from using Peter Kildemand due to the ratification and enforcement of Poole's illegal 1-7. If our 1-7 had been approved before the Belle Vue meeting we could have used Peter in place of Nick Morris but as it was we could not use Peter effectively guesting in place of the non-show Josh Auty because Peter's average was higher than Josh's. During the winter we took a stance together with Peterborough to eradicate many dubious and discredited actions which favoured certain clubs against others. After receiving the BSPA's assurance that effectively tainted procedures would be "cleaned up" we alongside Peterborough returned. We returned on the clear understanding that goodwill would be forthcoming from both sides for the betterment of British speedway. So far we have seen little of the promised goodwill. We feel we have met obstruction, obfuscation and inactivity some of which we believe has been designed to frustrate the level playing field we were promised. Possibly we should just return the Elite League trophy to the BSPA office for them to hold on Poole Pirates behalf indefinitely and thereby avoid the necessity to run meetings and incur the resulting financial losses only to ensure that Poole win the trophy anyway. The key to our return was the promise that the ruling body would introduce an Independent Appeals Panel. Immediately the season started an unsatisfactory situation occurred involving Poole's Dennis Andersson when previously applied rules were ignored and he came into Poole's pre-season 1-7 on an advantageous 4 points instead of the expected 5 points. So far we have seen absolutely no sign of this and we can only assume that certain favoured promoters, for their own reasons, do not wish to see a diluting of their control and this coupled with the absence of any meetings imply a desire to retain the discredited status quo. The purpose if the IAP is to rule on disputed matters from the rule book. It would never be involved in the running of speedway despite the distorted misinformation put about by those people who would not benefit from a fair and democratically run sport. The IAP would rule on matters such as this and many many other disputes that appear to be settled unsatisfactorily. Im afraid that Pooles win at all costs attitude is killing the sport, but apart from Coventry & Peterborough no one else seems to give a damn! To quote Kevin Keegan "I would really love it" if whoever they get in the Grand Final does a Coventry on them for the 2nd year in a row! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2011 19:59:24 GMT
Bollix Luke. Do you not think for one minute that us and Cov do not have a win at all costs approach? We must have shovelled thousands down the shitter chasing glory this year and so have Cov the difference is that Ford is shrewd and switched on. We and Cov are not. That is the top and bottom of it. The Cov press release or rather rant is pretty much pathetic and childish beyond belief. I wouldn't be surprised if it was drafted in crayon. Cov like to think they are professional - don't make me laugh, kids in a playground my bloody marbles bigger than yours, boo hoo get over it. Pathetic.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 26, 2011 21:21:51 GMT
Bollix Luke. Do you not think for one minute that us and Cov do not have a win at all costs approach? We must have shovelled thousands down the shitter chasing glory this year and so have Cov the difference is that Ford is shrewd and switched on. We and Cov are not. That is the top and bottom of it. The Cov press release or rather rant is pretty much pathetic and childish beyond belief. I wouldn't be surprised if it was drafted in crayon. Cov like to think they are professional - don't make me laugh, kids in a playground my bloody marbles bigger than yours, boo hoo get over it. Pathetic. I'm afraid that looking from the outside that's just as much crap on the face of it. The chief lunatic is still in charge of the asylum by the looks of it and the other inmates are no doubt fully behind him continuing their dirty protest to make operating conditions unpleasant. The mistake by the looks of it is that action is dependent on goodwill and fresh air (why wasn't it put in writing with a timeline?) but with Ford and the Bull$h1te Speedway Promoters Association there's not much of either around in 2011. So Poole win the 2011 title  The season was a car crash before a wheel was turned but at least it'll disprove that allegedly crooks never prosper  Ford is certainly as straight as a die and a shrewd operater, I remember this: Top talk with Mick Bratley - Thursday May 28 2009
I felt our victory over Poole was a hollow victory and I complained in writing to the BSPA about the manner in which Poole conducted themselves during the meeting. Riders waving their partners by in order that they got the bonus point, and in doing so put their partner out of a job. A rider not wanting to take part in the rerun of a race because his point would assist in putting a member of the team out of a job, who was supposed to not be put out of a job. I witnessed it all with my own eyes, this was not hearsay, I saw what was going on and why the hell should I not tell you how YOU the paying public were cheated on the evening of May 14 by Poole Speedway.
