Vincent Blachshadow

Such a deal as you suggest could well have been discussed and knocked back by Peterborough just as it may well have been knocked back by KL who seem to only want a loan deal for Puk. As to why, if that is the case, is anybody's guess - I've posted my suggestion. And there's over two years difference between their ages. Maybe an insignificant difference in your eyes but it might be in your club's management's view. I'd also suggest the likelihood of an improved average could come into it as well as the riders' wishes - Rory would ride for several clubs whereas Puk 'only wants to ride for Stars'. Make the possibility an asset and loan the cert! I would have thought buying the rider you've utilised for two years and loaning the new lad to be the way to go - unless you have ulterior motives.

They had the opportunity this time. They went for Rooboy instead.

Yes, whichever way it's dressed up. Why would KL pay up a transfer fee next year if they don't want to pay one now?

What deal do you want to see then? The only deal possible after negotiation is that KL buy him for a lower price. KL clearly have no wish to purchase him having spent their money on a younger rider more likely to up his average and all they'd ask for is another year on loan and loan fees are standard. That wouldn't be 'negotiation' but Peterborough bowing to KL's wishes.

Which, I suspect, is why KL bought Rooboy outright but only want Puk on loan.

You may have a point here. Certainly, 17.2.5 states that, where a rider has a 2012 PL average and a 2011 EL average after transferring clubs then the EL average applies. Fisher has those averages and did transfer from Coventry to Edinburgh.

Could this be because EL 'owned' double-uppers have to ride in the PL and are actually loaned to the PL clubs for the season. Any doubling-up is negotiated with the rider and the PL club he is at so it could be argued by those that want to that he'll be 'on loan' to Wolves from Sheffield not Coventry. If Wolves want to buy him as their asset that's between them and his parent club, not the club he's on loan at. Theoretically, if Belle Vue wanted to buy Mads they would have to negotiate with Swindon not KL even though he would still ride at KL for the remainder of his riding contract with them. I'm not saying that is the reason, but it seems perfectly logical to me.

I've questioned things on here in the past but that's not what you are doing. There are rules in place and, whether we like them or not, the sport has to be run by those rules. Yes, I know that doesn't always happen but it's when things happen against the rules that I question them not on the occasions the rules are followed. KL were wrong to offer Puk a contract without permission from his parent club but you seem to want KL to get away with breaking a rule because you don't like the rule or the asset system in general (though I'd bet you liked it well enough when KL pocketed megabucks for selling Darcy). As it happens, I'm not a big believer in the current asset system either but it is the system adopted by British speedway and, whilst it's in force, has to be followed. You think this ruling stinks of conspiracy. Hmm, did you think that when things worked in your favour in 2010? Why do you say KL were unaware of the 3 yr loan rule, is it because they say so? They also said they were staying put in the PL two years back (even entering the PL KO Cup) but moved up when offered ...well, you know. They weren't exactly kosher then why should I believe they are now? And how do we know exactly why Peterborough took the case to the MC? Why would the MC have invoked a ruling neither side knew about? Wouldn't it have been easier to rule on whatever Panthers' complaint was rather than sit in judgement on something extra? Quite simply, you don't like the fact your promoters have had their collars felt for breaking current regulations and you're looking to blame everybody else for that but the guilty folk. KL were wrong in what they did, they agree perfectly well with the current asset system shown by their purchase of Rooboy and their cunning plan to get Puk on the cheap has failed. They thought that saying 'he only wants to ride for us' would sway the MC their way but it didn't.

Whether the system is right or wrong is, in this instance, irrelevant. It is the current system and, until scrapped or altered for whatever reason, Peterborough have the right to insist on it being applied now. Under the current system clubs aren't allowed to tap up another club's asset without permission or before that rider has been circulated as not required by his parent club. In this instance, King's Lynn did offer a contract to another club's unreleased asset which is against the rules and there's a rule that a rider required for a third consecutive season be purchased. Peterborough have every right to insist on that - it is the rule, the law. There's plenty of laws folk don't agree with but have to abide by, but KL seem happy with the rule anyway since they've just purchased Schlein. Ok, you don't think the law is right. Fine, stump up the cash and challenge it because I can't see a promoter challenging it any time soon. How the Bosman ruling relates to this I have no idea since we're talking an unique system within a closed shop where riders are earning elsewhere not an out of contract footballer wishing to move clubs. Bosman has it's restrictions anyway doesn't it? Are players under a certain age exempt to allow clubs to recoup something for their investment in youth?

Not pathetic at all, but a point that would have to be considered before any court action was considered. I never said the move was illegal. You seem to think that a court would just declare the asset system unworkable and just scrap it with no other ruling. I've suggested that a court may well scrap the system but declare that any money paid over the last few years - or, more likely - for any rider still riding be repaid since, if the system is illegal now it was no more legal when those moves were effected. Like I posted earlier, are KL in a position to repay that money if ordered to by a court?

