EnglishRoundabout Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 I think its only a ban for one of the aliases!!! Shame its not all of them! True enough! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo 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... Who compensates the promotors that have paid out good money for a rider to be an asset of there club then, im sure they would take it on the chin if they were now told A.N.Other is free to talk to anyone now and hes no longer an asset of any club . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romford Bomber Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Gomolski signs....for Swindon! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) Who compensates the promotors that have paid out good money for a rider to be an asset of there club then, im sure they would take it on the chin if they were now told A.N.Other is free to talk to anyone now and hes no longer an asset of any club . I understand the 'fors' and 'against' of the arguement, and yes there are many grey areas. Most of these could be sorted without too many problems. To start with, how many riders are classed as asset of the a club, without any money changing hands. They could be released straight away. others could be released on a time scale that reflected the promoters incurred expence. Anything would be better then the present system. We even have riders now, who haven't ridden over here for years, yet still classed as assets. how crazy is that.? I could see a situation in the future when, say Greg Hancock, is asked to ride in a charity do, to celebate his 50th birthday only for his club to say: 'hang on , he's our asset....'. Edited December 5, 2012 by GRW123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion 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. Frost has got a say ..he has a choice to put Puk in his side and he chose not to . And yes if Swindon choose not to used there assests i would expect them to go another side in fact Stead has just done that swindon made that choice just as boro have done with puk . No good saying Puk can go to Belle Vue or Eastie as one he won't want to go there and two they won't be able to pay his wages . if we had a system where a club had total control over there assets in terms of where they could ride or if clubs had to buy them then speedway would be dead in the water with in a matter of weeks .. Who compensates the promotors that have paid out good money for a rider to be an asset of there club then, im sure they would take it on the chin if they were now told A.N.Other is free to talk to anyone now and hes no longer an asset of any club . If you paid good money for a rider why don't you used him in your side ? just a thought . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 If you paid good money for a rider why don't you used him in your side ? just a thought . Because they paid equally good money for Andersen, Batchelor and Bjerre and, wanting to use Sundstrom next year, can only use one more of them in their team. Just a thought! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
champs99 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 . .. If you paid good money for a rider why don't you used him in your side ? just a thought . Because there is a system which means you can only build your team to a certain points limit.......and that dictates that you cant always use all the riders that you have paid good money for. not difficult to understand is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) Because they paid equally good money for Andersen, Batchelor and Bjerre and, wanting to use Sundstrom next year, can only use one more of them in their team. Just a thought! So why did they not used all four last year then? after all there was nothing to stop them ..oh yea they aveages did not fit lol just like this year . Maybe Poole should track Holder ,Ward ,Kasper Crump and ,Lindback after all there all Poole assets it's just these rules allowing 2 of the top twenty stoping them not the points limit . Edited December 5, 2012 by orion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Frost has got a say ..he has a choice to put Puk in his side and he chose not to . And yes if Swindon choose not to used there assests i would expect them to go another side in fact Stead has just done that swindon made that choice just as boro have done with puk . No good saying Puk can go to Belle Vue or Eastie as one he won't want to go there and two they won't be able to pay his wages . if we had a system where a club had total control over there assets in terms of where they could ride or if clubs had to buy them then speedway would be dead in the water with in a matter of weeks .. As has been said, Panthers can't use them all. Rumour is that we wanted to use Andersen, Bjerre and Sundstrom but new rules come out of the woodwork to bugger that up. Then under the free for all system you favour our prime assets offer to help out Swindon again in their new campaign and Frost can't do anything about it. I'm sure that you're happy with that, it's all so easy when you get your team given to you. Belle Vue have had Crump