Hunty Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 Just read the the post on SpeedwayGP.com about Niels-Kristian Iversen stating he belives the Asset System is flawed. Im in total agreement with him, the amount of problems it has caused this year is beyond a joke and has left us fans questioning it ourselfs! We have Niels-Kristian Iversen who is struggling the get a ride elsewhere because Peterborough who he hasnt even rode for in the last two seasons wont release him to talk! Ben Barker is in a right mess at the moment as neither Birmingham or Coventry know what is what. Hans Andersen and Troy Batchelor are both caught up in it aswell! The post dose go on to say that alot of clubs have invested heavily in assets and it wouldnt be right to scrap it completly but surely to stop all this cofuision and bickering no more riders should be signed as assets from now on and they become there own agents just like in football where they find rides. The other thing it may lead to is a bit of stability in riders staying at clubs and not moving every season which is one of my biggest fustrations with the sport. Its a difficult one but somthing has to be done surley! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 THE rider asset dilemma is the inevitable consequence of British clubs continually changing the regulations regarding team strengths each year ... one eight point rider per team, two, only two from the top 20, points limits, etc. At the end of each season a number of riders are unable to start a new season with the same track as they finished the previous one because their average rather than their face doesn't fit and become "assets" that are either unused or sent out on loan. If these riders were simply released as being out-of-contract a bigger pool of riders would be available for all and sundry. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedef27 Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 Maybe they should bring a rule in forcing clubs with assets to be more compromising to their assets along the lines of ...Your rider so for new season you either use him, loan him or you pay him his X amount each week set at the average he is on. For e.g a 3 point rider gets 3 x X each week he is forced to be stagnant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StormMarketing Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 Maybe as NKI says those clubs who have invested in assets cannot just lose that investment overnight. I would like an independant committee come up with a set figure of a season-long loan fee for certain averaged riders.... Clubs who have all the assetts each season should be given a cut-off point say 1st December to name any asset in their team for the following season.... Any Asset that is not named by 1st December is free to negotiate with other teams, with the signing club knowing what loan fee would be required before hand so at least the signing club can budget. Saves all the hassle and clubs can retain their assets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 (edited) The asset system is an archaic nonsense in this day and age and should be abolished. If a rider is not under contract then they should be free to ride for whom ever they like, just as workers in every other industry are able to do. I can see the case for promotions genuinely developing young riders to get some compensation, but this should not apply indefinitely. Edited January 6, 2013 by Humphrey Appleby 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 I made a post in the Birmingham thread with a suggestion to phase out the current system. If someone knows how to quote it onto this thread I would very much appreciate it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 JUST copy and paste it here.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2ndbendbeerhut Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 (edited) dontforgetthefueltapsbruv There should be a phased eradication of the current system. Over the next say 5 years all riders could become free agents. Loan fees could be set at 20% of an agreed transfer price set centrally to allow clubs to get value from their investment where a fee has been paid to date. Where a rider has not represented their parent club for 5 years he autimatically becomes a free agent . Where a current asset has never raced for his parent club he would become a free agent immediately. Im sure there would need to be further considerations but I think these points could form the basis to a constuctive way forward. Edited January 6, 2013 by 2ndbendbeerhut Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 ALSO posted this on the Swindon (Elite League) section ... IT'S not a restriction on earning, it's a restriction of trade. The fact that they ride elsewhere is (in my opinion) irrelevant. As a self-employed tradesman any restriction on a rider "trading his wares" so to speak is surely illegal? I was quite heavily involved in soccer journalism at the time of the Bosman ruling and have always thought that British speedway would have to toe the line one day. I still do. SS has asked the question of many promoters over the years but they generally close ranks and say that it would be the ruination of British speedway. Presumably they include "rider assets" on their balance sheets. Scrapping the asset system might result in some short term pain but could prove hugely beneficial in the longer term and might actually become a more practical and workable form of rider distribution than some of the artificial and contrived methods currently in use. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 IT'S not a restriction on earning, it's a restriction of trade. The fact that they ride elsewhere is (in my opinion) irrelevant. As a self-employed tradesman any restriction on a rider "trading his wares" so to speak is surely illegal?I want to ride for Coventry, Poole, Belle Vue, Swindon and Glasgow. The rules don't allow it, is that restraint of trade? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunty Posted January 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Where a rider has not represented their parent club for 5 years he autimatically becomes a free agent . Very good idea, whats the point of having assets and not using them! To be quite frank its a money making scheme to have riders as assets, you have provide a loan fee to a rider to join your club. Is there any riders currently in the top two leagues who have not represented there parent club for the past five years? Be intresting to see! