Ipswich 2012

[Gazc]

Clearly you have no been following the debate on other threads. To help you I append some apposite comments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are absolutely right in so much as Morris and his advisers are free to find employment with what ever UK promotion they consider appropriate. Assuming that he hasn't signed a contract with another UK promoter for 2012 he is a free agent, and legally that is where the matter ends.

 

Glasgow can huff and puff all they like, but legally they are entitled to ZILCH!!!!! If they tried to prevent Morris from riding for what ever UK promotion HE wanted to, they would face a class injunction which they would lose.

 

Mind you it would never get that far. The Jolly Boys Club (the BSPA) would have a word with both promotions involved, and they will be instructed to reach an accommodation so as not to "rock the boat". A classic example is, as I have previously mentioned, was when Swiderski signed for Ipswich a few years back, which illustrates this point perfectly.

 

At the end of the day who are you going to use as your point of reference? Tsunami, someone who on occasions has failed to grasp basic English, or Phil Rising, Managing Editor and Proprietor of the Speedway Star. The choice is yours, but I know who I would choose!!!!!!

 

So in effect what you are saying is that regardless of club asset or whatever there will be no rider transfer or loan fees paid to any club in future so what is the point off clubs taking the chance on an untried Aussie in this instance Nick Morris as my club did Nurtured him through loaned him out National league introduced him when he turned 16 helped him develop and when the time comes for the rider to move on to pastures new the club that took the chance on the young rider shall recieve nothing on either a loan fee or full transfer think it may open a real can off worms here and until we see what exactly happens when the time comes i will reserve judgement

 

But being as smug as you have been in that Glasgow shall recieve ZILCH as you put it is setting yourself up for one almighty fall think i shall just wait and see when the time comes I dont think Nick has committed to anyone next year as yet not Even IPSWICH

[Mr Snackette]

Think the (sic) call it selective memory loss

 

Please see my reply above.

 

I think my memory on this episode is fine.

[Paulco]

 

 

At the end of the day who are you going to use as your point of reference? Tsunami, someone who on occasions has failed to grasp basic English, or Phil Rising, Managing Editor and Proprietor of the Speedway Star. The choice is yours, but I know who I would choose!!!!!!

Yup , think i'd go with Tsunami too , who has considerably more experience in these matters than the editor of the Speedway Star .

[Mr Snackette]

So in effect what you are saying is that regardless of club asset or whatever there will be no rider transfer or loan fees paid to any club in future so what is the point off clubs taking the chance on an untried Aussie in this instance Nick Morris as my club did Nurtured him through loaned him out National league introduced him when he turned 16 helped him develop and when the time comes for the rider to move on to pastures new the club that took the chance on the young rider shall recieve nothing on either a loan fee or full transfer think it may open a real can off worms here and until we see what exactly happens when the time comes i will reserve judgement

 

But being as smug as you have been in that Glasgow shall recieve ZILCH as you put it is setting yourself up for one almighty fall think i shall just wait and see when the time comes I dont think Nick has committed to anyone next year as yet not Even IPSWICH

 

I fear your comprehension skills do require a little fine tuning!!!!

 

The point I, and others have made, is that the so called asset system has no legal significance. Again if you read my posts again I don't believe that I have ever said that Glasgow will receive zilch. The point I made was that as he is an out of contract rider, Glasgow are ENTITLED TO ZILCH.

 

As I have indicated in previous posts, I feel sure that for which ever promotion young Morris decides to ride for, it is likely that the BSPA will broker an accommodation to prevent the boat being rocked.

 

In addition I have never assumed that young Morris is Ipswich bound, and indeed one of my more recent posts, stressed that with a CMA of 7.19 , and likely Polski commitments, he is perhaps not the best signing for a progressive PL promotion.

 

So may I respectfully suggest that you read the posts a little more carefully, as that may help defuse your fallacious comments.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Mr Snackette

[Gazc]

I fear your comprehension skills do require a little fine tuning!!!!

 

The point I, and others have made, is that the so called asset system has no legal significance. Again if you read my posts again I don't believe that I have ever said that Glasgow will receive zilch. The point I made was that as he is an out of contract rider, Glasgow are ENTITLED TO ZILCH.

