Vincent Blachshadow Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 Exactly!!! I don't suppose the Chapmans knew of the rule, or anyone else did for that matter. Surely had they been aware of a rule like this, don't you think they would have purchased Niels instead of Rory..Cos they would... Peterborou didn't go to the MC because of Lynn breaking his 'So-called rule' they went because Lynn spoke to Niels first without talking to Panthers. Why wouldn't they have known about that rule? How do you know KL weren't trying to pull a flanker by signing the rider they might not get as a full asset in the belief that they would be allowed to sign the one that 'only wants to ride for Lynn' despite the 3rd season rule. How do you know why Peterborough went to the MC? Their rider was approached before being released by a team that'd had him on loan for the past two years. Could have been a double complaint Who knows who voted for what. The sport is all about secret 'goings-on' and if the face fits. We hear about riders assets but we never see laid down rules and guidlines so each of us supporters or/and riders knows whats happening. and may be you got it wrong. the Chapmans have, in the last 20 years devoted all their time and money into this sport. Unlike a lot of promoters they have done it from the bottom, buying premises and building the whole package. They own the stadium, and fund the presentation from the grass roots upwards, They're not like the majority of promoters who rent their race track on race night only. they're in it for the duration. Any spare cash going has to be juggled between track or riders . I am in no doubt, whatever Buster did he did for the sport and not for personal rewards..... Your point being? Are you suggesting they should be allowed to illegally approach other promoters' assets or that they be allowed to circumvent a rule because they own their own stadium? Shame really, how this Micky Mouse sport just has to keep shooting itself in the foot. When looking on the world stage, we are regarded as the 4 th best country in the speedway world . In each of the top three, Poland, Sweden and Denmark , they have depensed with an asset system and replaced it with one of contracts. Why cant we do the same.???? Because several clubs have paid out for these assets and others have accepted money for their assets transferring them to another club - your's also, probably the record fee received by a promoter. Now you want these assets to be made illegal. Unbelievable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrss Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 why dont peterborough accept puk wont ride for them and move on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 THE crux of all this is whether the rules are legitimate. Cannot reveal names but a few years (not too many) ago when a new promoter was coming into speedway he enquired of his lawyer, an expert on European law, what she thought of the BSPA rulebook and specifically riders with no contracts being classified as assets. Apparently he had to pick her up off the floor because she was laughing so much. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) THE crux of all this is whether the rules are legitimate. Cannot reveal names but a few years (not too many) ago when a new promoter was coming into speedway he enquired of his lawyer, an expert on European law, what she thought of the BSPA rulebook and specifically riders with no contracts being classified as assets. Apparently he had to pick her up off the floor because she was laughing so much. Exactly my point! It will take just one wronged rider to resolve this through the courts and the problem will be resolved once and for all - PUK would be a good candidate as he is the one losing out in all this through no fault of his! It the only way to have a truly level playing field Edited December 20, 2012 by Steve0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigcatdiary Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 THE crux of all this is whether the rules are legitimate. Cannot reveal names but a few years (not too many) ago when a new promoter was coming into speedway he enquired of his lawyer, an expert on European law, what she thought of the BSPA rulebook and specifically riders with no contracts being classified as assets. Apparently he had to pick her up off the floor because she was laughing so much. I have no doubt the whole asset system will laughed out of court IF and only IF it ever gets that far, but who Phil is going to challenge it. The BSPA are a law entirely governed and policed by their own and the SCB are about as much use as a chocolate teapot. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 THE crux of all this is whether the rules are legitimate. Cannot reveal names but a few years (not too many) ago when a new promoter was coming into speedway he enquired of his lawyer, an expert on European law, what she thought of the BSPA rulebook and specifically riders with no contracts being classified as assets. Apparently he had to pick her up off the floor because she was laughing so much. You're probably right. The system could well be somewhat unique and a court may well rule the system illegal. They may also rule that certain payments may have to be repaid since the receiving clubs (and, no doubt some riders) had no right to the money in the first place. How much have, for instance, King's Lynn got of the 40 grand or thereabouts they illegally took off of Poole should they have to give it back? It's not as easy as just going to court. Suppose, just suppose, the court upholds the system since it's an agreement within a closed shop. Has Puk got the money he'd have to pay in costs because you can bet he'd be on his own once things started going wrong. By far the best way is for the MC to come up with something all promoters agree with regarding current assets and a system for later implementation. The sport can't afford another lot of court costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 I VERY much doubt that a challenge would come from any promoter - rocking the boat and all that - but I can see the day when a rider will take issue with the whole asset farce. It is one thing trying to prevent an out-of-contract rider going elsewhere if the club claiming him as an asset wants to use him. But trying to prevent a rider from earning a living when the parent club don't even want him is even more outrageous and, surely, illegal. Personally, I doubt that it would even get to court given that the system is basically indefensible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YerRopes Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 I have limited knowledge and little interest in the minutiae of speedway's rule book.. Surely everything was blown wide open (by Poole) last year when they stole a Swindon asset on I believe a 5.57 average, used him up and then through him out (agreed to) on an 8.21 average - only to replace him with a much better rider - KK. If this had not happened, perhaps AM would be part of the Swindon's team - but Poole destroyed him as an option for Swindon The precedent has now been set by Poole.. Pboro can get as stroppy as they like, (which they seem to be doing) but at the end of the day, you cannot force someone to work for you if they don't want too.