Ipswich 2012

[Mr Snackette]

Neither is Poole as he's a Panthers asset. Would be better to bring in a new young asset on a 7 like Rasmus Jensen.

 

Young Poole is on the Panther's Retained List, but has made it clear he will ride where HE WANTS TO, irrespective of anything else!!!!

 

I haven't seen enough of the lad Jensen to form a meaningful opinion, although apparently he did well at the UEM U21 meeting in Opole last week.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Mr Snackette

[semion]

The Louis' felt this team was good emough to be there or there abouts, maybe when Lanham starts to fire and Poole is back in harness then it will be all guns blazing. Leave well alone, just get rid of that Nick Simmons

[refereerick]

Young Poole is on the Panther's Retained List, but has made it clear he will ride where HE WANTS TO, irrespective of anything else!!!!

 

I haven't seen enough of the lad Jensen to form a meaningful opinion, although apparently he did well at the UEM U21 meeting in Opole last week.

I didn't say Poole wouldn't ride where he wanted or that he didn't want to come back to the Witches, I was replying to Cowboy Cookies post about building young assets up, and as Poole isn't an asset, IMO, Rasmus Jensen would be a good option instead and would become an asset assuming he rode enough matches for the Witches. He's certainly one for the future IMO, and would come in on a 7, very similar to the 6.90 of Poole. Edited June 11, 2012 by refereerick

[Mr Snackette]

If young Poole chooses to ride for the Witches for the next 10 years (although there must be a big doubt about that), it matters not on whose Retained List he appears on.

 

This whole "asset base" thing is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, and the more perceptive can now see straight through it.

[refereerick]

If young Poole chooses to ride for the Witches for the next 10 years (although there must be a big doubt about that), it matters not on whose Retained List he appears on.

 

This whole "asset base" thing is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, and the more perceptive can now see straight through it.

That is fine, but if Ipswich wish to continue paying out loan fees for Taylor thats alright too, with your own assets there are no loan fees, unless you loan the rider out and the fee comes the other way.

[ZODIAK]

Adding assets is clearly more than "smoke and mirrors", as Ipswich signing King as a club asset a few years ago has earned them some much needed cash recently which we're led to believe was badly needed to solve a cash flow problem.

 

Whilst the asset base is clearly an irritation to Mr Snackette, it's clearly alive and kicking as it has been for several years, with loan fees and transfer fees being paid for rider movement.

 

That isn't going to change anytime soon, so it's understandable why Chris Louis is hell bent on building Ipswich' asset base up.

 

Surely far better to have a team of your own assets with no loan fees paid to other clubs, and assets not used, loaned to others to generate more income, than loan seven riders from other clubs and pay out seven loan fees!

 

We've heard all the "it will only take one rider to challenge the ruling in a court of law for the whole asset system to collapse" tripe for more years than I care to remember and it STILL hasn't happened.

 

They clearly have a rule and an understanding between promotions and riders alike, that they all accept and are happy to continue abiding by.

[Mr Snackette]

.

 

.....They clearly have a rule and an understanding between promotions....... and riders alike........

 

Of course promoters continue to perpetuate this myth, it's their own little boys club. The riders will accept it as long, as long as they can continue to do as they like and are not inconvenienced.

[Baldyman]

The only way Taylor will be back in the team is if he replaces Lanham or Doolan. Can anyone see that happening? People keep going on about improving our asset base, which either means purchasing a rider like Taylor from the horrors, have we got that sort of money? Probably not. So we need to find other riders that haven't ridden here before. Rasmus has been mentioned, so let's look at other young riders involved in under 21's as these are obviously the riders on the up. How about, Mikkel Michelsen, Vaclav Milik, Niclas Porsing, Mikkel B Jensen, he finished ahead of some very good known riders. Maybe they have all been asked, maybe they were all looked into before the season, but I doubt that, maybe none of them want to race in Britain. Maybe they are already destined to race for the pirates or the panthers, as they like good young Danish riders.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Baldyman

[Fromafar]

The only way Taylor will be back in the team is if he replaces Lanham or Doolan. Can anyone see that happening? People keep going on about improving our asset base, which either means purchasing a rider like Taylor from the horrors, have we got that sort of money? Probably not. So we need to find other riders that haven't ridden here before. Rasmus has been mentioned, so let's look at other young riders involved in under 21's as these are obviously the riders on the up. How about, Mikkel Michelsen, Vaclav Milik, Niclas Porsing, Mikkel B Jensen, he finished ahead of some very good known riders. Maybe they have all been asked, maybe they were all looked into before the season, but I doubt that, maybe none of them want to race in Britain. Maybe they are already destined to race for the pirates or the panthers, as they like good young Danish riders.

Lets face it Premier League probably could not afford the riders you have mentioned even if the did want to ride in UK ,pity as its not that long ago that good young foreigners were desperate to ride in UK at PL level.

[SCB]

Is there such a thing as a genuine no2???

Only last week Lanham was being described as riding like a number 2

[Baldyman]

 

 

Not "everyone", just people who expect instant success and/or have got a grudge against the current promotion, but won't do anything about it.

