Vincent Blachshadow

Am I missing something here:- The Norfolk club have confirmed tonight (January 12) they have been given permission to open talks with the Danish ace over a loan switch to the Norfolk Arena for the third successive season. How come permission was granted on January 12th when the appeal wasn't until yesterday, January 15th?

Have Peterborough got any debts? I thought their owner sorted them out as he went along - unlike one or two others, apparently.

There are rules. They're supposed to be set in stone. The fact somebody cocked up on the AM issue shouldn't prejudice the current situations. The BSPA has, after all, got form for backtracking, holding hands up to errors, and going back to the written rule book/card/fagpacket ignoring precedents. This is no different.

Have you actually read what he's written? He's said some have to be transfers, some have to be loans. Where's the consistency and sense in that? Who makes the decision on which have to be bought (Schlein) and who has to be loaned (Panthers' three)? And here we have the judge giving his summing-up before the trial/appeal whatever stage this is has been held. You think that's sense?

Harkess would've been better advised to keep his nose out, at least at this stage and publicly. He states that Peterborough can't expect transfer fees for all the riders in question. So, presumably Peterborough can expect a transfer fee for some of them then. He also states that transfer fees would normally be paid in these rider movements. Not advisable in the circumstances. He goes on to state that you can't expect transfer fees for every rider. So, again, you can expect a transfer fee for some. Now, what's the criteria for which transfers will be full transfers? Does it depend on the buying club? The selling club? How far up the MC's collective jacksies a club promotion is? Whether a club feels it still merits freebies? If ever there was a victims' charter, this is it. And you join in with the addition of 'you can't expect all clubs...', which means you can expect some to. So, in your opinion,which clubs pay and which clubs don't?

Quite. The way you discover something usually has a direct influence on how you handle the situation. Nobody knows how this would have panned out had KL sought permission in the first place.

Peterborough were told to 'build up a suitable asset base' when one or other of the Hortons took over so they complied. They wanted Puk, they bought him. They wanted Hans, they bought him. They wanted Batch, they were told to buy him. All in compliance with a BSPA directive. These riders no longer wish to ride for Panthers for whatever reason, having ridden elsewhere previously, so maybe Mr Frost no longer wants the hassle of being sought for permission (by those that bother) and having to give it, deal with the paperwork (again, with those that bother) and all the rest that goes with having a rider that is no longer required or sees greener grass elsewhere. Of course, there may well be an ulterior motive but for me, if I was in his position, I'd be of the opinion that you now want him and he wants you, fine, do what I did/had to do and buy him.

I think I can see a pattern here. If you're prepared to put a bit of your own money into the sport by transferring riders and build up your asset base then go ahead and do it. If you say you're running speedway as a 'business' and will only pay out what you get in then you can do as you please, not bother having assets (despite Panthers being told to 'build up a suitable asset base' only a few years ago), tap up other club's assets and have them ride for you on your terms despite the existence of regulations to the contrary.

If the BSPA had the b***s to control these issues your promotion would have to pay out for Puk. What you actually mean is you wish the BSPA would make Peterborough loan you their asset for a third year despite them wishing to sell him as per the regulation.

Him or Hans, not both, whoever Panthers don't use. Answers semion's post too.

You missed out that KL will have to pay a transfer fee before his first ride for them - preferably in cash.

Isn't it the rider's registration/license/permit to ride speedway in this country that's actually held by his parent club rather than the rider himself? So no, the rider isn't 'owned' by anyone. He's perfectly entitled to get a job in Aldi if he so wishes.

So, basically, 'terms' can be offered to more riders than are offered 'contracts'. Which was the point of blupanther's post which you appeared to be contradicting with your 'same thing' reply.

Really? I, like many others on here I would imagine, was 'offered terms' which were then turned down, discussed or accepted. Only when terms were accepted and finalized was a contract offered. That was in business, not speedway.

I did post that I stand to be corrected. I remembered Swindon being fined, I thought it was for one of the Panthers' riders so not altogether wrong!

I think you'll find they did but lost all contact with him once the season finished. They tried contacting him several times all to no avail. It all became clear why later. I stand to be corrected here, but didn't Swindon have to pay a fine for illegally poaching/approaching a rider last year?

You, probably like me when I was still earning, only have one job. The men we're talking about already have two or three jobs within the EU without working in this country. In effect, they'd be asking the court to sanction their moonlighting and that's something I can't see being tackled with any haste. But it's only opinion and we'll all know two or three years after a rider does take legal action against their parent promoter. Any bets who'll be first and when?

Difference being a professional footballer only registers for one club and only plays for one club at a time so he was being stopped from playing football FULL STOP. These riders are still employed elsewhere so are actually working and not being prevented from earning a living, merely from supplementing what they already have, and, to the wrong member of an European court, from moonlighting.

Don't know about Sweden but aren't riders in Poland actually employed by the clubs for the duration of the contract and paid something whether they ride or not (with extra payments for points)? I can see that proposal going down well in this country.

Yeah, ok. That's your opinion and it's shared by many others (including myself, as it happens). However, it's the promoters that decide the rules and I've yet to see one complaining about the system per se and one of the moment's biggest moaners was quite happy to go along with it recently by actually shelling out to make a rider an asset and quite happily pocketed probably a British record a few years ago when selling a rider. They're the ones that will decide if it's to be changed.

Is the wording 'in this country' actually part of any law? I know 'earning a living' is, in a roundabout fashion, but they are already earning within the EU so would probably be laughed out of an EU court. Those courts are there to look after the jobless not the already earning. Bosman was being stopped from playing football at all, not from one country whilst actively playing and earning a living elsewhere.

What evidence is there for this? A virtually asset-less club moaning they can't have a rider they illegally approached isn't going to influence those promoters that do have assets or the lower league clubs that make a quid or two when there assets move to Elite and it's promoters that will decide any future operations. I really can't see a rider challenging the 'system' through any courts anytime soon.

You'll have to remind me when this happened. I do recall an attempt to close them down because they never went back to a session at the AGM a couple of years back ( along with another club) and I remember reading that a few more fans per meeting would be beneficial to the future of the club but I can't remember any 'give us what we want or we quit' scenarios.

I'm sure there's something in the back of the old brain reminding me of some sort of hassle regarding Batch last year. Didn't Peterborough try to contact him throughout half the close season without success?

Can't disagree that the system needs changing but until it is changed the present system, such as it is, should be seen to be adhered to.