and Andersen and Eastbourne have had Pedersen and Norris, I'm sure something could be sorted if Iversen really does want to ride here. I'm sure both sets of fans would love him just as much Lynn do? So you're saying there is no system or rules. Excellent! If your reading this Rick, sound out Lindback for starters, Poole will not mind as they're not using him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) Because there is a system which means you can only build your team to a certain points limit.......and that dictates that you cant always use all the riders that you have paid good money for. not difficult to understand is it? So why moan when other team used you unwanted riders then ? no one ask you to buy Troy etc when you already had puk as a assett ..yet again you own choice . As i said Frost has no time or any respect for Puk and does not want him in the side but is up in arms riding for someone else . As has been said, Panthers can't use them all. Rumour is that we wanted to use Andersen, Bjerre and Sundstrom but new rules come out of the woodwork to bugger that up. Then under the free for all system you favour our prime assets offer to help out Swindon again in their new campaign and Frost can't do anything about it. I'm sure that you're happy with that, it's all so easy when you get your team given to you. Belle Vue have had Crump and Andersen and Eastbourne have had Pedersen and Norris, I'm sure something could be sorted if Iversen really does want to ride here. I'm sure both sets of fans would love him just as much Lynn do? So you're saying there is no system or rules. Excellent! If your reading this Rick, sound out Lindback for starters, Poole will not mind as they're not using him When did i say it was free for all ? you have first choice of what assets you can used under the rules, you choose not to used puk ...If Boro wanted to go for Lindback they could by the way as he not been offer a place at Poole just like they did with THJ last year ( did they buy him by the way or did they loan him ?) Eastie having Pedseren and Belle Vue having Crump were a couple of years back none of them could afford them now . Edited December 5, 2012 by orion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) So why moan when other team used you unwanted riders then ? no one ask you to buy Troy etc when you already had puk as a assett ..yet again you own choice . As i said Frost has no time or any respect for Puk and does not want him in the side but is up in arms riding for someone else . When did i say it was free for all ? you have first choice of what assets you can used under the rules, you choose not to used puk ...If Boro wanted to go for Lindback they could by the way as he not been offer a place at Poole just like they did with THJ last year ( did they buy him by the way or did they loan him ?) Eastie having Pedseren and Belle Vue having Crump were a couple of years back none of them could afford them now . I don't know what you're saying tbh you twist and turn like a twisty turny thing and it's very confusing.Rumour was that we wanted Lindback but that nice Mr Ford let us have THJ instead, not that we saw that much of him. Allegedly we had the same agreement with Poole as they had with us with regarding Andersen in 2009 and Rick wised up before he wasted his money signing THJ so that Swindon could use him in 2013. Edited December 5, 2012 by Crump99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
champs99 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 So why moan when other team used you unwanted riders then ? no one ask you to buy Troy etc when you already had puk as a assett ..yet again you own choice . As i said Frost has no time or any respect for Puk and does not want him in the side but is up in arms riding for someone else . They are unwanted when the time is right for the club. Riders are aware of the contractual issues when they sign for a club. if they dont like it, dont sign!! As for Iversen, he has spent two seasons at Lynn courtesy of the Panthers. If he wants to go there, Lynn should either buy him or he should buy his own contract out. What right do they think they have to dictate and effectively stick 2 fingers up to the authorities. your comments about Frost are obviously your opinions , but sadly imbalanced and i suspect without knowledge!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) They are unwanted when the time is right for the club. Riders are aware of the contractual issues when they sign for a club. if they dont like it, dont sign!! As for Iversen, he has spent two seasons at Lynn courtesy of the Panthers. If he wants to go there, Lynn should either buy him or he should buy his own contract out. What right do they think they have to dictate and effectively stick 2 fingers up to the authorities. your comments about Frost are obviously your opinions , but sadly imbalanced and i suspect without knowledge!! I Guess when Puk signed his contract with Boro he had that funny feeling that he might ride for Boro rather than not be wanted each season ...I sure of course your show me in the rule book or find a example when someone not wanted in his parent club side