"I complained in writing to the BSPA about the manner in which Poole conducted themselves during the meeting." - I wonder if Bratters ever got a reply and what it said |
|
|
|
Post by gibsonr9 on Aug 27, 2011 16:26:56 GMT
Bollix Luke. Do you not think for one minute that us and Cov do not have a win at all costs approach? We must have shovelled thousands down the shitter chasing glory this year and so have Cov the difference is that Ford is shrewd and switched on. We and Cov are not. That is the top and bottom of it. The Cov press release or rather rant is pretty much pathetic and childish beyond belief. I wouldn't be surprised if it was drafted in crayon. Cov like to think they are professional - don't make me laugh, kids in a playground my bloody marbles bigger than yours, boo hoo get over it. Pathetic. Rubbish!! Ford wants to win at any cost even if it means cheating or abusing his position,I dont see Frosty and co doing that? I could see years ago what Fraud was like when it was the opening challenge match years ago and so he could win it he substituted his reserve,what a t****R! This is the stuff that makes Speedway look like an amateur sport!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Bigcatdiary on Aug 28, 2011 15:24:11 GMT
Taken from bees official. Lengthy but interesting read.... THE management of the Coventry Bees would like to both apologise and explain why, last Friday against Belle Vue, the club was only able to track five riders. We also feel that supporters should know of the unsatisfactory circumstances that Coventry are operating under this season. We have refrained from issuing a statement earlier to allow the BSPA to reply to certain questions we raised and explain the reason why the sequence of events occurred as they did. As yet no explanation has been forthcoming and so we detail the sequence of events and our comments below because we believe that this episode highlights everything that is wrong with the manner in which speedway is run in this country: On Friday 12th as a result of the suspension of Eddie Kennett and the unproven fitness of Peter Kildemand who was due to ride that night and over the weekend for Workington we redeclared and included Piotr Pawlicki at reserve. On Monday 15th after speaking to Peter and him having proved his fitness over the weekend we resubmitted a further redeclaration including Peter Kildemand in our 1 - 7. We subsequently learned that using his privileged position as a Management Committee member thereby pre-empting any other club, Poole Promoter Matt Ford contacted Peter Kildemand on Saturday 13th after being made aware of our Friday 12th redeclaration and informed him that Coventry no longer wished to use him and he was to be included in Poole's 1 to 7. Peter informed Mr Ford that he did not wish to ride for Poole and wished to speak to Coventry on the following Monday (15th). If Coventry did not wish to use him he would speak to Poole again but he made it clear that he intended to remain with Coventry. Peter did no deal with Poole, no agreement was made and as a result he certainly did not consent to Mr Ford's illegal inclusion in Poole's 1-7. Scandalously Peter was informed that if he did not consent to ride for Poole he would be suspended for 28 days. Peter Kildemand then telephoned Alun Rossiter on Monday morning (15th) and an amended redeclaration was made by Coventry at 12.09 pm on that Monday. It was confirmed to us verbally by the BSPA office that our Monday 1-7 would just need ratification by the Management Committee. We heard nothing more until 4.30 Wednesday afternoon August 17th at 4.30 pm effectively close of the office's business when we were told that we could not use Peter because he had been included in another unnamed team's 1-7 (Poole). That was the first we had learned of this and incredibly our redeclared 1-7 was not circulated until Friday 19th, 4 hours before the start of our meeting against Belle Vue. Why was there such a delay as any other club wishing to use Peter Kildemand would have been informed one week after Poole's Management Committee member and Vice Chairman, Matt Ford. We believe this incident reflects the following: 1. Apparent abuse of his position by a Management Committee and BSPA Vice Chairman to gain an advantage over other clubs. 2. An inappropriate approach to our rider by the same MC member on Saturday August 13th. 3. An illegal submission of a 1-7 by the same club which prevented our legal 1-7 from being applied. Poole's illegal submission must have been before 12.09pm on Monday and we require substantiated proof of the time and date of this illegal submission. 4. A dilatory approach by the BSPA office in dealing with our 1-7 resulting in our rider unbelievably being included in another team's 1-7. 5. Further reasons why Promoters who have a vested interest in decision making should not be making key decisions on their competitors. 6. The unsatisfactory nature of the way the sport is run which Coventry and Peterborough sought to change last winter. 7. The unacceptable breach of the agreement made between the BSPA, Coventry and Peterborough on the latter two clubs return to the Elite League at the start of this season. We are now approaching September and there has been no Independent Appeals Panel set up neither have there been any move towards setting one up, of which we are aware. 