Panthers 2013 Thread

[champs99]

You weren't saying that 2 years ago when your promoter put the sport in jeopardy and your club's very existence. He now seems hellbent in doing the same this year! There are two points of view and I am very glad that I support what Patch is saying and speaking out about an illegal system. Oddly enough, removing the asset system would ultimately give the level playing field your owner was banging on about 2 years ago

Well firstly you are assuming what i was saying 2 years ago, and secondly how did "my promoter" put the sport in jeopardy? You obviously misunderstood what the disagreement was about 2 years ago.The term "level playing field" was aimed at the same rules being applicable to all teams, and not changed to benefit a chosen few.

Finally, if your opinion is that abolishing the asset system will make for a level playing field,you are sadly mistaken, unless we just toss a coin to determine which rider goes to what team!!

[Steve0]

Well firstly you are assuming what i was saying 2 years ago, and secondly how did "my promoter" put the sport in jeopardy? You obviously misunderstood what the disagreement was about 2 years ago.The term "level playing field" was aimed at the same rules being applicable to all teams, and not changed to benefit a chosen few.

Finally, if your opinion is that abolishing the asset system will make for a level playing field,you are sadly mistaken, unless we just toss a coin to determine which rider goes to what team!!

 

Of course - level playing field doesn't mean just that - just the bits of the field where it suits

 

Finally, it is you who is sadly mistaken. Riders will freely go where they want to go - no need to toss a coin!

[500cc]

Now we have Patchett trying to re-write the rule book , and playing silly self centred little games. Take the matter to whatever court you see fit Mr Patchett, and you may well win, but at what price to the sport. I presume you dont care about that though, as long as your beloved Robins win the league at someone elses expense.

I don't think he has the slightest intention of going to court. He is simply pointing out that a rider who is put out of a job as a result of the asset system may mount a legal challenge. He also can see that the system as it stands could collapse any moment and without some guarantees he'd can't invest money that could conceivably be lost almost immediately.

 

Nothing he says differs from what I've been saying on this whole debate over the last week. There is a solution though. Separate the asset values from the riders. Calculate the asset value of each club. Through means of fees, charges etc equitably spread this across all clubs in such a way that those with no assets pay more (as they would with loan fees) and those with all assets pay significantly less. But riders must be separated and become free agents. But only those riders purchased count towards the asset value. So at Poole for example, Ward has value but Holder I believe wouldn't. Whether you get into to contra scenarios is more complex, I.e. is Ward a negative on KL. I suspect you can't. Equally riders no longer racing here need to ignored. Hancock is zero value to Coventry, as are Gollob and Hampel to Ipswich.

 

You can then get into multi year contracts, but the BSPA need to get their act together. They can't change rules on a whim preventing teams tracking riders under contract as those teams need to pay those riders under contract. In truth the running of the sport needs to be handed over to an independent arbitrator. But we've been there before.

[Irk Deflector]

You weren't saying that 2 years ago when your promoter put the sport in jeopardy and your club's very existence. He now seems hellbent in doing the same this year! There are two points of view and I am very glad that I support what Patch is saying and speaking out about an illegal system. Oddly enough, removing the asset system would ultimately give the level playing field your owner was banging on about 2 years ago

I thought Frost wanted an Independent body to run the sport - that wouldn't jeopardise the sport indeed it probably would put right the current wrongs including the Asset system.

 

It is regrettable that we will have to stick with BSPA self interest, BSPA inconsistencies and a slow death.

[champs99]

Of course - level playing field doesn't mean just that - just the bits of the field where it suits

 

Finally, it is you who is sadly mistaken. Riders will freely go where they want to go - no need to toss a coin!

so you dont think they will go the club who pays the most money?? Or should we make a rule where every club has to pay riders the same pay rates?

I don't think he has the slightest intention of going to court. He is simply pointing out that a rider who is put out of a job as a result of the asset system may mount a legal challenge. He also can see that the system as it stands could collapse any moment and without some guarantees he'd can't invest money that could conceivably be lost almost immediately.

 

Nothing he says differs from what I've been saying on this whole debate over the last week. There is a solution though. Separate the asset values from the riders. Calculate the asset value of each club. Through means of fees, charges etc equitably spread this across all clubs in such a way that those with no assets pay more (as they would with loan fees) and those with all assets pay significantly less. But riders must be separated and become free agents. But only those riders purchased count towards the asset value. So at Poole for example, Ward has value but Holder I believe wouldn't. Whether you get into to contra scenarios is more complex, I.e. is Ward a negative on KL. I suspect you can't. Equally riders no longer racing here need to ignored. Hancock is zero value to Coventry, as are Gollob and Hampel to Ipswich.