 

As I have indicated in previous posts, I feel sure that for which ever promotion young Morris decides to ride for, it is likely that the BSPA will broker an accommodation to prevent the boat being rocked.

 

So may I respectfully suggest that you read the posts a little more carefully, as that may help defuse your fallacious comments.

 

May i repectifully suggest your full off it Rolleyes;

[cyclone]

I actually agree that Mr S is correct in civil law that once a rider's contract has expired, he is a free agent.

 

The fact that the Promoters operate their own domestic system, this will still prevail unless someone challenges their arrangement through the courts.

 

When clubs dispense with the services of riders, as far as I know, these riders do not receive compensation, so the converse should apply.

 

Maybe the answer is for clubs to offer riders longer term contracts to protect their investments,

as is the case for football, but they should be prepared to pay compensation to the rider if they break the contractual terms.

 

Re Nick Morris, I guess this was just an example that Mr S used to make the point and was not intended as a specific dig at Glasgow.

 

 

After all come the end of the 2012 season, perhaps Glasgow will acquire Cameron Heeps from Ipswich for zilch

Edited November 7, 2011 by cyclone

[Mr Snackette]

I actually agree that Mr S is correct in civil law that once a rider's contract has expired, he is a free agent.

 

The fact that the Promoters operate their own domestic system, this will still prevail unless someone challenges their arrangement through the courts.

 

When clubs dispense with the services of riders, as far as I know, these riders do not receive compensation, so the converse should apply.

 

Maybe the answer is for clubs to offer riders longer term contracts to protect their investments,

as is the case for football, but they should be prepared to pay compensation to the rider if they break the contractual terms.

 

Re Nick Morris, I guess this was just an example that Mr S used to make the point and was not intended as a specific dig at Glasgow.

 

 

After all come the end of the 2012 season, perhaps Glasgow will acquire Cameron Heeps from Ipswich for zilch

 

At last someone who has taken time to read, digest, and understand the points that are being made.

 

As you rightly say, some contributors are so tribal, which as a result of this inbred bias prevents them from understanding the issues at hand. Others perhaps lack the intellect to fully engage in the nuances of the argument.

 

Of course Heeps could easily sign for Glasgow for the 2013 season, and Ipswich would be entitled to nothing. Unless of course they do, as they did this year, and sign him to a fresh contract.

[Mr Snackette]

Yup , think i'd go with Tsunami too , who has considerably more experience in these matters than the editor of the Speedway Star .

 

You pays yer money, and you make choice.

 

Mind you I do think the Managing Editor of the Speedway Star would construct his arguments in a slightly more sophisticated manner, than the feral responses of your champion!!!!

[Gazc]

At last someone who has taken time to read, digest, and understand the points that are being made.

 

As you rightly say, some contributors are so tribal, which as a result of this inbred bias prevents them from understanding the issues at hand. Others perhaps lack the intellect to fully engage in the nuances of the argument.

 

Of course Heeps could easily sign for Glasgow for the 2013 season, and Ipswich would be entitled to nothing. Unless of course they do, as they did this year, and sign him to a fresh contract.

 

As i say your full off it

[JCookie]

As i say your full off it

 

No, his argument is just something you don't like.

 

Nick Morris signed for Glasgow for 2011 and at the end of the 2011 season he is a free agent. No team can just own a rider, if any rider wanted to move badly enough and their club didn't allow it then all they'd have to do is challenge it properly.

[Paulco]

I actually agree that Mr S is correct in civil law that once a rider's contract has expired, he is a free agent.

 

The fact that the Promoters operate their own domestic system, this will still prevail unless someone challenges their arrangement through the courts.

 

When clubs dispense with the services of riders, as far as I know, these riders do not receive compensation, so the converse should apply.

 

Maybe the answer is for clubs to offer riders longer term contracts to protect their investments,

as is the case for football, but they should be prepared to pay compensation to the rider if they break the contractual terms.

 

Re Nick Morris, I guess this was just an example that Mr S used to make the point and was not intended as a specific dig at Glasgow.

