RobStefenson Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 I would have thought a £3000 loan fee for Niels Kristian Iversen would have suited the Panthers management. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) Sorry if I quoted you, but it only in that I was agreeing with you about the farcical ‘2 out of the top rule’. The rest of my post was based on the fact the Panthers are dragging their heals in naming their side. So when should they have put their side together? They've found out it's not worth putting a team together before the AGM and after the AGM they found out some of their riders have already been offered team places elsewhere some time before. With these new rules in place, in puts an added emphasis on the riders not on the top list. These riders now become more important, and Promoters have to act quickly in acquiring their services. So dragging their heels, the panthers are doing nobody any favours and before you know it all the best available riders will spoken for. Some have been - without permission. Reading all that nonsense in the S.S yesterday, Julie Mahoney sounded like a school child saying “can’t play with my ball” rubbish. The fact that Niels has rode for the Stars for the last two years, of ‘cause they are going to talk, of ‘cause, there going to find out what they’re doing next year. It’s not as if Lynn went behind Peterboro’ back. Is she wrong though? There are rules in place and they should be adhered to. Of course promoters will talk to loanee riders the season before but no offer of a team place should be made before the rider is released by his parent club. PROBABLY had the Panthers promoters had been on the ball, they would have contacted Niels last year, and would have known where he wanted to ride and sorted it, instead arsing around and accusing Lynn of underhand practises. I'd bet they did. Only they and Puk know what was said then. I have every confidence the Niels issue will be sorted out , even if the MC is involved Maybe not the way you hope for. Different teams are involved and there's no pieces of silver on the table this time. When, you look at the other situation regarding Andersen and Batchelor, you wonder what’s going on…... Just a pity it can’t be sorted out amicably between the clubs. This way hasn’t done anybody any favours, least of all Peterborough… Why has sticking by the rules done Peterborough no favours? Rules state riders shouldn't be offered a team place by a rival club until released by their parent club. The way I see it, by the rules as they are at present, Peterborough are the only club coming out of this with any credibility. Why do you suppose these other clubs tapped up the riders in question? I would have thought a £3000 loan fee for Niels Kristian Iversen would have suited the Panthers management. So would I. But it's their choice and maybe they aren't happy with only a loan fee for a rider who 'only wants to ride for Lynn'. Edited December 14, 2012 by Vincent Blackshadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 Why has sticking by the rules done Peterborough no favours? Rules state riders shouldn't be offered a team place by a rival club until released by their parent club. The way I see it, by the rules as they are at present, Peterborough are the only club coming out of this with any credibility. Why do you suppose these other clubs tapped up the riders in question? The current asset system is rediculous. Any system that allows a club to acquire 25 to 30 riders for 7 man team is beyond consideration. It bears no benefit to the sport what so ever. You say the panthers have stuck to the rules, but who are they to dictate where a rider can, should or could earn a living. and please don't tell me you agree with that. You say that Peterborough are the only team to come out of this with any credibility, From where I stand, they are the only ones creating a fuss and one of the few clubs without a team .... YET! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 The current asset system is rediculous. Any system that allows a club to acquire 25 to 30 riders for 7 man team is beyond consideration. It bears no benefit to the sport what so ever. You say the panthers have stuck to the rules, but who are they to dictate where a rider can, should or could earn a living. and please don't tell me you agree with that. You say that Peterborough are the only team to come out of this with any credibility, From where I stand, they are the only ones creating a fuss and one of the few clubs without a team .... YET! Regardless of what you or I may think, the rules are the rules, Panthers have an asset base and no team should offer those riders a contract until Panthers' management allows it. They are not dictating anything although, for all we know, maybe they do have the right - Puk signed to be a Panthers' asset and must have agreed to whatever that entails. They have the right to offer their chosen riders from within their asset base a contract before any other team has a chance to nobble them but KL jumped in first, illegally, illicitly, against the rules. As for whether or not I agree with Panthers being able to dictate where a rider rides, I can only post what's been said before - Puk moved to Peterborough after money changed hands. It was ratified by the MC (they apparently got a cut) so is legit within the rules of the sport. We do not know what Puk signed but you can rest assured Mr Frost does. If that gave his parent club rights over the rider then Mr Frost has the right to stick to that. