Steve0 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Or it could be that they want to move towards riders who want to ride in the UK as a priority. If we lose more of the big time Chalies then so be it perhaps? While we still have an asset system it shouldn't be anything goes as you say it is. If Frost splashes out for assets then it's ridiculous to suggest that he doesn't have a say in what happens just because they are not in his plans. Would you allow three of your top assets to go to local rivals and not so local rivals to give them a decent team? I doubt it. Rick has said that he doesn't want to stop riders earning a living so I'm sure that he'd be happy for them to earn a living at Belle Vue or Eastbourne etc. I personally think its ridiculous to think he can have a say on where they go! They will go wherever they want - just like any one f us - asset or no asset. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) There is a loophole in the BSPA regulations. Negotiation with Iversen regarding 2013 happened before the 2012 season had been completed in which Kings Lynn had sole rights too Iversen. If Iversen was to be dropped half way through the season and rode elsewhere a loan fee would have been paid to Kings Lynn not Peterborough. Great system hey???? Edited December 5, 2012 by screamer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 AT the end of the day these so called assets are human beings, not chunks of meat who can tossed around anywhere or pieces of property to be rented out or sold without any regard to their own wishes. If a club wishes to retain a rider after October 31 each year they should provide a proper contract, as is the case in Poland or Sweden. Once out of contract riders should (and probably are anyway) free agents. Freedom of movement doesn't seem to have any adverse effect in Poland and Sweden and the abolition of rider assets in the UK might actually provide significant benefits across the board. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 AT the end of the day these so called assets are human beings, not chunks of meat who can tossed around anywhere or pieces of property to be rented out or sold without any regard to their own wishes. If a club wishes to retain a rider after October 31 each year they should provide a proper contract, as is the case in Poland or Sweden. Once out of contract riders should (and probably are anyway) free agents. Freedom of movement doesn't seem to have any adverse effect in Poland and Sweden and the abolition of rider assets in the UK might actually provide significant benefits across the board. Exactly Phil, the whole asset thing is nonsense. Many Aces fans keep banging on about assets, why?. It is totally pointless in the current system. Buying established riders is a total waste of money. On the other hand if you can get a young unattached rider on your books FOC then that is a different matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) I personally think its ridiculous to think he can have a say on where they go! They will go wherever they want - just like any one f us - asset or no asset. It doesn't matter what you or I think or what we'd like the situation to be. The point is whether there are rules and procedures in place to be followed or not. As we all know, any agreement can fall at the final hurdle these days and life certainly isn't fair! If it's a free for all then we can name a rider we want from now on any promoter can make the effort to go and get them irrespective of who they might be linked with. Edited December 5, 2012 by Crump99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fourentee Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) AT the end of the day these so called assets are human beings, not chunks of meat who can tossed around anywhere or pieces of property to be rented out or sold without any regard to their own wishes. If a club wishes to retain a rider after October 31 each year they should provide a proper contract, as is the case in Poland or Sweden. Once out of contract riders should (and probably are anyway) free agents. Freedom of movement doesn't seem to have any adverse effect in Poland and Sweden and the abolition of rider assets in the UK might actually provide significant benefits across the board. Good points, but the counter-argument (and apologies for moving off-topic) would be: Why invest in a rider if there's no prospective long-term return, either in terms of club appearances or loan fees? Once you've got more than seven assets you can't offer them all a place anyway, regardless of the added pressures from the points ceiling. By invest, I refer to training school development and infrastructure such as mechanical help or aid with transport as much as actual cash. Edit: And perhaps to some degree, the current system and the points limit help keep the playing field a little more level than it would otherwise be in a free for all. I'm not proclaiming the status quo perfect (or even particularly good), but we should always be aware of what might be round the corner. Edited December 5, 2012 by Fourentee 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 You might think its ridiculous but that's the law, not just in speedway but all sport . If NKI is not on the payroll he can peddle his wares wherever he wants to. Rightly or wrongly Rick can't dictate where his assets ride if they don't ride for him. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren2 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Swiderski is a Lakeside hammer... Another boat missed by Panthers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Isnt it a riders registration that is held by clubs it seems that riders can ride were they want but there registration has to be held by someone and if they wish to ride elsewhere to where there registration is held then an agreement has to be in place between the parties invloved for this to happen it looks like the agreement hasnt been sorted concerning NKI to Lynn it will happen no doubt but maybe the fact that Panthers want to sell NKI this time is the problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Isnt it a riders registration that is held by clubs it seems that riders can ride were they want but there registration has to be held by someone and if they wish to ride elsewhere to where there registration is held then an agreement has to be in place between the parties invloved for this to happen it looks like the agreement hasnt been sorted concerning NKI to Lynn it will happen