John Leslie Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 What have Bjerre and Sundstrom got to do with it. erm...keep up...They're Peterborough assets. Seems Peterborough have offered contracts to at least 5 riders of which they can only accommodate 2. I'm questioning why someone would do this and how they would fulfill the contracts if all the riders accepted. By your pathetic reply, I guess you don't know the answer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 (edited) Why don't Peterborough let them go out on loan and rake in the loan fees? If he doesn't intend on using them, only he will end up losing out (other than the riders of course). Rick can see that the asset system looks to be coming to an end so is trying to cash in before he may be left out of pocket. Thing is, Speedway is in such a financial state that clubs just cannot afford to splash the cash anymore. What evidence is there for this? A virtually asset-less club moaning they can't have a rider they illegally approached isn't going to influence those promoters that do have assets or the lower league clubs that make a quid or two when there assets move to Elite and it's promoters that will decide any future operations. I really can't see a rider challenging the 'system' through any courts anytime soon. Edited January 6, 2013 by Vincent Blackshadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 peterborough dont do anything without a fuss then when they cant get their own way they threaten to withdraw from the league Reminds me of "Move on Martin" on Talksport! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mini Jack Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 (edited) What evidence is there for this? A virtually asset-less club moaning they can't have a rider they illegally approached isn't going to influence those promoters that do have assets or the lower league clubs that make a quid or two when there assets move to Elite and it's promoters that will decide any future operations. I really can't see a rider challenging the 'system' anytime soon. It is plainly obvious that the asset system should come to an end. We could have this situation every winter otherwise. We are the only country to use it and it is flawed to high heaven. Talk of riders being prevented from earning and riders taking the asset system to the courts. NKI has called (and isn't the only one) for the asset system to cease. He says that it would be difficult to just scrap it due to clubs having invested heavily. However riders shouldn't be owned for life (which it seems at the moment until they retire or ate bought), they should have a fixed term contract like they do in Sweden, Poland etc. when this contract ends they are free to ride for and be paid by another club. It is then the riders choice/fault as to the contract length. My employment either ends when my contract ends or is extended if and when I agree to the terms presented by my bosses. If I wanted to leave at the end if my contract, my bosses would be powerless to stop me, regardless of whether they wish to utilise my services any further. What is so different, just because this is Speedway? Edited January 6, 2013 by Mini Jack 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 It is plainly obvious that the asset system should come to an end. We could have this situation every winter otherwise. We are the only country to use it and it is flawed to high heaven. Talk of riders being prevented from warning and riders taking the asset system to the courts. NKI has called (and isn't the only one) for the asset system to cease. He says that it would be difficult to just scrap it due to clubs having invested heavily. However riders shouldn't be owned for life (which it seems at the moment until they retire or ate bought), they should have a fixed term contract like they do in Sweden, Poland etc. when this contract ends they are free to ride for and be paid by another club. It is then the riders choice/fault as to the contract length. My employment either ends when my contract ends or is extended if and when I agree to the terms presented by my bosses. If I wanted to leave at the end if my contract, my bosses would be powerless to stop me, regardless of whether they wish to utilise my services any further. What is so different, just because this is Speedway? Yeah, ok. That's your opinion and it's shared by many others (including myself, as it happens). However, it's the promoters that decide the rules and I've yet to see one complaining about the system per se and one of the moment's biggest moaners was quite happy to go along with it recently by actually shelling out to make a rider an asset and quite happily pocketed probably a British record a few years ago when selling a rider. They're the ones that will decide if it's to be changed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 (edited) Why don't Peterborough let them go out on loan and rake in the loan fees? Firstly because we haven't announced our side yet, secondly because we're probably fed up with teams getting success using our riders (and yes I accept that some of that is our own fault.) and finally we may want to clear some of the deadwood, hence put up or shut up! Edited January 6, 2013 by Crump99 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans fan Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 Perhaps Kenneth Bjerre, Linus Sundstrom, Hans Andersen, Troy Batchelor, Neils Iversen et al, should all accept the Peterborough contracts and sue them for breach of contract when Peterborough can't fulfill them? lets stick to facts, well press releases puk has never been offered a contract for 2013, niether has batch, hans has,sundstroms signed, we're guessing bjerre has Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badge Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 I think if I was the Peterboro promotion or a fan, I'd want to know just why so many of their assets want to ride elsewhere!!!! Quite a long list of them now. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy robin Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 Very childish comment, what have Bjerre and Sundstrom got to do with it. Tell me, why dont Swindon buy them, or do you think P'boro exist to provide riders for Swindon after investing in those riders. Then why did Swindon have to loan Miedzinski to Poole when they wanted to sell him?. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 lets stick to facts, well press releases Quite a long list of them now. Just refresh our memory on the list Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans fan Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 I think if I was the Peterboro promotion or a fan, I'd want to know just why so many of their assets want to ride elsewhere!!!! Quite a long list of them now. it's not rocket science,they can't fit them in our fixture list is crap always will be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badge Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 Just refresh our memory on the list Why I put the unsure emoticon after the sentence but it would appear that Hans NKI Batch Piotr Swiderski (well that was back in his Ipswich days!!!) Not trying to stir up trouble here, but just pointing this out!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YerRopes Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 Very childish comment, what have Bjerre and Sundstrom got to do with it. Tell me, why dont Swindon buy them, or do you think P'boro exist to provide riders for Swindon after investing in those riders. It's a valid point and highly amusing too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans fan Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 (edited) Why I put the unsure emoticon after the sentence but it would appear that Hans NKI Batch Piotr Swiderski (well that was back in his Ipswich days!!!) Not trying to stir up trouble here, but just pointing this out!! iversen wants regular race nights and seems to have settled in well at lynn ,made huge strides,if you was him would you want to return ???batch falls out with everbody, would fall out with his own shadow if it was possible i'm quite surprised how he lasted as long as he did at pboro if hans was offered the right money would he return ??? swidders if you believe the rumours he'll not return why a certain somebodys at the club Edited January 6, 2013 by hans fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mini Jack Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 Yeah, ok. That's your opinion and it's shared by many others (including myself, as it happens). However, it's the promoters that decide the rules and I've yet to see one complaining about the system per se and one of the moment's biggest moaners was quite happy to go along with it recently by actually shelling out to make a rider an asset and quite happily pocketed probably a British record a few years ago when selling a rider. They're the ones that will decide if it's to be changed. The promoters may make up the rules, often as they go along. However they don't make up the law of the land. If my current employer tried to prevent me from moving to another company, just because they wished for me to stay, I'm pretty sure the legal system would have a field day. I agree however that for a rider to take it to either the UK or EU courts would not be timely or financially beneficial to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 (edited) Why I put the unsure emoticon after the sentence but it would appear that Hans NKI Batch Piotr Swiderski (well that was back in his Ipswich days!!!) Not trying to stir up trouble here, but just pointing this out!! Hardly long or growing though. When you've got Andersen and Batchelor in the camp then grief is always just around the corner. Disappointed about Iversen and his rantings but if that's the way he feels then so be it. If he had a real gripe you'd have thought it would have been after this when many of us never wanted to see him again anyway http://www.peterboro...rs-pair-1-85292 And it seems that speedway communications are a common theme as Iversen points out here http://www.peterboro...e-worst-1-90412 I've often heard that rumour about Swiderski but nobody will stick their head above the parapet so it's just trouble making as it stands. Edited January 6, 2013 by Crump99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 (edited) The promoters may make up the rules, often as they go along. However they don't make up the law of the land. If my current employer tried to prevent me from moving to another company, just because they wished for me to stay, I'm pretty sure the legal system would have a field day. I agree however that for a rider to take it to either the UK or EU courts would not be timely or financially beneficial to them. You, probably like me when I was still earning, only have one job. The men we're talking about already have two or three jobs within the EU without working in this country. In effect, they'd be asking the court to sanction their moonlighting and that's something I can't see being tackled with any haste. But it's only opinion and we'll all know two or three years after a rider does take legal action against their parent promoter. Any bets who'll be first and when? Edited January 6, 2013 by Vincent Blackshadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 it is when the club you are dealing with isn't playing silly buggers. Had Newcastle said "No, buy him or go away" would it have been so easy? Swindon asked for permission to talk to the riders, and are still waiting for a reply. So in response Peterborough decide that they will offer them contracts (knowing that they don't really want them in their team), to try & force Swindon into buying them. After the Miedzinski saga last season I'm sure you can understand why Swindon don't see the need to buy both riders, having made an offer for Hans. Good point. And lets face it, it always seems to be the same few clubs that want to play silly bu*gers when dealing with other clubs. Right or wrong, depends on your stand pont. I think if I was the Peterboro promotion or a fan, I'd want to know just why so many of their assets want to ride elsewhere!!!! To be honest so would i! Saying that, i`m not really surprised though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 To be honest so would i! Saying that, i`m not really surprised though. Have you got a bigger and better list than badge or are you just latching on as per usual? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 Have you got a bigger and better list than badge or are you just latching on as per usual? The usual retort as expected. I don`t state any lists other than what we already know. 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.