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans fan Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 I have limited knowledge and little interest in the minutiae of speedway's rule book.. Surely everything was blown wide open (by Poole) last year when they stole a Swindon asset on I believe a 5.57 average, used him up and then through him out (agreed to) on an 8.21 average - only to replace him with a much better rider - KK. If this had not happened, perhaps AM would be part of the Swindon's team - but Poole destroyed him as an option for Swindon The precedent has now been set by Poole.. Pboro can get as stroppy as they like, (which they seem to be doing) but at the end of the day, you cannot force someone to work for you if they don't want too.. the difference between A M and puk A M nevered agreed to do a full season with the pirates Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YerRopes Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 the difference between A M and puk A M nevered agreed to do a full season with the pirates Totally irrelevant.. A Swindon asset was nicked by Poole on 5.57 and then available to Swindon on 8.21. If he was available to Swindon after May on 5.57,then you may have a point...but that was not the case... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 I think what many on here are forgetting is it is not in Kings Lynn's interests to have the asset system challenged either. They have assets too, albeit few at the level of top EL riders due to the amount of time they spent in the PL. Over time they have been and will continue to be receiving loan fees and benefits from rider sales like any other clubs. I wonder if posters like GRW123 were anti the asset system a few years ago when Poole shelled out a fortune to buy Darcy Ward from Kings Lynn? Of course, under his suggestion, Poole could have loaned Darcy from Lynn for the 2010 and 2011 seasons and he would have been able to have been released from his Kings Lynn contract, and join Poole for free at the beginning of the 2012 season. The problem is, people are only thinking about the current situation with Iversen etc and not previous occasions where their clubs have benefited from the asset system. I wonder...... Going back to the Darcy Ward situation, yes it was a big issue. brought about only because Lynn were in the PL and that Darcy wanted to ride in the Elite. No doubt had Lynn been in the top league then probably he Could have stayed at Lynn. As has been said, there are promoters who have paid out decent money, there are some who have acquired riders for nothing. Just because the asset system worked once, it's not a reason to carry it on indefinately. When some clubs hold the majority of the cards then it's time to change. That doesn't mean it happens straight away, Rules could be put in place now for clubs to relinquish their riders, a process that could , say in 3 yrs time. and those rides who haven't signed be released now. The sport has to move forward and not be governed, just because of whats happened in the past. You're probably right. The system could well be somewhat unique and a court may well rule the system illegal. They may also rule that certain payments may have to be repaid since the receiving clubs (and, no doubt some riders) had no right to the money in the first place. How much have, for instance, King's Lynn got of the 40 grand or thereabouts they illegally took off of Poole should they have to give it back? It's not as easy as just going to court. Another pathetic comment. The move wasn't illegal then... Whatever Poole paid for Darcy Ward, they will agree, they have been repaid 10 times overs... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans fan Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 As has been said, there are promoters who have paid out decent money, there are some who have acquired riders for nothing. are you privvy to that info then ??? if you think that clubs get riders as assets for nothing your mistaken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted December 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 are you privvy to that info then ??? if you think that clubs get riders as assets for nothing your mistaken You are correct. Wasn't it Dakota North that signed on as a Peterborough asset only if they supplied him with his equipment and flights to and from Australia???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanderer Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 are you privvy to that info then ??? if you think that clubs get riders as assets for nothing your mistaken No he's not mistaken, it happens. No he's not mistaken, it happens. Not all riders are clued up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G the Bee Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 I wonder...... Going back to the Darcy Ward situation, yes it was a big issue. brought about only because Lynn were in the PL and that Darcy wanted to ride in the Elite. No doubt had Lynn been in the top league then probably he Could have stayed at Lynn. Well it's all hypothetical, but I would hazard a guess that even had Lynn come up at the beginning of 2010, rather than 2011 Ward may still have elected to go and ride with his mate Holder at Poole. In that scenario, I cannot believe that Lynn would have been happy with a loan deal for a rider they would, obviously, have wished to have used. Under your argument, they should have just let the rider go and ride where he wanted. All hypothetical, as I say, but surely you see where I am coming from. And I'm not sure some clubs hold all the cards. Coventry are loaning Szczepaniak. I presume he is a Kings Lynn asset. How much did he cost the Kings Lynn promotion? Unfortunately, you are forced to play a bit of a waiting game due to having limited top level riders as assets. The Lynn promotion themselves can't be anti the asset system because they are in the process of buying Rory Schlein from Coventry I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 Time for Lynn and Swindon to get their hands in their pockets and buy these riders if they want to use them. Simple as that. The irony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 Another pathetic comment. The move wasn't illegal then... Whatever Poole paid for Darcy Ward, they will agree, they have been repaid 10 times overs... Not pathetic at all, but a point that would have to be considered before any court action was considered. I never said the move was illegal. You seem to think that a court would just declare the asset system unworkable and just scrap it with no other ruling. I've suggested that a court may well scrap the system but declare that any money paid over the last few years - or, more likely - for any rider still riding be repaid since, if the system is illegal now it was no more legal when those moves were effected. Like I posted earlier, are KL in a position to repay that money if ordered to by a court? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 (edited) 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 Edited December 21, 2012 by Steve0 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 (edited) 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 Simple solution, purchase the riders in question. We've allowed Lynn and Swindon to try before they buy so it's taking the biscuit to assume that we're going to help you build your team year on year. Edited December 21, 2012 by Crump99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starboy118 Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 Simple solution, purchase the riders in question. We've allowed Lynn and Swindon to try before they buy so it's taking the biscuit to assume that we're going to help you build your team year on year. I think you may have missed the point. 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.