You're probably right. The system could well be somewhat unique and a court may well rule the system illegal. They may also rule that certain payments may have to be repaid since the receiving clubs (and, no doubt some riders) had no right to the money in the first place. How much have, for instance, King's Lynn got of the 40 grand or thereabouts they illegally took off of Poole should they have to give it back? It's not as easy as just going to court. Suppose, just suppose, the court upholds the system since it's an agreement within a closed shop. Has Puk got the money he'd have to pay in costs because you can bet he'd be on his own once things started going wrong. By far the best way is for the MC to come up with something all promoters agree with regarding current assets and a system for later implementation. The sport can't afford another lot of court costs.

And maybe he bought Rooboy because others had enquired about him on loan but Puk has stated last season that he'd be happy at KL. Of course riders have a choice - they sign the paperwork.

What a vitriolic post. You start and finish by blaming the current asset system, presumably voted in by a majority of promoters some time ago and still in existence because the majority still believe it to be the way to go. Fair enough, you don't like it but then you have a rant at one particular team because they are insisting on the rule being implemented. Why are Peterborough wrong in doing that, in sticking to the rules? I'll hazard a guess - because your team is having problems because they jumped the gun and offered another club's asset a contract (against the rules) before his parent club had released him. You say he doesn't want to ride for Panthers any more ('you say' because I've heard a slightly different version of him 'not wanting to ride for Panthers' earlier this year) but he did sign a document giving Panthers that prerogative. Quite simply, Chapman wanted Rooboy and Puk in his team but, for whatever reason (maybe the silver's run out) only wants to buy one of them. Seems he opted to buy the rider willing to ride elsewhere and loan Puk because he'd 'only' ride for KL. Maybe he got that wrong! Lynn jumped the gun, Peterborough are playing by the rules. Whether you like it or not and regardless of your dislike of the current asset system there's only one team in the wrong here and it's not Panthers.

I'm sure lots of teams have conversations with lots of riders, no problem in that. What is a problem is deciding terms and offering a contract to ride before the parent club have given permission.

Regardless of what you or I may think, the rules are the rules, Panthers have an asset base and no team should offer those riders a contract until Panthers' management allows it. They are not dictating anything although, for all we know, maybe they do have the right - Puk signed to be a Panthers' asset and must have agreed to whatever that entails. They have the right to offer their chosen riders from within their asset base a contract before any other team has a chance to nobble them but KL jumped in first, illegally, illicitly, against the rules. As for whether or not I agree with Panthers being able to dictate where a rider rides, I can only post what's been said before - Puk moved to Peterborough after money changed hands. It was ratified by the MC (they apparently got a cut) so is legit within the rules of the sport. We do not know what Puk signed but you can rest assured Mr Frost does. If that gave his parent club rights over the rider then Mr Frost has the right to stick to that.

So would I. But it's their choice and maybe they aren't happy with only a loan fee for a rider who 'only wants to ride for Lynn'.

Nobody slags off potential employers unless they have a cast-iron, set-in-stone offer on the table for future employment and speedway riders are no different. Maybe it's more a case of 'somebody else has made me an offer I can't refuse' rather than 'I don't want to ride for you'. If so, how come these riders have such offers when no other teams have been given permission to talk to them yet? No wonder Mr Frost's dragging his heels over the issues - the rules entitle him to - and I'm darn sure the rest of us would have the same attitude in the circumstances, despite team allegiances and what we post on here.

Exactly. We won't know 'the law' until it's tested but I can't see it being tested anytime soon.

I seem to remember, back in 2010, a club's web-site stating that PL is the way to go, so much so that they were included in the PL KO Cup draw for 2011.

Are you sure about that?

Telling them there's a procedure to follow and he's holding them to it despite their already done (against rules) deals with other teams maybe.

But Horton paid for Puk. What exactly did he pay for if he could just have had a word with him and used him regardless of who's 'asset' he was? Loan fees are paid so there must be something within the sport that states this must happen since I can't see promoters handing money to another promoter for no reason. We see riders 'signing' as assets on centre greens now and again - what are they signing? I also recall reading somewhere that when Horton Mk I took over Peterborough with only Zdenek Tesar and Shane Parker as assets he was told to build up a 'suitable asset base'. That seems to have been overlooked for some teams now. Yes, the whole thing seems to need a revamp but that can't happen whilst there are riders out there that did actually change parent clubs for money. These clubs have to be recompensed if the system is to be scrapped, surely. I do not support a particular club. I rate Peterborough as my favourite racing track and developed a soft spot for them when somebody tried to close them down. My posts have not been that Mr Frost is right and KL are wrong but that Puk was purchased for cash and surely that must give the purchasers some rights. I also don't disagree with your view that the present system should go but can't agree with promoters losing money should they have to relinquish whatever hold they paid to have over those riders. Purchased riders knew they were being purchased and signed paperwork to that effect. Why should they now be able to rip up that agreement?

Because they paid equally good money for Andersen, Batchelor and Bjerre and, wanting to use Sundstrom next year, can only use one more of them in their team. Just a thought!

Not sure about that. A footballer, for instance, signs a document to be employed by a club for a specified period of time and can't up sticks and leave during that contracted period without agreement from his club. What does a speedway rider sign when he becomes a club asset and does it differ depending on whether he rides the set number of meetings or is purchased with money changing hands? Could be he does actually agree to his parent club having a say in where he rides whilst an asset of that club.