Steve0

Yes - but just between Peterborough and Coventry

I'll tell you why - it is illegal to stop someone earning a living no matter what rules are in the BSPA rule book. The law of the land takes precedent over whatever rules are in the BSPA rule book and EU law protects its citizens in this way. The only rider not fully protected in this situation would be Troy Batchelor as he is an Aussie citizen.

You would think right

It seems you say something that some Panthers fans don't like and you get compared to KKS - happened to me too We are all entitled to our opinions and I don't see why anyone has to revert to comparisons with the site's troll! I can see both points of view but choose not to attack the poster - just the post!

Overheard from the school playground and repeated on the BSF - "My club's richer than yours and we'll make you wait! Why? Because we can!"

No - don't blame the BSPA - blame the Peterborough promoters because it is them that are deliberately dragging their heels! Don't hide behind the rules How can you say they are within their rights? They are most certainly in the wrong! It doesn't take a genius to work out 4 into 1 doesn't go - so sign the one and let the others get on with securing an alternative team place - it's not rocket science !!!

I don't think anything has been announced about Patrick Houggard

The riders don't seem to think so - did you read the separate Hans and Batch interviews? By keeping riders hanging on, they are prevented from going elsewhere. How would you like it if a previous employer stopped you from earning a living?

Every winter we talk about the asset system and every year nothing changes. Well I think the time is right to challenge this illegal system - it hasn't been legal since the Bosman ruling many years ago and what have the BSPA done to fall in line (when other sports have) - NOTHING! The BSPA cannot bury their heads in the sand forever on this illegal activity. It seems to me that two clubs in particular (Coventry and Peterborough) are using their "assets" as pawns - you can't do that with people's livelihoods! None of the riders concerned are under contract to anyone - they are self employed and the law of the land says that they are free to find employment wherever they want. But some (now illegal) rule in the BSPA rule book says that they have to wait until their "owners" have decided what to do with them - even when clearly they have no intention of using all of them. Even going to the lengths to deem an arrangement that has been in place for the last two years (re PUK) cannot proceed as it has for the last couple of years because they can ?!?!?! PUK has an offer of employment and someone else is preventing him earning a living - that is illegal - simple as! How can it be right that an employer from 3 years ago has a say in where you can and cannot ride or even if you can or cannot ride simply because they either "bought" you like a piece of meat or you did the required number of meetings to be "owned" whether you wanted to be or not? Rant over

Exactly my point! It will take just one wronged rider to resolve this through the courts and the problem will be resolved once and for all - PUK would be a good candidate as he is the one losing out in all this through no fault of his! It the only way to have a truly level playing field

Because the few clubs with many assets like to control things!

So lets assume that KL don't buy PUK. Does that mean that Peterborough will pay him next year - as he is one of their assets who had a job offer elsewhere (which he accepted) but was prevented from doing so by Peterborough. When you are impacting on someone earning a living - that is where the asset system is very wrong. If he has a contract with them and they are stopping him earning elsewhere then surely they should pay him the equivalent what KL offered to sit the year out - seems fair to me!

You have made some good points. If the rules are that he needs to be purchased then so be it. I just think that it's a shame that he will potentially not be riding next year which is a lose/lose situation all round. Peterborough will get no loan fees for him (unless he goes to BV), KL will be without their preferred rider (unless they can find the money to purchase him) and PUK will be denied earning a living.

The difference was that Miedzinski was "tapped up" and he also had many points improvement in him effectively making him worthless on his new average - the same cannot be said about PUK! Also - did Peterborough want him in their team? Additionally, I have never been a fan of the asset system anyway.

So PUK has to sit out the EL season just because some megalomaniac won't play ball - speedway keeps shooting itself in the foot surely it is better to get a loan fee rather than nothing? Will PUK be brave enough to try the legal route?

Not very good debating skills If they were keen on riding for Peterborough or Peterborough wanted them I'm pretty sure it should have happened by now with all the communication advances of the 21st century. But hey, name another couple of riders if you want!

It seems that your promoters are struggling to contact the Swindon Two according to what I've read so doesn't exactly show keenness

Ok - put another way - that doesn't seem to be Peterborough

Assuming they want to ride for you - and that doesn't seem to be the case - just saying

I thought he was Super Meario?

Think back 12 months when Judas went to Poole. Swindon wanted to have him in the team and he wanted to go elsewhere - where did he ride? But then we didn't have a promoter playing silly beggars!

A lot of riders haven't been purchased anyway - they have become assets by virtue of the number of meetings they do when they first come over to the UK to ride!!

Yes - because the rules suggest that they can only sign 2 in the top 20 and they already have 1 so why are 4 others being held in limbo for 1 team spot! With regards the law - I suggest that if any rider wants to take the legal route then they will have more than a very strong chance of winning because you cannot stop someone from earning a living - no matter what the speedway asset system says!

I don't know what is the more alarming - Rick for playing games or you for condoning his actions? The side he declared last year WAS poor - hence why he had to make many changes (outside of injuries). The team you finished with should have seen you safely into the playoffs but it just didn't happen. Your team for next year looks good so far - I just don't think anyone needs to play silly beggars with riders they cannot use - they have families to feed and bills to pay you know!

There isn't a law which restricts the number of part time jobs someone can have - even if they are in several EU member states. Which means that by not allowing a rider to sign for another team when you have no intention of using all of them IS against the law!