Vincent Blachshadow

What 2 riders? Andersen has signed for Swindon on loan, Batch has to be signed full time. What legal route?

Are Peterborough insisting on full transfers for Lukas Dryml, Piotr Swiderski or Kacper Gomolski?

Possibly, but the article reads as if the offer was still on the table at the time Robins were given the go ahead to sign Hans on loan. Nowhere does it say the offer to buy was withdrawn.

Yeah, but according to this:- Although Andersen has signed on loan, Robins co-owner Gary Patchett has not ruled out the possibility of signing the Dane on a full transfer. “Hans is not only a quality rider, he is a fantastic captain, and we are delighted to have him back,” he said. “There were riders in need of his advice and his motivation last season, and he knew what was needed and when, and he contributed a lot to the team spirit of the side. “We still wouldn’t discount purchasing Hans’ contract from Peterborough despite the decision (to allow him to return on loan), but I firmly believe that should be an issue of choice and a fee reached by negotiation rather than by obligation.” that no longer sems a problem. Just seems Patchett's intransigence was down to wanting the deal on his terms not the MC's or Panthers.

Wasn't that 'higher' offer quickly withdrawn before Panthers even had time to consider it?

And if there still is, do we have all this again? Exactly. Make Swindon buy them both - or do you want them both to go on loan?

I would have thought 8k a good offer and Panthers may well have taken it. Now. Robins pay 4k to use him this year, probably another 4k next and, after an outlay of 8k he'll still be a Panthers' asset instead of a Robin.

Haven't the BSPA already ruled that Swindon must buy Batch if they want him?

Isn't he the bloke who said, on his own club's website that Premier League was the way to go in Nov 2010, even entering the PLKO Cup?

Circumstances. Peterborough announced their 2012 team in November 2011.

Exactly. Just says the venues remain the same. No mention of how and why the venues are chosen in the first place.

Where in that press release does it say events are allocated rather than bid for? Where's a pop at Swindon?

Not decrying the track, but what it shows is that Swindon are the only bidders or that their bid is better than anybody else's.

As a neutral with a liking for the EoES track but domiciled closer to Blunsden than Alwalton do I have your permission to keep posting on here? Ah, blow it, I'm going to anyway. What's your problem with their posts? They're only pointing out their promoters are asking for something your lot did - and got - three years ago. Nowt wrong with that.

Now, how was that impasse sorted? Oh yes, Peterborough stumped up the necessary and bought him. The Panthers' stance doesn't seem unreasonable now, does it!

No, only the one year. They tried to contact him a year ago but he disappeared off of their radar, reappearing again when Panthers' team was complete and with a team spot at Swindon.

He has allowed other Panthers assets to go out on loan - one to Swindon even - so there's no hypocrisy there at all. It's three particular riders, all with their own differing circumstances, that he wants full transfers for.

The football contract and transfer system has no similarity to the current speedway system. Bosman was out of contract with his then current club but had no other club to play for and no money coming in since he wan't being allowed to up-sticks and go anywhere else. He had no job whatever. The riders currently embroiled in this saga have two, three or even four well-paid jobs elsewhere. It's anybody's guess what the arbiters at a court hearing would decide if all the facts are known, such as the riders concerned had all agreed, at some stage, to become assets and allow Peterborough a say in their futures. I would suggest the likelihood of an ambulance-chasing freebie to you lawyer taking this on would be practically nil since they like quick easy cases of a sort they're familiar with rather than a potentially lengthy case disputing a system they know nothing about. ? Is that official?

Quite clearly, though, the respective purchasers/tenants believe the current owners do 'own' them, having just used the current system to add to their own property portfolios.

I think that's been answered by the MC. Batch rides for Swindon if he's paid for. Seems like there are two points of view on this and it seems to depend on which team/club/promotion one supports or prefers. It's not unreasonable to expect something back on an asset, whatever it is, which you have paid money for, are unlikely to use again, and somebody else wants to use. Surely it's the owner's prerogative to sell or rent. Peterborough, in keeping with the asset system then - and, indeed, still - in place, paid money for these riders and are now asking for some back. How is that unreasonable as long as the current system, flawed as some may think it, is still in place? Don't you, for something you've paid out for and somebody else now wants?

How could you have had sympathy for Peterborough initially because they want a transfer fee for these riders then go against them for holding out for.......a transfer fee for these riders?

Hmm. Can't remember the last time Peterborough changed a rule to allow an over-average rider to line-up for them then, when his parent club wanted to use him utilising the same rule and the rider's then current average, reverting back to the original rule, saying a mistake was made in the first place, the rider shouldn't have lined up for Wolves and he can't use his current average to ride for Peterborough! That's double standards. That's making up things as you go along. That's wanting things on your terms alone. What Peterborough are now after is recouping some of the money they've shelled out on riders who, for whatever reason, are unlikely to ride for them again.

Quite, since Peterborough shelled out transfer fees for them in the first place.

I recall a few years ago Batch 'signing' for Peterborough after, shall we say, not exactly agreeable circumstances with his (then) parent club (who'd circulated his name as available to other clubs). Peterborough could use him but they had to stump up a full transfer fee. Peterborough paid up. Fast forward a couple of years. Batch was wanted by his (new) parent club but couldn't be contacted by them. He rode the season for Swindon who had no apparent problem contacting him but on loan. Now this year he's wanted by Swindon and, if certain things are to be believed, has had some sort of 'agreement' to ride for them sorted for some time. The MC have ruled this can only be after a full transfer. 'What goes around' maybe?

It's how 2 is answered that would constitute an illegal approach. 'Yes mate, we'll see about that once I've had a word with your club' is fine but 'ok, how about XXXXquid per whatever, etc' isn't. And hasn't Batch tweeted about a done deal not a month ago so which of those would you guess applies?