no doubt but maybe the fact that Panthers want to sell NKI this time is the problem So taking Iversen out of the equation, my understanding of that lot is that riders can only ride where they want if the club holding their registration gives permission for them to be approached and only then if the clubs reach contractual agreement? That's assuming of course that rules are in place and enforced, which seems somewhat unclear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 AT the end of the day these so called assets are human beings, not chunks of meat who can tossed around anywhere or pieces of property to be rented out or sold without any regard to their own wishes. If a club wishes to retain a rider after October 31 each year they should provide a proper contract, as is the case in Poland or Sweden. Once out of contract riders should (and probably are anyway) free agents. Freedom of movement doesn't seem to have any adverse effect in Poland and Sweden and the abolition of rider assets in the UK might actually provide significant benefits across the board. The sooner its abolished, the better. I'm trying hard to find benefits this system gives to the sport. but there is done. All it does, is create an unnecessary expense in an already expensive sport. Why can't the sport replace the 'assest riders system' with 'A Rolling 1 year' Contract, for the riders to agree and sign each year. so simple... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 The sooner its abolished, the better. I'm trying hard to find benefits this system gives to the sport. but there is done. All it does, is create an unnecessary expense in an already expensive sport. Why can't the sport replace the 'assest riders system' with 'A Rolling 1 year' Contract, for the riders to agree and sign each year. so simple... So a more flexible variation of chequebook speedway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 So a more flexible variation of chequebook speedway? No , Not at all, The club get first choice of the rider once there contracted time was up. It would enble the clubs to negoiate direct.with the rider. If anything it would be cheaper then it is now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pufcfanno1 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Except riders on an attractive average could turn down their current club and spark a bidding war to sign for whichever club will pay them the highest wage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E I Addio Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Good points, but the counter-argument (and apologies for moving off-topic) would be: Why invest in a rider if there's no prospective long-term return, either in terms of club appearances or loan fees? Once you've got more than seven assets you can't offer them all a place anyway, regardless of the added pressures from the points ceiling. By invest, I refer to training school development and infrastructure such as mechanical help or aid with transport as much as actual cash. Edit: And perhaps to some degree, the current system and the points limit help keep the playing field a little more level than it would otherwise be in a free for all. I'm not proclaiming the status quo perfect (or even particularly good), but we should always be aware of what might be round the corner. That is the nub of the argument. What incentive is there for a club to invest in a young rider only for him to go off to another (probably richer club) when he is established if his original club can't make a return on their investments. For one thing it is an important source of income for PL clubs to get something back when a rider moves up to the EL.I am not trying to out forward the case either for or against the asset principle but it is not as stupid or irrelevant as some on here are saying. Whether the asset system is better than a straight year to year contract is a matter of opinion but both systems have their merits and their shortcomings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans fan Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) Swiderski is a Lakeside hammer... Another boat missed by Panthers how'd you work that out, there's big ifs with him Edited December 5, 2012 by hans fan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rabbit Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 The sooner its abolished, the better. I'm trying hard to find benefits this system gives to the sport. but there is done. All it does, is create an unnecessary expense in an already expensive sport. Why can't the sport replace the 'assest riders system' with 'A Rolling 1 year' Contract, for the riders to agree and sign each year. so simple... How can it be abolished if there are still riders out there that have been bought by their parent clubs? Why should those that have paid out miss out by allowing those assets to ride elsewhere for free? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnglishRoundabout Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 How can it be abolished if there are still riders out there that have been bought by their parent clubs? Why should those that have paid out miss out by allowing those assets to ride elsewhere for free? Its good that there is some decent debate and conversation on the Peterborough thread...is it a coincidence that one particular poster is absent and most likely serving his/her latest ban? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) No , Not at all, The club get first choice of the rider once there contracted time was up. It would enble the clubs to negoiate direct.with the rider. If anything it would be cheaper then it is now... It's their living and a career that could end in an instant. If you think that loyalty and honour wins over a bank balance then you're kidding yourself. And if Belle Vue, Eastbourne or whoever discover the next big thing then at least they can make use of him and have options under the asset system which may just help to pay some bills. On a one year contract he'd just naff of to the club with the biggest pockets. Edited December 5, 2012 by Crump99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomo1 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Its good that there is some decent debate and conversation on the Peterborough thread...is it a coincidence that one particular poster is absent and most likely serving his/her latest ban? I think its only a ban for one of the aliases!!! Shame its not all of them! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.