Barney Rabbit

The team they declared after Batch ruled himself out contained six Panthers' assets (including a pair of double-uppers). Maybe it's quicker declaring a team with so many of your own assets.

Maybe they were quick in working out why Batch wasn't answering his phone and changed tack before it was too late.

And Peterborough fully intended to use Batch last year too, remember? He went missing until Peterborough gave up trying to contact him and built a team without him. He then resurfaced and signed for Swindon. So this current situation, taking last year into account, is exactly the same.

Seems there's more to this than meets the eye.

Other riders have ridden where they'd rather not so riding for BV is an option. What court case would that be? It would have to be put before a court and, tbh, I can't see either the club or the rider doing so - what if they lose, and I believe they would for reasons given on many previous threads. I'm inclined to agree with an earlier posting, that you've misinterpreted the rule. Also, why haven't you answered VB's post and given examples of previous uses of the rule? Why is it Mr Frost's intransigence and not Patch's for failing to comply with a BSPA directive?

And, taking this a step further, why have KL paid out for Rooboy when all they had to do is wait until March and get him on loan, since, as they say, money is short?

I very much doubt a rider is included as a club's asset in any financial valuation other than when a promoter sells up. That doesn't mean though that Mr Frost, and any other promoter willing in the past to buy rather than borrow a rider he wanted to use should lose out because of it. The sport has a transfer system in place and promotions using it should not lose out because of a few who no longer wish to play ball for their own particular reasons. Strange though that the two currently complaining about Peterborough's stance have utilised the current system recently to acquire an asset or two.

Still waiting for you to enlighten us all when Panthers last pulled out of speedway since you claim they may pull out AGAIN.

Again? When was the last time they pulled out?

We have no way of knowing how Mr Frost would have reacted had he been approached by KL in the first instance. How would you react if you were to find out that one of your assets was in a rival team as a result of it being announced at a meeting for that club's fans? I'm not surprised Mr Frost has reacted in the way he has - I'm pretty sure most of us would too!!

Yes, the sport is dying. Yes, there are rules that need changing. But whilst rules are the rules they have to be adhered to. Peterborough only have the asset base they have because they were told to acquire a suitable one a few years ago and Puk and Hans were bought and paid for in that period. Batch was purchased because Mr Frost was told to buy him if he wanted to use him. Now you seem to want swingeing changes to that system all to Mr Frost's (and a couple of others') financial disadvantage. Why should they lose (in speedway terms) a considerable amount of their cash to suit some of the others? We all know the asset system is flawed but it is the current system and it's not going to be changed anytime soon just because some on here want it to be. I've yet to hear any promoter complain about the system per se (and your team's promotion agree with it, as shown by their recent purchase of a rider) only about the way they see their team to have been disadvantaged by it. If it is to be changed then it should be a gradual change and those that have acquired riders by paying for them should be indemnified against their losses - no way should they just lose everything in one fell swoop. I make a point of the illegal approach because that was the catalyst. Had the Panthers' management been approached in the proper manner, an amicable deal may well have been struck, Puk would now be a Stars' rider this coming season, an asset even, and all could have been well. Instead, you found out Puk was in the team before Mr Frost knew when it was announced at a fans' meeting last year. I ask you, is that the way you'd like to find out if he was your asset (allbeit in a flawed system)?

The 'fiasco' is surely the incident that started it all in the first place - the illegal approach. Without that this may well have been sorted by now. How does the BSPA sort that?

Where, in your scenario, has Ben agreed to accept the offer and that he'd ride for Coventry? He only stated it seemed a good offer. If that's binding then several riders a year agree to ride for more than one club.

Maybe you can point us to where you read these rules because I was under the impression that these particular 'rules' are in a handbook available to promoters and other officials rather than in the rules of the sport available to all on the SCB website.

Probably the reason for the stalemate. Lynn won't buy and loan fees are, as you post, set.

What about it? The only subsection that applies is the one that fits his particular case from last year - the one pertaining to a rider that has only one ma from riding in only one league LAST SEASON. He only rode PL last season so that is the only one that applies for next season.

No contradiction whatsoever. If a rider rode in only ONE league last year (guest rides excepted) 17.2.4 applies and that average applies next season, converted if necessary. if a rider doubled up last year and rode in BOTH leagues last year then 17.2.5 applies and the average applying next season is the one attained last year at the level he will be riding at next year. Fisher only rode PL last year ( guest rides not counting) so only his PL average counts, converted in this case.

I can't find the rules with 2012 and 2011 inserted on the SCB site, just for the previous season. Could you provide the link for the updated rules for the coming season please. As I read it, the rule states that a rider with only one actual average the previous season rides on that average the following season, either actual or converted if in another division, while a rider gaining two averages the season before uses the one pertaining to the division he will ride in next season. Fisher only rode PL last season (guest appearances don't count) so that's the average he starts on next year, converted if necessary.

Maybe that' s what they were trying to do but some other teams have nobbled them by sorting deals before being allowed to approach them.

Does the rider per se become the 'asset' of a particular club or is it the rider's permit/licence whatever it is allowing him to ride professional speedway in GB that the parent club purchases and holds? If so, that would make for one very interesting court case should it be challenged and I wouldn't bet on the outcome.

You obviously know the regulation you're talking about. For the benefit of those that don't maybe you'd be kind enough to quote it because I've found nothing suggesting that what Peterborough are doing to be against any rule - legal or within the sport.

Show me a law, EU or otherwise, that says a bloke already employed in a well-paid job in two or three other countries is entitled to a job over here. I'd suggest the reason this hasn't been challenged is because the riders concerned have little chance of success having agreed to become assets of their parent clubs with everything that entails - whatever that includes.

But is it the law? If Puk signed a document giving his parent club the right to first refusal or whatever that would be taken into account. This is totally different to the Bosman ruling and we're talking people who are already employed in two or three other countries so hardly come into the gissajob category the EU rules came in to protect.

So why should it be considered unreasonable for Mr Frost to want to have some say in where his asset rides or to want to be consulted by any possible future employer?

It's been asked by a couple of other posters (and it's existence seemingly ignored as though it doesn't exist by another who ought to be in the know) but what happens when a rider changes clubs for a transfer fee? Does he sign paperwork which is also signed by selling and buying clubs before being forwarded to Rugby or can it all be done over the phone with no paperwork being completed?