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 I can understand them wanting to sell their assets especially if Rick Frost is thinking this might be his last year at the club but often clubs can't sell their assets,Poole can't sell Crump,whats the point of Ipswich not selling Miskowiak,the list is endless,so it has to be Kings Lynn wanting to buy Niels or he goes on loan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 Regardless of what you or I may think, the rules are the rules, Panthers have an asset base and no team should offer those riders a contract until Panthers' management allows it. Didnt stop Poole signing Miedzinski. The riders will go where they want to, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomo1 Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) Didnt stop Poole signing Miedzinski. For which they were rightly fined and then paid a loan fee, as decided by the SCB adjudicators. The riders will go where they want to, Correct, subject to Promoters following the right procedures and getting punished if they don't!! Edited December 14, 2012 by Skidder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bagpuss Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 Is it the same though if the rider has already been on loan the year before? Are you telling me that Lakeside didn't have a conversation with Watt or Karlsson before the end of last season, or Swindon with Hans or Troy? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigcatdiary Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 The current asset system is rediculous. Any system that allows a club to acquire 25 to 30 riders for 7 man team is beyond consideration. It bears no benefit to the sport what so ever. You say the panthers have stuck to the rules, but who are they to dictate where a rider can, should or could earn a living. and please don't tell me you agree with that. You say that Peterborough are the only team to come out of this with any credibility, From where I stand, they are the only ones creating a fuss and one of the few clubs without a team .... YET! Personally as others explain Peterborough have done nothing wrong, they are suggesting Lynn have done otherwise and from what your club has openly said they have good grounds for believing that. I am sure if Lynn had an abundance of assets you might well be saying different but at the end of the day you had an opportunity to purchase a No 1 and elected to buy Schlein instead, whether that was good business bearing in mind your whole season next year seems to hang on signing an effective No 1 is very questionable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 Is it the same though if the rider has already been on loan the year before? Are you telling me that Lakeside didn't have a conversation with Watt or Karlsson before the end of last season, or Swindon with Hans or Troy? Exactly, this is my point, Knowing that talks would've taken place, then surely the riders parent club should be on the ball ,knowing what might happen next year. When we first heard about any problems with the Niels issue, it was said the problem was because Lynn wanted to loan the rider and Panthers preferred to sell their assett. I'm sure, had all the relevant parties sat round a table, a solution could have been sought. Even to the point of paying some of the agreed value off this year and the balance to follow. Its not Rocket science......No doubt Lynn would've paid a loan fee anyway.. But reading in the S/Star yesterday, Peterborough are now saying the problem is because Lynn didnt ask the Panthers permission to talk with Niels.. It appears they would put everything, in the way, rather then find a solution. Why make life so complicated..... Personally as others explain Peterborough have done nothing wrong, they are suggesting Lynn have done otherwise and from what your club has openly said they have good grounds for believing that. I am sure if Lynn had an abundance of assets you might well be saying different but at the end of the day you had an opportunity to purchase a No 1 and elected to buy Schlein instead, whether that was good business bearing in mind your whole season next year seems to hang on signing an effective No 1 is very questionable. Yeah, I can understand why you say that. but it still doesn't alter the fact of a crap Assett Scheme. Not being party to the deals involving Rory and Niels, i can only imagine, the decisions were made for the benefit of Kings Lynn Stars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren2 Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 Sorry if I quoted you, but it only in that I was agreeing with you about the farcical ‘2 out of the top rule’. The rest of my post was based on the fact the Panthers are dragging their heals in naming their side. With these new rules in place, in puts an added emphasis on the riders not on the top list. These riders now become more important, and Promoters have to act quickly in acquiring their services. So dragging their heels, the panthers are doing nobody any favours and before you know it all the best available riders will spoken for. Reading all that nonsense in the S.S yesterday, Julie Mahoney sounded like a school child saying “can’t play with my ball” rubbish. The fact that Niels has rode for the Stars for the last two years, of ‘cause they are going to talk, of ‘cause, there going to find out what they’re doing next year. It’s not as if Lynn went behind Peterboro’ back. PROBABLY had the Panthers promoters had been on the ball, they would have contacted Niels last year, and would have known where he