stevebrum Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Dakota North is an asset.......Richard Lawson isnt!!! Not much of a "nuggett" you ve uncovered there Please try keep up. Last week Lawson was told that he had no team place because they were using their own assets --------------------- then took Larsen and Fisher on loan. Like i say, double standards. What Peterborough are now after is recouping some of the money they've shelled out on riders who, for whatever reason, are unlikely to ride for them again. What Peterborough are now after is holding the riders and clubs involved to ransom because rules havent gone the way they see fit. You say for whatever reason - the reason is clear. Peterborough want to dictate when they use their assets and on what terms to other clubs. I wish there was more riders to go around because all clubs should give doing deals with them a wide berth. Still, they know that others clubs need their riders so will stubbornly deny a rider moving, even if it means them being out of work. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sully Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Please try keep up. Last week Lawson was told that he had no team place because they were using their own assets --------------------- then took Larsen and Fisher on loan. Like i say they want to use riders that aren't doubling up from prem. that's why Lawson wasn't picked. Nothing to do with him not being an asset. You really need to pay more attention. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Do tell what happens if there are no buyers, which now seems to be the case.. I think that's been answered by the MC. Batch rides for Swindon if he's paid for. Seems like there are two points of view on this and it seems to depend on which team/club/promotion one supports or prefers. It's not unreasonable to expect something back on an asset, whatever it is, which you have paid money for, are unlikely to use again, and somebody else wants to use. Surely it's the owner's prerogative to sell or rent. Peterborough, in keeping with the asset system then - and, indeed, still - in place, paid money for these riders and are now asking for some back. How is that unreasonable as long as the current system, flawed as some may think it, is still in place? Please try keep up. Last week Lawson was told that he had no team place because they were using their own assets --------------------- then took Larsen and Fisher on loan. Like i say, double standards. What Peterborough are now after is holding the riders and clubs involved to ransom because rules havent gone the way they see fit. You say for whatever reason - the reason is clear. Peterborough want to dictate when they use their assets and on what terms to other clubs. I wish there was more riders to go around because all clubs should give doing deals with them a wide berth. Still, they know that others clubs need their riders so will stubbornly deny a rider moving, even if it means them being out of work. Don't you, for something you've paid out for and somebody else now wants? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
essaitch Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Please try keep up. Last week Lawson was told that he had no team place because they were using their own assets --------------------- then took Larsen and Fisher on loan. Like i say, double standards. What Peterborough are now after is holding the riders and clubs involved to ransom because rules havent gone the way they see fit. You say for whatever reason - the reason is clear. Peterborough want to dictate when they use their assets and on what terms to other clubs. I wish there was more riders to go around because all clubs should give doing deals with them a wide berth. Still, they know that others clubs need their riders so will stubbornly deny a rider moving, even if it means them being out of work. Appears to me all they are asking for is the loan rules re permission to talk, being adhered too. Don't know why you have such a problem with following the rule book? Think the Lawson issue is as much to do with the sudden appearance of the 2 from too 20 rule. Peterborough being about the only club affected by it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 they want to use riders that aren't doubling up from prem. that's why Lawson wasn't picked. Nothing to do with him not being an asset. You really need to pay more attention. aaaah, their own riders for doubling up ...... if only they had said that. Bet Lawson will feel quite lucky really, the Panthers can`t even look after their own assets. Lucky escape for the lad. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
essaitch Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 aaaah, their own riders for doubling up ...... if only they had said that. Bet Lawson will feel quite lucky really, the Panthers can`t even look after their own assets. Lucky escape for the lad. I'm certain you'll find just about everyone who's ridden for Peterborough the last 3 years has nothing but good to say about the club set up. Why do you feel they can't look after their assets? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sully Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 aaaah, their own riders for doubling up ...... if only they had said that. eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Don't you, for something you've paid out for and somebody else now wants? If we werent in a double (possibly triple) dip recession it might be a reasonable request. The problem lies with the promotion who think that just because they can't use all their own assets in any one team in a season think its then ok to demand what terms those un-wanted riders are allowed to be available for to other clubs. Don't know why you have such a problem with following the rule book? I don`t, but the BSPA appear to. I'm certain you'll find just about everyone who's ridden for Peterborough the last 3 years has nothing but good to say about the club set up. Why do you feel they can't look after their assets? Iversen, andersen and batchelor may disagree with that comment. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
essaitch Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 If we werent in a double (possibly triple) dip recession it might be a reasonable request. The problem lies with the promotion who think that just because they can't use all their own assets in any one team in a season think its then ok to demand what terms those un-wanted riders are allowed to be available for to other clubs. I don`t, but the BSPA appear to. Iversen, andersen and batchelor may disagree with that comment. They may, but I'm not sure they all blame Peterborough for the situation . 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
champs99 Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Please try keep up. Last week Lawson was told that he had no team place because they were using their own assets --------------------- then took Larsen and Fisher on loan. Like i say, double standards. I think you will find Larsen and Fisher were signed before last week!!! try and keep up You are obviously obsessed by bad mouthing the Panthers, but at least try and keep to the facts. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy robin Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I've got a house I want to sell but can't sell it due to the recession but have a queue of people wanting to rent it, what should I do peterborough fans?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPanther Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I've got a house I want to sell but can't sell it due to the recession but have a queue of people wanting to rent it, what should I do peterborough fans?. Well, if you have another house to live in, then just keep it on the open market. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
champs99 Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I've got a house I want to sell but can't sell it due to the recession but have a queue of people wanting to rent it, what should I do peterborough fans?. In your own words "Grow Up".... But if i were you i would rent it out at a time that is most convenient to you, and to the person who will pay you the most rent. What i would'nt do is let anyone tell you who nto rent it to and at what price. After all it is YOUR asset. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YerRopes Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 In your own words "Grow Up".... But if i were you i would rent it out at a time that is most convenient to you, and to the person who will pay you the most rent. What i would'nt do is let anyone tell you who nto rent it to and at what price. After all it is YOUR asset. Suggest you replace 'house' with '**; and then reread... Much nearer the mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy robin Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 In your own words "Grow Up".... But if i were you i would rent it out at a time that is most convenient to you, and to the person who will pay you the most rent. What i would'nt do is let anyone tell you who nto rent it to and at what price. After all it is YOUR asset. Thanks for the advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YerRopes Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Suggest you replace 'house' with '**; and then reread... Much nearer the mark OK - hore then... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy robin Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Well, if you have another house to live in, then just keep it on the open market. Think I'd rather rent it out to get some money coming in as that's the most logical answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodles Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I've got a house I want to sell but can't sell it due to the recession but have a queue of people wanting to rent it, what should I do peterborough fans?. It's your house, do what you like. Would you like it if the estate agent made the decision for you? To turn it round if you see a house for sale would you knock on their door and demand that they only let it? Think I'd rather rent it out to get some money coming in as that's the most logical answer. Wow, didn't expect that to be the answer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy robin Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 It's your house, do what you like. Would you like it if the estate agent made the decision for you? To turn it round if you see a house for sale would you knock on their door and demand that they only let it? If the estate agent told me there simply isn't a buyer & my best bet is to rent it then yes I would. I also wouldn't look at a house that I couldn't afford to buy & would look at the rented section Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sully Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 If the estate agent told me there simply isn't a buyer & my best bet is to rent it then yes I would. I also wouldn't look at a house that I couldn't afford to buy & would look at the rented section its a shame that this house is only up for sale then.... 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.