 

 

After all come the end of the 2012 season, perhaps Glasgow will acquire Cameron Heeps from Ipswich for zilch

 

We realise it's not a dig at Glasgow , and we all realise Nick Morris will be riding his speedway away from Possilpark next year . We have no problem where he ends up , and i'm sure the club that signs him and our promotion will be able to thrash out a deal to suit both parties .

The only problem we have in the condescending way Snackette puts forward his arguement . He might well be right , but he's so smug i just pray he isn't .

[Tsunami]

We realise it's not a dig at Glasgow , and we all realise Nick Morris will be riding his speedway away from Possilpark next year . We have no problem where he ends up , and i'm sure the club that signs him and our promotion will be able to thrash out a deal to suit both parties .

The only problem we have in the condescending way Snackette puts forward his arguement . He might well be right , but he's so smug i just pray he isn't .

 

So the correct holder of the Mr Smug tag is ........

 

There is a world of difference between what WILL happen and what someone thinks should happen. Mr Smug implies what should happen IHO, when in fact, I would bet my clammy jockstrap against his beard clipper, that what I said WILL happen, and Glasgow WILL get a transfer fee or a loan free for young Morris. It's a bit loose to try to bring in Philip Rising, the Managing Director of the Speedway Star, who supports the change regarding assets, but he did not state or imply that Glasgow WILL NOT be getting anything, or ZILCH, as Mr Smug would try to imply.

These are the present rules and that was the discussion. Thank You.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Tsunami

[cowboy cookie returns?]

At the end of the day if speedway was run better and the points limit and rules did not change every year then clubs could sign riders on longer term contacts and protect the club assets. I forget the poster's name but the person who suggested that the asset system is illegal is correct and its only the closed shop of the bspa that keeps it going. Under eu law if you are not contact you can move on for nothing this comes from the bosman ruling in football as that was the test case but the result would have been the same if bosman had been a rugby player speedway rider or in a regular 9 to 5 job.

[Mr Snackette]

So the correct holder of the Mr Smug tag is ........

 

There is a world of difference between what WILL happen and what someone thinks should happen. Mr Smug implies what should happen IHO, when in fact, I would bet my clammy jockstrap against his beard clipper, that what I said WILL happen, and Glasgow WILL get a transfer fee or a loan free for young Morris. It's a bit loose to try to bring in Philip Rising, the Managing Director of the Speedway Star, who supports the change regarding assets, but he did not state or imply that Glasgow WILL NOT be getting anything, or ZILCH, as Mr Smug would try to imply.

These are the present rules and that was the discussion. Thank You.

 

Thank you for adopting my new epithet, it's certainly something I will try and live up to!!

 

I would like to return the compliment and provide you with a sobriquet, and in the light of your remarks, Mr Reactionary would appear rather appropriate. Sadly, as we have previously discovered, you do have a little difficulty understanding the meaning of the word, so to provide you with this nomenclature would be regarded by some as a little unkind.

 

And I think that it is this lack of reading and understanding, which is displayed and is evident in your most recent post. I have checked my postings and I don't think I have said anywhere, or indeed implied, that this or that WILL happen. In my postings i very carefully used the word ENTITLED. For your benefit (as I appreciate that basic comprehension is not your strongest suit) i append a dictionary definition of the word:

 

To give (a person or thing) a title, right, or claim to something; furnish with grounds for laying claim

 

So I do hope that this helps you to now follow the debate with a greater sense of clarity and focus. I have made it clear from the outset that, as both Glasgow and any potential promoter employing Morris are going to be members of The Jolly Boys Club, in all likelihood an accommodation will be reached. However this will be just following convention, will not be legally binding, and as I repeat once again, any promotion that has a rider out of contract is NOT ENTITLED to a bean, regardless whether he gets something or not.

[Lovey]

As i say your full off it

 

Depends if you can write English correctly .

 

I'm getting thoroughly cheesed off with this thread becasue it's just come down to everyone making all sorts of assumptions about Ipswich, eg. there's pots of money, and Tungate & Morris have already signed!