It's not about instant success though, its about the effort needed to bring success. I've been following the witches for 36 years, so I know its not about instant success.

[Badge]

Can I ask a question here, probably Mr S or Tsunami may be able to answer it, or at least give an opinion.

 

Now we have Taylor Poole and Dakota North riding for us this year, both were "signed" by the Horrors a few years ago, and yet neither have ever ridden for that team. So how can they be "assets" of a club that has never used them?

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv]

Can I ask a question here, probably Mr S or Tsunami may bee able to answer it, or at least give an opinion.

 

Now we have Taylor Poole and Dakota North riding for us this year, both were "signed" by the Horrors a few years ago, and yet neither have ever ridden for that team. So how can they be "assets" of a club that has never used them?

I believe Elite League clubs can sign 1 'protected' asset each season who doesn't have to ride the minimum number of meetings in order to be held in their retained list.

[Tsunami]

Can I ask a question here, probably Mr S or Tsunami may be able to answer it, or at least give an opinion.

 

Now we have Taylor Poole and Dakota North riding for us this year, both were "signed" by the Horrors a few years ago, and yet neither have ever ridden for that team. So how can they be "assets" of a club that has never used them?

 

Yes, it seems the EL have different rules to the PL. They can 'sign' riders and loan them out, and call them assets. In the PL you need the rider to complete the right number of meetings and the right home/away mix, before you can call them an asset. Not right, but it is the way it works.

 

I replied before Mr S Badge, to let you know rather than read the twaddle that he would give you about the validity of the system, being unlawful and not working.

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv]

So clubs have been paying loan fees to Peterborough for Dakota North and Taylor Poole.

No I think Peterborough wanted them to gain experience and have therefore paid the Witches (and others) to bring them on. :wink: Edited June 11, 2012 by dontforgetthefueltapsbruv

[Baldyman]

You must be able to buy a rider in the prem and not use them and they still belong to you? Didn't we pay a certain amount of money to Rohan so that he became our assxet? And does that also mean Jacobs is no longer our asset as he hasn't ridden enough matches for us.

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv]

You must be able to buy a rider in the prem and not use them and they still belong to you? Didn't we pay a certain amount of money to Rohan so that he became our assxet? And does that also mean Jacobs is no longer our asset as he hasn't ridden enough matches for us.

I presume Rohan signing on fee was to ensure he joined the Witches and that only officially added to the retained list once the right number of meetings were completed. As for Jo would he actually have signed his contract whilst we were still Elite League members and therefore covered uner the 'protected asset' rules??

[Mr Snackette]

 

 

Yes, it seems the EL have different rules to the PL. They can 'sign' riders and loan them out, and call them assets. In the PL you need the rider to complete the right number of meetings and the right home/away mix, before you can call them an asset. Not right, but it is the way it works.

 

I replied before Mr S Badge, to let you know rather than read the twaddle that he would give you about the validity of the system, being unlawful and not working.

 

The Little Boys Club can have all rules they like, but they actually count for very little. Come the 1st November if Rider A wants to join Club B, and Club B wants to sign Rider A, there's nothing anyone can do about it. The example of Swiderski was a perfect case in point.

 

Tsunami may regard this as twaddle, but sadly there will always be the odd dinosaur who refuses to acknowledge that the world has moved on. Indeed, the situation is further reflected by the fact that no one in finance / business will extend a value against these so-called assets, hence they are stripped out of the balance sheet and appear below the line as intangibles.

[Tsunami]

The Little Boys Club can have all rules they like, but they actually count for very little. Come the 1st November if Rider A wants to join Club B, and Club B wants to sign Rider A, there's nothing anyone can do about it. The example of Swiderski was a perfect case in point.

 

Tsunami may regard this as twaddle, but sadly there will always be the odd dinosaur who refuses to acknowledge that the world has moved on. Indeed, the situation is further reflected by the fact that no one in finance / business will extend a value against these so-called assets, hence they are stripped out of the balance sheet and appear below the line as intangibles.

 

Some old dinosaurs ignore the fact that business is being conducted monthly in line with the asset system, that he says doesn't exist. Loan fees, transfers, signing on fees, must all be a figment of everyone else's imagination. It may 'count for very little' but alive it certainly is, and even copes with riders moving to clubs they want to ride for. Wow, what a system.

 

Mind ya don't fall getting off that box.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Tsunami

[Mr Snackette]

 

 

Some old dinosaurs ignore the fact that business is being conducted monthly in line with the asset system, that he says doesn't exist. Loan fees, transfers, signing on fees, must all be a figment of everyone else's imagination. It may 'count for very little' but alive it certainly is, and even copes with riders moving to clubs they want to ride for. Wow, what a system.

 

Mind ya don't fall getting off that box.

 

The only business being conducted is between members of the Little Boys Club, no one else. All done so as not to upset the apple cart. I wonder why finance professionals ignore these so-called assets. Possibly because they are not real assets.....who would have thought!!!!