E I Addio Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 Where, in your scenario, has Ben agreed to accept the offer and that he'd ride for Coventry? He only stated it seemed a good offer. If that's binding then several riders a year agree to ride for more than one club. Correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) Then that really would be stupid & petty. Â Whch would be a bit rich coming from Swindon but would be somewhat comforting to be recognised as a feeder club to one of the minor clubs as we help them become more established. Edited January 7, 2013 by Crump99 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E I Addio Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 Or conversation may also go something like:   Mick: Ben, I'd like to offer you a 2013 team spot and I'm willing to offer you £xxx per point. Ben: That's great Mick, you've got yourself a deal.  Graham Drury: Ben, Good news Birmingham have changed their race night so I can get you in the team after all. Ben: Oh bugger, I've already agreed to ride for Coventry Graham Drury: Oh dear, have you actually got anything in writing? Did you sign anything? Ben: No. I just agreed it verbally. Graham Drury: OK, well just deny everything. Say you never agreed, you were just thinking about it.   Of course I'm not suggesting anyone would do anything dishonest like that, but you invented a hypothetical conversation. I'm just demonstrating how easy it is to make up a different hypothetical conversation It would have been a simple thing for Horton to e-mail Barker a copy of the contract and ask Barker to e-mail his confirmation by return. Pretty much standard business practice, would have taken minutes to do and removed any doubt. Its difficult to understand why a businessman like Mick Horton would not do something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomo1 Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 It would have been a simple thing for Horton to e-mail Barker a copy of the contract and ask Barker to e-mail his confirmation by return. Pretty much standard business practice, would have taken minutes to do and removed any doubt. Its difficult to understand why a businessman like Mick Horton would not do something like that. by text is even quicker!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mini Jack Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) Where, in your scenario, has Ben agreed to accept the offer and that he'd ride for Coventry? He only stated it seemed a good offer. If that's binding then several riders a year agree to ride for more than one club.  Precisely my point. Mick Horton is the one who is stating Ben has agreed to ride for them but he is yet to produce any form of contractual agreement.  Unless Ben has signed on the dotted line, there is no agreement despite what Mick might think.  Or conversation may also go something like:   Mick: Ben, I'd like to offer you a 2013 team spot and I'm willing to offer you £xxx per point. Ben: That's great Mick, you've got yourself a deal.  Graham Drury: Ben, Good news Birmingham have changed their race night so I can get you in the team after all. Ben: Oh bugger, I've already agreed to ride for Coventry Graham Drury: Oh dear, have you actually got anything in writing? Did you sign anything? Ben: No. I just agreed it verbally. Graham Drury: OK, well just deny everything. Say you never agreed, you were just thinking about it.   Of course I'm not suggesting anyone would do anything dishonest like that, but you invented a hypothetical conversation. I'm just demonstrating how easy it is to make up a different hypothetical conversation  Absolutely agreed, however, if Mick can produce a contract with Ben's signature then all will be resolved. Edited January 7, 2013 by Mini Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Leslie Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 Unless Ben has signed on the dotted line, there is no agreement despite what Mick might think. A verbal contract is just as binding as a written one. (Though it is obviously difficult to prove if one party later denies it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mini Jack Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 It would have been a simple thing for Horton to e-mail Barker a copy of the contract and ask Barker to e-mail his confirmation by return. Pretty much standard business practice, would have taken minutes to do and removed any doubt. Its difficult to understand why a businessman like Mick Horton would not do something like that. Â If that's how he conducts business or doesn't for that matter then he is in for a rough ride. Â A verbal contract is just as binding as a written one. (Though it is obviously difficult to prove if one party later denies it). Â Proving the agreement is Mick's problem. Â Providing all terms and conditions have been reached and agreed regarding services and terms of pay. The agreement would be be incomplete when there are still further terms and conditions to be agreed. Agreements in principle will not usually be upheld in court and will not usually be considered complete. Â If it was just a quick conversation then I doubt very much that it will stand, it is up to Mick to prove that Ben agreed in full. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans fan Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) A verbal contract is just as binding as a written one. (Though it is obviously difficult to prove if one party later denies it). yep , in horse racing k fallon had a verbal agreement to ride a certain horse in the derby , he then decided he wanted to ride something else, the owners off the horse who he had the verbal agreemen with took him to court and the judged ruled in there favour he wasn't allowed to ride the other horse Edited January 7, 2013 by hans fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mini Jack Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) yep , in horse racing k fallon had a verbal agreement to ride a certain horse in the derby , he then decided he wanted to ride something else, the owners off the horse who he had the verbal agreement took him to court and the judged ruled in there favour he wasn't allowed to ride the other horse  Up to Mick then to decide if he has enough evidence to confirm his "verbal agreement" with Ben is legally binding. Like I said, all the i's need to have been dotted and the t's crossed, of course, witnesses would have helped.  