wanted to ride and sorted it, instead arsing around and accusing Lynn of underhand practises. I have every confidence the Niels issue will be sorted out , even if the MC is involved When, you look at the other situation regarding Andersen and Batchelor, you wonder what’s going on…... Just a pity it can’t be sorted out amicably between the clubs. This way hasn’t done anybody any favours, least of all Peterborough… No worries was just a bit confused :-) Larsen can no longer fit in at cov as too high Oh great means we may end up with him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A ORLOV Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 I am not wanting to go totally off track but can a rider not be any clubs "asset" and negotiate his own contract for a specific period of time, or do the BSPA insist that a rider has to be or becomes an "asset" of his first club either at the outset or when having ridden a specific number of meetings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 Is it the same though if the rider has already been on loan the year before? Are you telling me that Lakeside didn't have a conversation with Watt or Karlsson before the end of last season, or Swindon with Hans or Troy? I'm sure lots of teams have conversations with lots of riders, no problem in that. What is a problem is deciding terms and offering a contract to ride before the parent club have given permission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Nick Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 I am not wanting to go totally off track but can a rider not be any clubs "asset" and negotiate his own contract for a specific period of time, or do the BSPA insist that a rider has to be or becomes an "asset" of his first club either at the outset or when having ridden a specific number of meetings. In years gone by a rider could own his own registration (John Davis owned his own I believe), but now the registration must be owned by a club/promoter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A ORLOV Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 Thanks Nick, it could be that this fact of now having to be registered/owned/which then becomes an "asset" of a club/promoter may be causing more problems than it may have solved, as Peterborough is finding out. A rider is bought and after one season does not want to ride for that club, then can leave either for another club in the uk, in which case a fee is to be paid, or abroad or gives up speedway and the club gets nothing. Accumulating all these riders is a decision that Peterborough has made and it may have paid off, but I do not see how they can insist that KL have to buy him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) Exactly, this is my point, Knowing that talks would've taken place, then surely the riders parent club should be on the ball ,knowing what might happen next year. But reading in the S/Star yesterday, Peterborough are now saying the problem is because Lynn didnt ask the Panthers permission to talk with Niels.. It appears they would put everything, in the way, rather then find a solution. How can you be on the ball when you don't know until November what little gems the BSPA are going to come up with or whether you'll pick up any late season injuries. If Peterborough gave permission without thinking or safeguards then that might be tough and Lynn or anyone else might have a case. If not then tough for assuming. Edited December 14, 2012 by Crump99 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobStefenson Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 Kings Lynn illegally approached Rory Schlein back in last August which left Mick Horton very angry and Lynn were forced into purchasing Rory Schlein as an asset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces51 Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 IF you went into a car showroom and bought a car on hire purchase but were told a couple of months into the agreement that the vehicle was going to someone else when you had paid for it would you (1) stop paying or (2) continue paying? Just asking... The above is a quote replying to a comment on another thread questioning if Belle Vue had paid the transfer fee for Rory Schlein. Make of it what you will but it could be interpreted that Rory was approached long befpre August, not to say though that was necessarily by Kings Lynn. Perhaps it is just coincidence that he has ended up there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigcatdiary Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 Kings Lynn illegally approached Rory Schlein back in last August which left Mick Horton very angry and Lynn were forced into purchasing Rory Schlein as an asset. I also heard Schlein was a done deal for Lynn months and posted such, it certainly wasn't a big secret. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DizzAssStar Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 Personally as others explain Peterborough have done nothing wrong Since when were restrictive employment practices "not wrong" ? I am sure if Lynn had an abundance of assets Think you'll find that KL have channelled their financial resources into the most precious asset of all ............. one which Pboro have never had and are never likely to have............... you see Pboro have to BORROW theirs.................... without access to one of these all rider "assets" are frankly..................... WORTHLESS. So I would say..... extremely good business on the part of KL. 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.