8. Since Coventry's and Peterborough's return to the Elite league there has been no General Council meeting or convened meeting of Elite League clubs. We believe this to be unacceptable or worse in the extreme. Peter Kildemand was in the pits ready to race against Belle Vue on Friday 19th August but because of what we believe to be machinations on the part of certain parties we were prevented from using him and as a result we had only five legal riders to use. Nick Morris was unavailable and Josh Auty broke down on the motorway en-route. We therefore believe that the match should be re-run as a result of our being prevented from using Peter Kildemand due to the ratification and enforcement of Poole's illegal 1-7. If our 1-7 had been approved before the Belle Vue meeting we could have used Peter in place of Nick Morris but as it was we could not use Peter effectively guesting in place of the non-show Josh Auty because Peter's average was higher than Josh's. During the winter we took a stance together with Peterborough to eradicate many dubious and discredited actions which favoured certain clubs against others. After receiving the BSPA's assurance that effectively tainted procedures would be "cleaned up" we alongside Peterborough returned. We returned on the clear understanding that goodwill would be forthcoming from both sides for the betterment of British speedway. So far we have seen little of the promised goodwill. We feel we have met obstruction, obfuscation and inactivity some of which we believe has been designed to frustrate the level playing field we were promised. Possibly we should just return the Elite League trophy to the BSPA office for them to hold on Poole Pirates behalf indefinitely and thereby avoid the necessity to run meetings and incur the resulting financial losses only to ensure that Poole win the trophy anyway. The key to our return was the promise that the ruling body would introduce an Independent Appeals Panel. Immediately the season started an unsatisfactory situation occurred involving Poole's Dennis Andersson when previously applied rules were ignored and he came into Poole's pre-season 1-7 on an advantageous 4 points instead of the expected 5 points. So far we have seen absolutely no sign of this and we can only assume that certain favoured promoters, for their own reasons, do not wish to see a diluting of their control and this coupled with the absence of any meetings imply a desire to retain the discredited status quo. The purpose if the IAP is to rule on disputed matters from the rule book. It would never be involved in the running of speedway despite the distorted misinformation put about by those people who would not benefit from a fair and democratically run sport. The IAP would rule on matters such as this and many many other disputes that appear to be settled unsatisfactorily. A lot of serious allegations being made there and they need answering, if Ford has done any of the above he needs to be taken to task for it, as for being removed from the MC he got voted onto the MC just after being investigated for cheating at Swindon and Peterborough, what does that say about the BSPA. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2011 17:54:12 GMT
Serious allegations made by whom? I don't see who has put there name to yet another Coventry rant because they obviously can't get there own "win at all costs" way.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 28, 2011 20:01:00 GMT
Serious allegations made by whom? I don't see who has put there name to yet another Coventry rant because they obviously can't get there own "win at all costs" way. It's not difficult to work out though. It's a club statement which says "THE management of the Coventry Bees" so one assumes that if you go to the club directory www.coventrybees.co/directory.php then you can take an educated guess at the names |
|
|
|
Post by Bigcatdiary on Aug 28, 2011 20:08:13 GMT
Serious allegations made by whom? I don't see who has put there name to yet another Coventry rant because they obviously can't get there own "win at all costs" way. I rather think this goes much deeper than just another Coventry rant. Its quite clear the Coventry management are making the claim that the BSPA Vice Chairman has acted dishonestly and has abused his position that he was elected to. This needs investigating by the proper authorities, just letting it fester without explanation sets a dangerous precedent and sets the tone for another winter of problems the sport hardly needs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2011 22:44:11 GMT
Serious allegations made by whom? I don't see who has put there name to yet another Coventry rant because they obviously can't get there own "win at all costs" way. I rather think this goes much deeper than just another Coventry rant. Its quite clear the Coventry management are making the claim that the BSPA Vice Chairman has acted dishonestly and has abused his position that he was elected to. This needs investigating by the proper authorities, just letting it fester without explanation sets a dangerous precedent and sets the tone for another winter of problems the sport hardly needs. Maybe they should just let the "Independant Panel" that us and Coventry fought so successfully to introduce during the winter of discontent, sort it out? |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 28, 2011 23:08:26 GMT