 

The reason that Ipswich moved from the not-even-close-to-EL was because there wasn't much money available, and what there was needed to be spent much more wisely than poured down the all-consuming drain of the nectEL. Despite great seasons in the distant past, Ipswich is not a big club and Chris Louis has stated many times that this season was the start of rebuilding.

 

As for Mr Snackette - we have had our own stupid run-ins this seson, but I have to agree with him that people are reading far too much into simple factual statements. I quite enjoy Mr S's gentle mickey-taking of people who seem to take everything as either attacks on their team/promoter or even personally.

 

The only person who deserves any vilification is that useless, trolling and dangerous imbecile: Aljerk.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Lovey

[Ipswich Jules]

But being as smug as you have been in that Glasgow shall recieve ZILCH as you put it is setting yourself up for one almighty fall think i shall just wait and see when the time comes I dont think Nick has committed to anyone next year as yet not Even IPSWICH

 

Not sure that he said you would recieve nothing, more that from a legal employment standpoint it could happen - but as we all know - it won't!

 

There is a big difference between "shall" and "could"

 

I'm agreeing with Mr S on this one, nothing will change and transfer / loan fee's will still be paid, but legally they don't have to - all it will take is one disgruntled rider to take it to the courts and it's all going to hit the fan!

[CardinalSin]

Not sure that he said you would recieve nothing, more that from a legal employment standpoint it could happen - but as we all know - it won't!

 

There is a big difference between "shall" and "could"

 

I'm agreeing with Mr S on this one, nothing will change and transfer / loan fee's will still be paid, but legally they don't have to - all it will take is one disgruntled rider to take it to the courts and it's all going to hit the fan!

I've been reading and hearing that for as long as i can remember and it still hasn't happened. There will still be riders this close season who want to ride for this club or that club, their parent club won't be happy, huff and puff and then accept the loan fee and said rider will move to his new club

[orderly]

I think that the subject of who owns who is open to a lot of misinterpretation, as far as I can see each rider agrees a contract with a promotion provided that the promotion have received permission from the promotion who has that rider on their retained list (2011 speedway rule book 7.4.8).

This could be viewed as a contract of employment that will terminate on a pre decided date i.e. 31st October each year.

At the end of the loan period the rider reverts back to the promotion on who’s retained list he appears which means that the rider is not a free agent.

As for Nick Morris he is on the Glasgow retained list and rode his first Premier league match for Glasgow in June 2010, therefore any other promotion seeking his services in 2012 must first of all talk to the Glasgow management first

[cowboy cookie returns?]

All this about a rider who is far from certain to sign for ipswich may bd we should rename it the nick morris thread

[Mr Snackette]

I think that the subject of who owns who is open to a lot of misinterpretation, as far as I can see each rider agrees a contract with a promotion provided that the promotion have received permission from the promotion who has that rider on their retained list (2011 speedway rule book 7.4.8).

This could be viewed as a contract of employment that will terminate on a pre decided date i.e. 31st October each year.

At the end of the loan period the rider reverts back to the promotion on who’s retained list he appears which means that the rider is not a free agent.

As for Nick Morris he is on the Glasgow retained list and rode his first Premier league match for Glasgow in June 2010, therefore any other promotion seeking his services in 2012 must first of all talk to the Glasgow management first

 

Your point is well made, but only sets out the position as a promoter would see it. This is an internal set of rules that have been adopted by members of a club. When these internal rules impact upon the legal rights of a third party, ie a rider, then this provides the opportunity for action to be taken against these restrictive covenants.

 

In these days I feel sure that Morris and his team will be talking to various promoters about who he will ride for, and the deal he can get. As the Swerderski deal ilustrated, consultation with the Retained List promoter is now of secondry importance. Of course The Jolly Boys' will ensure that an accommodation will be reached to ensure the status quo is not disturbed.

 

I agree 100% with CS' comments that this has been talked about for years and it has never happened. The closest it ever came was the acrimonious and protracted move of Nicholls from Ipswich to Coventry. In that case legal action was literally only a short step away. However whatever one thinks of the BSPA, they have been adept at protecting their own and their members' interests, and successfully brokered an eleventh hour deal, which negated the threat of legal action.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Mr Snackette