Steve0 Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 I don't think that should come into it. There should be set rules about when an asset should be purchased and when they should not be. Rider averages, financial value or scope for improvement should have no bearing on whether the asset should be purchased or not, only what the purchase price, if necessary, should be. The problem is, the rules do not appear to be applied consistently. Here are some examples I can think of,although, I admit,, time may have clouded my accuracy. Nicholls wanted to come to Coventry, Ipswich wanted to keep him, Coventry had to buy Nicholls from Ipswich. Kennett wanted to come to Coventry, Eastbourne wanted to keep him, Coventry had to buy Kennett from Eastbourne. Hancock wanted to go to Oxford, Coventry wanted him to ride for them, Oxford got to loan him. Meidzinski wanted to go to Poole, Swindon wanted him to ride for them, Poole got to loan him. Sure there are plenty more. Was there a similar situation with Chrzanowski and Swindon and Poole? You have made some good points. If the rules are that he needs to be purchased then so be it. I just think that it's a shame that he will potentially not be riding next year which is a lose/lose situation all round. Peterborough will get no loan fees for him (unless he goes to BV), KL will be without their preferred rider (unless they can find the money to purchase him) and PUK will be denied earning a living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YerRopes Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Waiting on official confirmation but it's looking like bad news for us Stars It's buy Iversen or look for another option. BSPA won't sanction the side with Iversen as a loan rider. Apparently it's an EL agreement (I have no idea) that a rider on loan at one club, if required for a 3rd year has to be purchased I can understand Frost being upset that hardly any of his assets want to ride for his club.. However, what purpose does this serve, but to only weaken KL and deny Pboro a loan fee - so perhaps the former is what it's all about. How sad, if true... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 So PUK has to sit out the EL season just because some megalomaniac won't play ball - speedway keeps shooting itself in the foot surely it is better to get a loan fee rather than nothing? Will PUK be brave enough to try the legal route? Why is Frost a megalomaniac ? if the rule is that in the 3rd season you have to buy the rider then yet again he is doing nothing wrong ..as i see it the ball is in KL court, if they want him they can buy him . As for Puk i doubt with his heavy work load this year he will to upset about missing the uk anyhow . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G the Bee Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 I imagine it's Puk or no one for Lynn. So they will have to buy him. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that both Lynn and Birmingham need to build up their asset base at the top end of the team. It was fair enough them loaning top level riders whilst they became established in the EL but they are both entering their third season in the EL now. The only rider I can recall Birmingham purchasing in that time is Danny King (though I stand to be corrected). Kings Lynn I have no idea about. Whether we agree with it or not, the promoters run an asset system. I certainly think it is not unreasonable to suggest to any club that if you wish to retain the services of a rider for three consecutive seasons you should have to buy him if the owning club wishes. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigcatdiary Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 (edited) Waiting on official confirmation but it's looking like bad news for us Stars It's buy Iversen or look for another option. BSPA won't sanction the side with Iversen as a loan rider. Apparently it's an EL agreement (I have no idea) that a rider on loan at one club, if required for a 3rd year has to be purchased That did used to be a BSPA rule, that a team taking the same rider on loan for 3 consecutive seasons had to buy him on the 3rd year but I don't remember Lukas Dryml being bought by Eastbourne advertised and by my records that is 4 consecutive years. Edited December 19, 2012 by bigcatdiary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 That did used to be a BSPA rule, that a team taking the same rider on loan for 3 consecutive seasons had to buy him on the 3rd year but I don't remember Lukas Dryml being bought by Eastbourne advertised and by my records that is 4 consecutive years. Maybe that rule is only in place if a team force it to be apply . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigcatdiary Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Maybe that rule is only in place if a team force it to be apply . Well if it was me I would have told Eastbourne to Bogof As in buy one Dryml get one one free. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starboy118 Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Maybe that rule is only in place if a team force it to be apply . Or maybe it's all just being made up as we go along. After all, that's what normally happens, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Or maybe it's all just being made up as we go along. After all, that's what normally happens, isn't it? As if that would happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 So lets assume that KL don't buy PUK. Does that mean that Peterborough will pay him next year - as he is one of their assets who had a job offer elsewhere (which he accepted) but was prevented from doing so by Peterborough. When you are impacting on someone earning a living - that is where the asset system is very wrong. If he has a contract with them and they are stopping him earning elsewhere then surely they should pay him the equivalent what KL offered to sit the year out - seems fair to me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 Once again, another stupid rule that doesn't benefit the sport one bit. Shouldn't there be a rule somewhere thats sez ' If a rider hasn't ridden for a club for 3 yrs he should be released' from his contract He obvoiusly doesn't want to ride for them. But at the end of the day it's all about money. Whats the transfer value of Niels, taking in consideration, his age; his improvement factor; his average.???