for that season has forced another club to buy that rider ? . My only comment about Frost on this subject have been that he not wanted Puk in his side, that is not imbalanced or without Knowledge it's happens to be true unless your saying otherwise . Not sure but did i missed your posts moaning about Boro not buying ThJ off Poole last year rather than loaning him ? Edited December 5, 2012 by orion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Nick Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Because they paid equally good money for Andersen, Batchelor and Bjerre and, wanting to use Sundstrom next year, can only use one more of them in their team. Just a thought! Or because they wanted to use PUK but he'd already done a deal with Kings Lynn? Who hadn't had permission to approach him? Just a thought 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.N.T. Posted December 6, 2012 Report Share Posted December 6, 2012 Peterborough 2013 ? ? 8.18 Kenneth Bjerre 7.72 Linus Sundstrom 6.57 Kenni Larsen 6.55 Krzysztof Buczkowski 5.50 Norbert Koscuich 4.98 Patrick Hougaard 3.00 Kyle Newman 42.50 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted December 6, 2012 Report Share Posted December 6, 2012 They are unwanted when the time is right for the club. Riders are aware of the contractual issues when they sign for a club. if they dont like it, dont sign!! As for Iversen, he has spent two seasons at Lynn courtesy of the Panthers. If he wants to go there, Lynn should either buy him or he should buy his own contract out. What right do they think they have to dictate and effectively stick 2 fingers up to the authorities. your comments about Frost are obviously your opinions , but sadly imbalanced and i suspect without knowledge!! BUT does he have a valid contract? That is the hub of the issue. Rider contracts with British clubs usually expire on October 31 for obvious reasons.... tracks don't want to pay riders during the close season. So, if Niels hasn't got a current contract how can he buy himself out of it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted December 6, 2012 Report Share Posted December 6, 2012 This is obviously proving a valid discussion, but unfortunately, most opinions are being dictated by the clubs you support instead of arguments for the rights and wrong of the asset system. I think, if we could get rid of this biasness and look at the system in its open mind, I believe a truer assessment will be seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted December 6, 2012 Report Share Posted December 6, 2012 I don't believe I am biased on the subject because of the club I support! I think the asset system is illegal in the UK and it makes no sense to "splash the cash" on riders that may or may not get a team place in the following seasons. Swindon have just bought Morris from Glasgow and I personally think it is a waste of money (although he is a decent rider). What did Glasgow actually do to deserve a 5 figure fee? Looking at Peterborough they have an impressive list of riders but you cannot accommodate all of them in a single team - so what is the point? Let's assume that Peterborough wanted PUK in their team this year - if he doesn't want to ride there you can't make him - so what is the point in having him as an asset? Yes - there is a loan fee to consider but what if PUK decided (like many before him) - I'm not riding in the UK any more - promoters have splashed out to make him an asset and he can ride all over Europe (except the Uk) with no loan fee - not a great investment really! Also, with the new European league - if you assume that an exiled asset comes back to ride in the UK as part of this league does that mean that the club who "owns" him in the UK gets a loan fee - as all matches in the UK are under the control of the BSPA/SCB? It is an outdated system that serves no real purpose nowadays especially in times of extended austerity! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted December 6, 2012 Report Share Posted December 6, 2012 This is obviously proving a valid discussion, but unfortunately, most opinions are being dictated by the clubs you support instead of arguments for the rights and wrong of the asset system. I think, if we could get rid of this biasness and look at the system in its open mind, I believe a truer assessment will be seen. Well this is a Peterborough thread and as we seem to be an asset charity for other clubs then it's not surprising that there is some bias. I was trying to find out the rules and process to find out how we end up letting our assets go elsewhere but end up with a worse team ourselves? Trouble is that the thread keeps getting hijacked by Lynn and Swindon fans, can't think why? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinny Posted December 6, 2012 Report Share Posted December 6, 2012 Swindon have just bought Morris from Glasgow and I personally think it is a waste of money (although he is a decent rider). What did Glasgow actually do to deserve a 5 figure fee? A lot more than what Swindon done for Miedzinski and then demanding a huge sum off Poole for him. 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.