Apologies Panthers fans for hijacking the thread. Edited January 7, 2013 by Mini Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans fan Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 Up to Mick then to decide if he has enough evidence to confirm his "verbal agreement" with Ben is legally binding. Like I said, all the i's need to have been dotted and the t's crossed, of course, witnesses would have helped. Â Apologies Panthers fans for hijacking the thread. the thing is none of us know what actually is written when a rider signs a contract,people keeping banging on a restraint of trade and stuff, but we simply don't what they've signed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPanther Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 Up to Mick then to decide if he has enough evidence to confirm his "verbal agreement" with Ben is legally binding. Like I said, all the i's need to have been dotted and the t's crossed, of course, witnesses would have helped. Â Apologies Panthers fans for hijacking the thread. Correct, he would need witnesses to confirm this verbal agreement. Also, would it be wise to include a rider who clearly wants away. The system is clearly not working in the present financial climate. Time to scrap the asset system and make riders free agents to sign 1 or 2yr contracts, with a loan fee system for assets that were purchased, winding down to a time when the purchase fees have been recouped. Freeing up transfer and loan fee monies would surely ensure the future of domestic speedway, which is what we all want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woz01 Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 Why are we discussing this? The BSPA have ruled that if you want to use Ben then you have to buy him. Doesnt matter who said what now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spencebel Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 Speedwaygp site,says Swindon put in 2nd offer for Hans.(first one rejected). Also they want to speak with KB,if Hans stays a Panther. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) Speedwaygp site,says Swindon put in 2nd offer for Hans.(first one rejected). Also they want to speak with KB,if Hans stays a Panther. Â They do like the Swindon Panthers tag don't they! Â Are they going to buy Bjerre because he'll come more expensive than our valuation of Hans which I doubt they've got anywhere near, or do they want another cheap loan deal of our assets? Edited January 7, 2013 by Crump99 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spencebel Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 I agree. Hans & KB have the same average. Also Gary P says that KB is a good rider. Looks like they are determined to have one of the other of OUR riders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mini Jack Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 Why are we discussing this? The BSPA have ruled that if you want to use Ben then you have to buy him. Doesnt matter who said what now. Â According to who? O yes that's right ONLY the Bees website where Mick can spout whatever he feels. Where else is this published? Â It may well be that Brum have to buy Ben but let's just wait until the 15th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) I agree. Hans & KB have the same average. Also Gary P says that KB is a good rider. Looks like they are determined to have one of the other of OUR riders. Â Hope they don't forget Ryan Sullivan as they are so concerned about riders welfare. He'd probably welcome an approach from Swindon. Edited January 7, 2013 by Crump99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woz01 Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 Â Â According to who? O yes that's right ONLY the Bees website where Mick can spout whatever he feels. Where else is this published? Â It may well be that Brum have to buy Ben but let's just wait until the 15th. Â According to the Peterborough who also mentioned it in there press release. The BSPA didnt announce that KL had to buy Schlein after they tapped him up and also havent announced there findings about Peterborough against Swindon and KL, they have seem to have left it to the promotions involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunRobin Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 They do like the Swindon Panthers tag don't they! Â Are they going to buy Bjerre because he'll come more expensive than our valuation of Hans which I doubt they've got anywhere near, or do they want another cheap loan deal of our assets? So are you saying that if you have more assets than you can use under this season's rules, the assets that you own should not be allowed to ride elsewhere. Face up to it, the asset system is on it's last legs, last season's ruling on AM proved that! Who is going to shell out hard cash on a rider if your wishes can be overridden by the BSPA committee. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mini Jack Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) So are you saying that if you have more assets than you can use under this season's rules, the assets that you own should not be allowed to ride elsewhere. Face up to it, the asset system is on it's last legs, last season's ruling on AM proved that! Who is going to shell out hard cash on a rider if your wishes can be overridden by the BSPA committee. Â That is the problem. The Management Committee are saying the for example Birmingham should buy BB (or at least we are told - which is not an official press release from the powers that be) yet last year it was ruled that Poole could loan AM. Who is going to step in and be consistent? Surely AM set the precedent? Edited January 7, 2013 by Mini Jack 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.