Bagpuss Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 Anyone else feel like they are going round and round in circles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 Anti-clockwise? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 I think you may have missed the point. Probably - refresh my memory, what was/is the point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 Every winter we talk about the asset system and every year nothing changes. Well I think the time is right to challenge this illegal system - it hasn't been legal since the Bosman ruling many years ago and what have the BSPA done to fall in line (when other sports have) - NOTHING! The BSPA cannot bury their heads in the sand forever on this illegal activity. It seems to me that two clubs in particular (Coventry and Peterborough) are using their "assets" as pawns - you can't do that with people's livelihoods! None of the riders concerned are under contract to anyone - they are self employed and the law of the land says that they are free to find employment wherever they want. But some (now illegal) rule in the BSPA rule book says that they have to wait until their "owners" have decided what to do with them - even when clearly they have no intention of using all of them. Even going to the lengths to deem an arrangement that has been in place for the last two years (re PUK) cannot proceed as it has for the last couple of years because they can ?!?!?! PUK has an offer of employment and someone else is preventing him earning a living - that is illegal - simple as! How can it be right that an employer from 3 years ago has a say in where you can and cannot ride or even if you can or cannot ride simply because they either "bought" you like a piece of meat or you did the required number of meetings to be "owned" whether you wanted to be or not? Rant over Whether the system is right or wrong is, in this instance, irrelevant. It is the current system and, until scrapped or altered for whatever reason, Peterborough have the right to insist on it being applied now. Under the current system clubs aren't allowed to tap up another club's asset without permission or before that rider has been circulated as not required by his parent club. In this instance, King's Lynn did offer a contract to another club's unreleased asset which is against the rules and there's a rule that a rider required for a third consecutive season be purchased. Peterborough have every right to insist on that - it is the rule, the law. There's plenty of laws folk don't agree with but have to abide by, but KL seem happy with the rule anyway since they've just purchased Schlein. Ok, you don't think the law is right. Fine, stump up the cash and challenge it because I can't see a promoter challenging it any time soon. How the Bosman ruling relates to this I have no idea since we're talking an unique system within a closed shop where riders are earning elsewhere not an out of contract footballer wishing to move clubs. Bosman has it's restrictions anyway doesn't it? Are players under a certain age exempt to allow clubs to recoup something for their investment in youth? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A ORLOV Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 It is not a law it is a BSPA rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trees Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 So is it a bonafide BSPA rule then or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rabbit Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 Does the rider per se become the 'asset' of a particular club or is it the rider's permit/licence whatever it is allowing him to ride professional speedway in GB that the parent club purchases and holds? If so, that would make for one very interesting court case should it be challenged and I wouldn't bet on the outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 (edited) Whether the system is right or wrong is, in this instance, irrelevant. It is the current system and, until scrapped or altered for whatever reason, Peterborough have the right to insist on it being applied now. Under the current system clubs aren't allowed to tap up another club's asset without permission or before that rider has been circulated as not required by his parent club. In this instance, King's Lynn did offer a contract to another club's unreleased asset which is against the rules and there's a rule that a rider required for a third consecutive season be purchased. Peterborough have every right to insist on that - it is the rule, the law. There's plenty of laws folk don't agree with but have to abide by, but KL seem happy with the rule anyway since they've just purchased Schlein. Ok, you don't think the law is right. Fine, stump up the cash and challenge it because I can't see a promoter challenging it any time soon. How the Bosman ruling relates to this I have no idea since we're talking an unique system within a closed shop where riders are earning elsewhere not an out of contract footballer wishing to move clubs. Bosman has it's restrictions anyway doesn't it? Are players under a certain age exempt to allow clubs to recoup something for their investment in youth? You come across on here as a typical disciple who accepts everything as correct. Don’t you ever question anything? The announced decision of the Puk situation actually stinks of conspiracy. I wonder how many people actually knew of this rule. But, no doubt you did…… Lynn wasn’t aware of this rule, Swindon wasn’t aware of this rule, and I’m sure had Peterborough had known of it, they would have took Lynn to court over it instead of the tapping up offence. One wonders, how long this ruling has been in force, does every club have to abide by it, Is it compulsory? Or is it just the lucky few…. I ask the question, because Mads, next year, will be on the third year loan spell from Swindon. And that move has already been sanctioned by the BSPA . Surely had this rule been known, the BSPA would never have sanctioned a move that contradicts it……. Strange…… Edited December 21, 2012 by GRW123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomo1 Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 Being aware of it and abiding by it or enforcing it are three very different things!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigcatdiary Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 Being aware of it and abiding by it or enforcing it are three very different things!! You forgot ignoring it 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bagpuss Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 Presumably the difference with Mads is that Swindon are happy for him to return to Lynn on loan once again. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 Presumably the difference with Mads is that Swindon are happy for him to return to Lynn on loan once again. I would be happy for Mads to join another team as well if i owned him.Nobody would be silly enough to buy him so you may as well get what you can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starboy118 Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 Presumably the difference with Mads is that Swindon are happy for him to return to Lynn on loan once again. Perhaps they don't know about the "rule" So is it a bonafide BSPA rule then or not? If only we knew! Does anybody? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbiter Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 Being aware of it and abiding by it or enforcing it are three very different things!! Blimey is that a excerpt from the Bible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 (edited) Perhaps they don't know about the "rule" If only we knew! Does anybody? It sounds a like a 'get-out' clause, invented to create a reason, to stop something from happening. Edited December 21, 2012 by GRW123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 (edited) You come across on here as a typical disciple who accepts everything as correct. Don’t you ever question anything? The announced decision of the Puk situation actually stinks of conspiracy. I wonder how many people actually knew of this rule. But, no doubt you did…… Lynn wasn’t aware of this rule, Swindon wasn’t aware of this rule, and I’m sure had Peterborough had known of it, they would have took Lynn to court over it instead of the tapping up offence. One wonders, how long this ruling has been in force, does every club have to abide by it, Is it compulsory? Or is it just the lucky few…. I ask the question, because Mads, next year, will be on the third year loan spell from Swindon. And that move has already been sanctioned by the BSPA . Surely had this rule been known, the BSPA would never have sanctioned a move that contradicts it……. Strange…… I've questioned things on here in the past but that's not what you are doing. There are rules in place and, whether we like them or not, the sport has to be run by those rules. Yes, I know that doesn't always happen but it's when things happen against the rules that I question them not on the occasions the rules are followed. KL were wrong to offer Puk a contract without permission from his parent club but you seem to want KL to get away with breaking a rule because you don't like the rule or the asset system in general (though I'd bet you liked it well enough when KL pocketed megabucks for selling Darcy). As it happens, I'm not a big believer in the current asset system either but it is the system adopted by British speedway and, whilst it's in force, has to be followed. You think this ruling stinks of conspiracy. Hmm, did you think that when things worked in your favour in 2010? Why do you say KL were unaware of the 3 yr loan rule, is it because they say so? They also said they were staying put in the PL two years back (even entering the PL KO Cup) but moved up when offered ...well, you know. They weren't exactly kosher then why should I believe they are now? And how do we know exactly why Peterborough took the case to the MC? Why would the MC have invoked a ruling neither side knew about? Wouldn't it have been easier to rule on whatever Panthers' complaint was rather than sit in judgement on something extra? Quite simply, you don't like the fact your promoters have had their collars felt for breaking current regulations and you're looking to blame everybody else for that but the guilty folk. KL were wrong in what they did, they agree perfectly well with the current asset system shown by their purchase of Rooboy and their cunning plan to get Puk on the cheap has failed. They thought that saying 'he only wants to ride for us' would sway the MC their way but it didn't. Edited December 21, 2012 by Vincent Blackshadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starboy118 Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 I've questioned things on here in the past but that's not what you are doing. There are rules in place and, whether we like them or not, the sport has to be run by those rules. Yes, I know that doesn't always happen but it's when things happen against the rules that I question them not on the occasions the rules are followed. In my view, KL were wrong to offer Puk a contract without permission from his parent club but you seem to want KL to get away with breaking a rule because you don't like the rule or the asset system in general (though I'd bet you liked it well enough when KL pocketed megabucks for selling Darcy). As it happens, I'm not a big believer in the current asset system either but it is the system adopted by British speedway and, whilst it's in force, has to be followed. You think this ruling stinks of conspiracy. Hmm, did you think that when things worked in your favour in 2010? Why do you say KL were unaware of the 3 yr loan rule, is it because they say so? They also said they were staying put in the PL two years back (even entering the PL KO Cup) but moved up when offered ...well, you know. They weren't exactly kosher then why should I believe they are now? And how do we know exactly why Peterborough took the case to the MC? Why would the MC have invoked a ruling neither side knew about? Wouldn't it have been easier to rule on whatever Panthers' complaint was rather than sit in judgement on something extra? Quite simply, you don't like the fact your promoters have had their collars felt for breaking current regulations and you're looking to blame everybody else for that but the guilty folk. KL were wrong in what they did, they agree perfectly well with the current asset system shown by their purchase of Rooboy and their cunning plan to get Puk on the cheap has failed. They thought that saying 'he only wants to ride for us' would sway the MC their way but it didn't. On the BSPA web-site it says "Ricky Wells is back for a third year at Woverhampton and a full transfer from parent club Coventry is a possibility". Only a possibility? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomo1 Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 On the BSPA web-site it says "Ricky Wells is back for a third year at Woverhampton and a full transfer from parent club Coventry is a possibility". Only a possibility? What it actually says is that they will open negotiations with Coventry as soon as Ricky has sorted his PL place with Sheffield!! The 'third year rule' only applies if the parent club want to let their asset leave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starboy118 Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 (edited) What it actually says is that they will open negotiations with Coventry as soon as Ricky has sorted his PL place with Sheffield!! The 'third year rule' only applies if the parent club want to let their asset leave. Is this third year rule written down anywhere? Is there a rule book? If yes, has anyone seen it? Is it published anywhere? How often is it updated? Can you gain access to it on the internet? So many questions and so few answers. That's speedway I guess. Edited December 21, 2012 by Starboy118 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 What it actually says is that they will open negotiations with Coventry as soon as Ricky has sorted his PL place with Sheffield!! The 'third year rule' only applies if the parent club want to let their asset leave. So it's not a Rule; its purely an Option that the parent club could use if required.......... Now I've heard it all..... Call them rules.... I call it a laughing stock... 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.