 

You can then get into multi year contracts, but the BSPA need to get their act together. They can't change rules on a whim preventing teams tracking riders under contract as those teams need to pay those riders under contract. In truth the running of the sport needs to be handed over to an independent arbitrator. But we've been there before.

great post, there are some good ideas you have come up with, but it needs promoters to want a common goal, and im not sure they all do. i just feel Patchett has done his self no favours this week, making bids for Riders, who by his own admission he clearly does nt want to purchase!

[Crump99]

Some people just dont like the truth. Carry on dreaming me ol mate

 

Firstly I'm not your ol mate and I'd assume (a bad habit of mine) thay you'd struggle to lie straight in bed?

[WembleyLion]

Given the current problems I'm not too surprised at Patchett's comments although I'm not sure his stated view is entirely consistent with his own actions in recently signing Doyle and Morris as full assets.

[Crump99]

 

so you dont think they will go the club who pays the most money??

 

 

That's what they are sleepwalking in to. Money still talks without control!

[champs99]

That's what they are sleepwalking in to. Money still talks without control!

i just wonder how legal the points limit rule is?

what would happen if Sullivan, Buzz, or any other rider wanting to ride in this country took the rule to court of the land, saying it was barring them from working the UK. We could start a whole new debate!!

[Crump99]

i just wonder how legal the points limit rule is?

what would happen if Sullivan, Buzz, or any other rider wanting to ride in this country took the rule to court of the land, saying it was barring them from working the UK. We could start a whole new debate!!

 

As they move the goalposts each year then that could be interesting, especially if you signed a team on the current team average before the AGM and then have to lose one or two riders because of it. Or if you sign riders before the AGM. It's a right Pandora's box

[Little-End]

Maybe Peterborough will use their own asset instead for once at reserve, plenty to choose from..... Poole, North, Vissing, Moller, Brzozowski

 

Doubt it , seems they prefer Loan Riders ?

 

Lucky

[dump that clutch]

i just wonder how legal the points limit rule is?

what would happen if Sullivan, Buzz, or any other rider wanting to ride in this country took the rule to court of the land, saying it was barring them from working the UK. We could start a whole new debate!!

 

IMO this statement would be laughed out of court. This is why contracts are not usually signed for more than a year due to the rule changes year on year.

If a rider has signed a 2 or more year deal then the club said "sorry, not riding here next year" then a court case could be deemed viable.

 

The asset system is very close to collapsing so the powers to be need to get their heads round a suitable 'deal' to please every party. How long this takes .... i have no idea.

[essaitch]

So, because it suits them, Swindon fans are suggesting we ignore what the rule book actually says, and do what they think is right instead?

OK, the asset system has faults, but surely we have to work with what is currently written?

[Daniel Smith]

So, because it suits them, Swindon fans are suggesting we ignore what the rule book actually says, and do what they think is right instead?

OK, the asset system has faults, but surely we have to work with what is currently written?

 

The problem is there are more & more teams / promoters as time goes by unable to afford to purchase assets. Finances are getting harder to control & are spiralling year on year. I believe the reason this has all gone up in the air has nothing to do with the tapping up etc, it's more the desperation from Peterborough needing the finances.

 

Before anyone bangs on about Peterborough / Coventry were forced to by so & so the economic climate at the time was very very different.

 

All promoters are scratching heads & asses to make ends meet. Sky is about to drop the sport for 2014 which is a major pot of money to the EL clubs.

 

Seriously, if you use common sense before loyalty to a club surely you can realise forcing clubs to purchase assets isn't the way to go right now.

 

The way forward in my opinion is to increase the value of loan fees. At this present time, this has to be the most logical option?????

[500cc]

i just wonder how legal the points limit rule is?

what would happen if Sullivan, Buzz, or any other rider wanting to ride in this country took the rule to court of the land, saying it was barring them from working the UK. We could start a whole new debate!!

A points limit rule is fine for a sport. It doesn't prevent an individual getting a job. It is a reasonable rule to equalise team strengths.

 

Anyway, you could argue the doubling-up rule is far more reducing available jobs.

 

Or the rule that you are too good to be allowed to ride in the Premier League (i.e. your average is too high).

 

Now if a rule were introduced saying none of last years top 20 were allowed to ride in British Speedway, then that would almost certainly by a restraint of trade.