I rather think this goes much deeper than just another Coventry rant. Its quite clear the Coventry management are making the claim that the BSPA Vice Chairman has acted dishonestly and has abused his position that he was elected to. This needs investigating by the proper authorities, just letting it fester without explanation sets a dangerous precedent and sets the tone for another winter of problems the sport hardly needs. Maybe they should just let the "Independant Panel" that us and Coventry fought so successfully to introduce during the winter of discontent, sort it out? Who's actually setting it up? If it was agreed then someone must have responsibilty for it with some sort of deadline It's clearly not up and running but that's pretty stanard for speedway. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2011 23:33:51 GMT
This is the stuff that makes Speedway look like an amateur sport!!! Agreed 100% Coventry's rant is very unprofessional. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2011 23:36:10 GMT
Maybe they should just let the "Independant Panel" that us and Coventry fought so successfully to introduce during the winter of discontent, sort it out? Who's actually setting it up? If it was agreed then someone must have responsibilty for it with some sort of deadline It's clearly not up and running but that's pretty stanard for speedway. Well I do recall that our "victory" speech said that an Independant Panel was going to be set up as part of the agreement of our return to the EL fold. So I'm sure we're on top of it.  |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 28, 2011 23:45:46 GMT
This is the stuff that makes Speedway look like an amateur sport!!! Agreed 100% Coventry's rant is very unprofessional. So is the BSPA and speedway atm so it's very much in keeping. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2011 6:37:26 GMT
Who's actually setting it up? If it was agreed then someone must have responsibilty for it with some sort of deadline It's clearly not up and running but that's pretty stanard for speedway. Well I do recall that our "victory" speech said that an Independant Panel was going to be set up as part of the agreement of our return to the EL fold. So I'm sure we're on top of it. It looks like speedway is still heading towards self distruction. With absolutely no sign of the independant tribuneral we can only assume that this allegation will be investigated by the MC one of which is the accussed!!! You could'nt make it up  |
|
|
|
Post by Bigcatdiary on Aug 29, 2011 8:00:06 GMT
I rather think this goes much deeper than just another Coventry rant. Its quite clear the Coventry management are making the claim that the BSPA Vice Chairman has acted dishonestly and has abused his position that he was elected to. This needs investigating by the proper authorities, just letting it fester without explanation sets a dangerous precedent and sets the tone for another winter of problems the sport hardly needs. Maybe they should just let the "Independant Panel" that us and Coventry fought so successfully to introduce during the winter of discontent, sort it out? I appreciate you think this is totally Coventry and Peterborough,s fault but the bottom line is the sport in this country is a total joke, from the stupid and unworkable rule book to the workings of the BSPA, SCB and the BSPA MC who rule on all the decisions. Team GB is a classic just how many bosses have we had in the last 10 years, riders refusing to ride over pay rates and nothing to promote or bring on British youngsters just paying to help all the other speedway nations, hardly any of the clubs make any money and they sell our sport for peanuts to sky. Coventry and Peterborough have their faults and played a part in last winters debacle but to blame them for everything because they want a level playing field is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 30, 2011 12:45:00 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2011 19:51:35 GMT
Is there anyone out there who believes the BSPA annual conference will actually run its full course ?? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2011 20:16:55 GMT
Is there anyone out there who believes the BSPA annual conference will actually run its full course ?? Nope but it has to be pointed out that if Coventry don't even know who they can put in heat 15 there is a fair chance they don't know what they are doing with team declarations. We should put some distance between Cov and ourselves at the next agm let them carry on there crusade on there own. |
|
|
|
Post by Bigcatdiary on Aug 31, 2011 7:16:14 GMT
Is there anyone out there who believes the BSPA annual conference will actually run its full course ?? I can see this years conference being just as messy as last years following recent events, it wont help that one of the MC wont be there either because its in Tenerife and Jon Cook doesnt or wont fly. |
|
|
|
Post by Hodgy on Aug 31, 2011 19:45:28 GMT
I appreciate you think this is totally Coventry and Peterborough,s fault but the bottom line is the sport in this country is a total joke, from the stupid and unworkable rule book to the workings of the BSPA, SCB and the BSPA MC who rule on all the decisions. Team GB is a classic just how many bosses have we had in the last 10 years, riders refusing to ride over pay rates and nothing to promote or bring on British youngsters just paying to help all the other speedway nations, hardly any of the clubs make any money and they sell our sport for peanuts to sky. Coventry and Peterborough have their faults and played a part in last winters debacle but to blame them for everything because they want a level playing field is ridiculous. Pretty much sums it up. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 3, 2011 8:01:31 GMT