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A ORLOV Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) Whats the transfer value of Niels, taking in consideration, his age; his improvement factor; his average.???? If he decides not to ride in the uk the transfer value is zero, and Peterborough, KL, NKI and the fans lose out, Edited December 20, 2012 by A ORLOV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 Again speedway has shown how it is run as a Micky mouse sport,can't believe this couldn't of been resolved.I hope NKI maybe considers the legal route i would of thought he would have a great case.But again the supporter is punished by not seeing him ride and the EL has one less star( there isn't many).I feel sorry for the Kings Lynn supporters more than anyone but this is speedway we are talking about.As for Peterborough get your ass into gear and choose your team! they have had long enough all these issues should of been discussed and resolved at the end of the season. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BANANAMAN Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) If he decides not to ride in the uk the transfer value is zero, and Peterborough, KL, NKI and the fans lose out, Very true ....... The transfer value of riders is a bit vague to me . i can only remember a few riders having been purchased for what i call substantial fees ,most of them by Coventry !! If clubs have riders who they have never paid for why do they expect a fee when the rider moves on ? Its like a merry go round this time of year A goes to B, B goes to C ... But the problem arises now there is not enough quailty riders to go around . Not much point having £50,000 in the bank & no No1 is there ? Edited December 20, 2012 by BANANAMAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 I believe the Panther’s action involving the current asset system has highlighted everything that is wrong with the system. The rules are tired and ancient and have no consideration of the present situation. The Panther’s seem to think they are more important then the sport, and have the controlling power over riders and to tell them where they ride. My suggestion to this is to tell Frost where to stick all his riders and for each club to look elsewhere. Imagine the situation then: Peterborough would only be allowed to use 2 of their asset riders. 1) They would have many unhappy riders missing out on work. 2) The League would be in uproar because of all the quality riders missing. 3) Peterborough would have all these assets that no-body wants and therefore getting no reward from loan fees. 4) It would show the Asset System up for what it is. Wouldn’t that be wonderful? Probably then, the BSPA would realise just how inept this system really is and do something about it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game On Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 I believe the Panther’s action involving the current asset system has highlighted everything that is wrong with the system. The rules are tired and ancient and have no consideration of the present situation. The Panther’s seem to think they are more important then the sport, and have the controlling power over riders and to tell them where they ride. My suggestion to this is to tell Frost where to stick all his riders and for each club to look elsewhere. Imagine the situation then: Peterborough would only be allowed to use 2 of their asset riders. 1) They would have many unhappy riders missing out on work. 2) The League would be in uproar because of all the quality riders missing. 3) Peterborough would have all these assets that no-body wants and therefore getting no reward from loan fees. 4) It would show the Asset System up for what it is. Wouldn’t that be wonderful? Probably then, the BSPA would realise just how inept this system really is and do something about it. Don't be daft that requires common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A ORLOV Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) http://speedwaygp.co...et-system-anger Following comments from NKI, and Hans, now Troy is getting fed up with what is happening, or not happening. Edited December 20, 2012 by A ORLOV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 Following comments from NKI, and Hans, now Troy is getting fed up with what is happening, or not happening. Whats happening is Frost is messing everyone around in the hope of selling his assets. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haza Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 Waiting on official confirmation but it's looking like bad news for us Stars It's buy Iversen or look for another option. BSPA won't sanction the side with Iversen as a loan rider. Apparently it's an EL agreement (I have no idea) that a rider on loan at one club, if required for a 3rd year has to be purchased and this information came from ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomo1 Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 and this information came from ??? This week's BSPA meeting, probably!! 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.