 

But in the end there are a finite amount of available jobs and every rider has an opportunity to get a number of these jobs.

 

There is an interesting issue in speedway that doesn't tend to exist in other sports. Riders can be effectively sacked at anytime of the season. I'm assuming that they are not 'paid-off' for the rest of the season. Firstly that sounds a bit dodgy legally, although you might get away with it being within six months. But secondly a judge looking at the asset system will see on one hand a rider is restricted from free agency by being tied permanently to a club without any financial recompense, whereas on the other hand, a rider can be 'sacked' by a club even if he is over performing at the whim of a promoter who wants to re-declare his line-up, presumably without any financial recompense. And even then his future employment is dictated by the club who own's (but may have sacked) him. As a collective that wouldn't stand-up in court. Infact if its as bad as I paint it, I'd expect any judge to be very unsympathetic to any counter arguments made by the BSPA.

 

Assuming the BSPA accept the current asset system needs reforming (and without screwing those clubs with large - or any - investments, by the way), then a challenge is to manage the fact speedway is a sport where injuries are unfortunately common place. In most jobs, sacking an employee due to injury, especially when it occurred whilst working for you would not be allowed. You'd have to pay-out the length of contract. That is problematic in speedway. It's why riders will need to be involved in this process. If riders demand full employment rights, they are likely to put themselves out of a job as the sport just couldn't run that way.

 

Contracts would need to be written in such a way that the correct balance was reached. As long as a contract is reasonable and both parties agree, then there is no problem with their viability. It may be in the end that only short term rolling contracts are used.

[essaitch]

The problem is there are more & more teams / promoters as time goes by unable to afford to purchase assets. Finances are getting harder to control & are spiralling year on year. I believe the reason this has all gone up in the air has nothing to do with the tapping up etc, it's more the desperation from Peterborough needing the finances.

 

Before anyone bangs on about Peterborough / Coventry were forced to by so & so the economic climate at the time was very very different.

 

All promoters are scratching heads & asses to make ends meet. Sky is about to drop the sport for 2014 which is a major pot of money to the EL clubs.

 

Seriously, if you use common sense before loyalty to a club surely you can realise forcing clubs to purchase assets isn't the way to go right now.

 

The way forward in my opinion is to increase the value of loan fees. At this present time, this has to be the most logical option?????

As I put, surely the rules, as currently written, must be worked with? The AGM was the time to change the rules?

[500cc]

So, because it suits them, Swindon fans are suggesting we ignore what the rule book actually says, and do what they think is right instead?

OK, the asset system has faults, but surely we have to work with what is currently written?

I don't think that Swindon are trying to ignore the rule book. They are rightly concerned that the asset system is on the brink of collapse and they would be naive to further invest, especially any investment that would take a number of years to be realised.

 

The rules are a bit messy and inconsistent, but I'm not sure that a rider not included in a declared 1-7 has to be sold. Instead he is open to a loan. If that's right, you get into the issue as to when Peterborough declare. Waiting until the start of the season would not be in the interests of the sport.

 

Now if the rules or a BSPA decision dictate that Andersen and/or Batchelor must be purchased, then Swindon either buy them or look elsewhere. Whilst Swindon have their view on the situation at the moment, they haven't done anything to break the rules. An issue of illegal approach is a different matter (although there is obviously some relationship) and would obviously need dealing with if a complaint were made.

 

The problem as I see it is that Peterborough also see that the asset system may be about to collapse and are rightly trying to protect their investment. All it needs is the BSPA to step in and introduce a revised system ensuring the likes of Peterborough do not lose out financially.

[E I Addio]

 

Sky is about to drop the sport for 2014

Is that something you know for a fact or just what has been deduced from the BSF rumour mill ?

[stevebrum]

 

OK, the asset system has faults, but surely we have to work with what is currently written?

 

Some promotions can be `fairer` when they have an asset base that they can`t use in one team, instead of trying to hold other teams building plans to ransom.

 

The asset base system is pretty crumbly right now. However these teams with large asset bases shouldnt be out of pocket either.

 

They choose to buy up riders because they have the finance to do so, but when that systems starts to fail they have to bear some of that responsibility also.

 

Think the asset base system is archaic and another way forward needs to be implemented, but with some consideration to those who do have a large asset base already.

[mudflaps]

Some promotions can be `fairer` when they have an asset base that they can`t use in one team, instead of trying to hold other teams building plans to ransom.

 

You do talk sh!te Steve!

Edited January 10, 2013 by F P