CLUB STATEMENT Friday September 02, 2011 www.coventrybeesIt is now Friday 2nd September, 7 days after our press release and 16 days since we last spoke to the officials at the BSPA, exposing the Peter Kildemand situation and true to form we have heard absolutely nothing from the BSPA office, Management Committee or the BSPA Chairman. The outrageous abuse of his position by Matt Ford and BSPA office apparent connivance has potentially ruined Coventry's season and cheated our fans. Yet even now over two weeks after these disgraceful events no-one in authority has the stature or cares enough about British speedway to enquire into what typifies everything that is wrong with the Poole promotion's way of doing things and the help he receives from certain official sources. All we require at Coventry is transparent, fair and honest decision making. This requirement affects all other clubs in the Elite League. If one club gets treated in a favourable and illegal manner then that is to the disadvantage of all the others. What does it profit a club to win the league by consistently bending the Rules? What is the point of sport if all competitors don't start on a level playing field? More facts have subsequently come to light since our last press release and these are as follows: FACT: On Friday 12th August at 11.30 we redeclared. According to the BSPA office Matt Ford through his privileged position claims to have sent a fax to the BSPA office that same day (Friday) redeclaring with Peter Kildemand in Poole's 1-7. This remember was before he had spoken to Peter. Even by his own admission Mr Ford did not speak to Peter until Saturday morning 10am. So he redeclared a new 1-7 without speaking to the rider and that 1-7 was conveniently sent by fax by him and not received by the office. It will become apparent why Mr Ford needs to claim it was sent by fax later on. We require a sight of Mr Ford's telephone records to establish the number and time the alleged fax was sent to the BSPA's fax number. FACT: Poole then redeclared the same team on Sunday 14th August this time by email and again including Peter Kildemand who last Wednesday spoken to Mr Sandhu and confirmed that he did not agree to leave Coventry and ride for Poole. Peter's own words confirm Mr Ford that you have been very economical with the truth. Produce Peter's text message for us Mr Ford so that we can establish the source of that text message. Peter says he never sent the text message and that he told you he wished to stay with Coventry if we wanted him and he would speak to us on Monday morning 15th August. This he did and we confirmed he was still our rider. FACT: The office sidelined Coventry's legal 1-7 in favour of Poole's illegal 1-7. We sent our team in on Monday 12.09pm and the office confirmed our request 12.12pm. FACT: Refusal of Coventry's redeclared 1-7 was withheld until Wednesday 17th August at 4.32pm. Knowing this would disadvantage us why would the office do this? Who is running the Office? FACT: Why, knowing that two clubs had included the same rider in their team didn't the office or Management Committee simply speak to Peter and confirm which team he wanted to ride for? FACT: Two clubs sent in 1-7's, Poole and Coventry, Coventry's was legal and Poole's was illegal yet the office and Management Committee chose to support Poole's illegal redeclaration why? FACT: At every turn the Management Committee and the office followed a procedure that was against both the spirit and the rules of speedway. Coventry want to know why? Why bend and break rules just to favour Matt Ford and Poole to the disadvantage of the rest of us. When the Vice Chairman of the BSPA is involved in benefitting from a decision not only does the right and honest procedure have to be followed but it has to be seen to be followed. This is quite clearly not been the case in this and other instances we are aware of. FACT: It is a fact that a 1-7 NEVER comes into effect until that side takes to the track and in fact teams have the right to cancel their submitted 1-7 at any time and in that circumstance the old 1-7 would be reverted to. On that basis Peter Kildemand was still a Coventry rider throughout this episode quite apart from anything else. FACT: We require the Coventry V Belle Vue match to be replayed because we were illegally prevented from tracking a full side. If the match is not replayed we reserve the right to take whatever action we consider fit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2011 8:11:03 GMT
so has anybody found out why MJJ is a 5 yet and pooles andersen was a 4 |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 3, 2011 8:52:46 GMT
so has anybody found out why MJJ is a 5 yet and pooles andersen was a 4 And Leon Madsen as well wasn't it? I've no idea though and take little interest in a speedway rulebook which would confuse Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA  What chance have the BSPA got of interpreting that accurately and fairly |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 4, 2011 8:24:46 GMT
BSPA OFFICIAL STATEMENT Saturday September 03, 2011
THE British Speedway Promoters' Association is aware of critical statements made by Coventry Speedway recently.
The Association is disappointed that Coventry have chosen to go down this route rather than use the mechanisms in place for the pursuit of grievances.
We have no intention of making any public comment on Coventry's accusations but instead have referred the matter to the Speedway Control Bureau.
|
|