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 (edited) I was quite heavily involved in soccer journalism at the time of the Bosman ruling and have always thought that British speedway would have to toe the line one day. Yes, but speedway already did conform with the Bosman ruling as Bosman only applied to transfers between EU countries. As as I'm aware, there's never been any restrictions on riders signing for teams outside of Britain. Domestic football had to change because foreign intermediary clubs could be (and were) used to effect domestic transfers, but unlike football, riding for multiple speedway teams in different countries is a practical proposition. Back to the BSPA system though, I've little doubt that the asset system would never stand up in court if anyone could be bothered to challenge it. It was close to being abolished in football back in the early-60s, but the players union settled for improved wages instead. Regardless though, it's become a complete irrelevance in recent years. Few teams are willing to buy riders, so it's now just a perpetual merry-go-round of promotions being both loaners and loanees. Edited January 6, 2013 by Humphrey Appleby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 JUST copy and paste it here.... Just have my phone available today and not up to speed with such tricks on it!! Thanks MrBeerhut - see ya soon mate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 Maybe as NKI says those clubs who have invested in assets cannot just lose that investment overnight. I would like an independant committee come up with a set figure of a season-long loan fee for certain averaged riders.... Clubs who have all the assetts each season should be given a cut-off point say 1st December to name any asset in their team for the following season.... Any Asset that is not named by 1st December is free to negotiate with other teams, with the signing club knowing what loan fee would be required before hand so at least the signing club can budget. Saves all the hassle and clubs can retain their assets There is already a BSPA set figure per average band to determine the loan fee for any rider. I totally agree with you regarding a cutoff, but would suggest 1st January to allow for anything new that is agreed at the AGM, which is usually the third week in November. A rider could still belong as an asset, if the owner of his registration doesn't need him, or the rider doesn't want to ride for them, he goes on a loan deal at the agreed loan fee rate. Abolish this 3 year lark and allow any rider to move if they want to. It is ridiculous to own say 20 riders, only use your own 7 and then insist that it is transfer or nothing for the rest and therefore deprive their rider of employment in this country. Despite the general consensus on here, there is a lot of good still in the asset system and it can serve both club and rider very well usually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 Yes, but speedway already did conform with the Bosman ruling as Bosman only applied to transfers between EU countries. As as I'm aware, there's never been any restrictions on riders signing for teams outside of Britain. Domestic football had to change because foreign intermediary clubs could be (and were) used to effect domestic transfers, but unlike football, riding for multiple speedway teams in different countries is a practical proposition. Back to the BSPA system though, I've little doubt that the asset system would never stand up in court if anyone could be bothered to challenge it. It was close to being abolished in football back in the early-60s, but the players union settled for improved wages instead. Regardless though, it's become a complete irrelevance in recent years. Few teams are willing to buy riders, so it's now just a perpetual merry-go-round of promotions being loaners and loanees. BUT Bosman determined that players out of contract were free to move elsewhere, which is where the analogy with speedway is relevant. I want to ride for Coventry, Poole, Belle Vue, Swindon and Glasgow. The rules don't allow it, is that restraint of trade? Of course not ... it is not the same thing at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G the Bee Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 At the end of each season a number of riders are unable to start a new season with the same track as they finished the previous one because their average rather than their face doesn't fit and become "assets" that are either unused or sent out on loan. If these riders were simply released as being out-of-contract a bigger pool of riders would be available for all and sundry. This is what happens now. Riders not used by their parent club are always available on loan. Has the asset system ever prevented a rider riding in his chosen league or prevented teams who don't have assets putting teams together. Scrapping the asset system... could prove hugely beneficial in the longer term. I just can't see this. For example, do you honestly believe NKI, Andersen, Batchelor and Barker will not be lining up in the EL this season? I'm not saying it's perfect. And certainly I feel that when a rider signs a contract it should be for a set period rather than indefinately. However, I can also see the huge disadvantages (much more than short-term pain) abandoning the asset system will cause the more established clubs who have through longevity and investment a greater stake in the asset system than other clubs. Surely, for example, you are not suggesting that Poole should have the substantial fee they paid for Darcy Ward rendered obselete. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 This is what happens now. Riders not used by their parent club are always available on loan. Has the asset system ever prevented a rider riding in his chosen league or prevented teams who don't have assets putting teams together. I just can't see this. For example, do you honestly believe NKI, Andersen, Batchelor and Barker will not be lining up in the EL this season? I'm not saying it's perfect. And certainly I feel that when a rider signs a contract it should be for a set period rather than indefinately. However, I can also see the huge disadvantages (much more than short-term pain) abandoning the asset system will cause the more established clubs who have through longevity and investment a greater stake in the asset system than other clubs. Surely, for example, you are not suggesting that Poole should have the substantial fee they paid for Darcy Ward rendered obselete. THAT is quite easily overcome. Sign him on a long-term contract. Then if they cannot include him in their team they can quite legally and justifiably ask for a transfer fee. I haven't seen a complete asset list for some time (don't even know if the BSPA have one) but last time I did it included riders who had long since hung up their leathers. We are not talking about property or pieces of furniture but human beings. They have rights. Slavery was abolished long ago. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G the Bee Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 This is what happens now. Riders not used by their parent club are always available on loan (Harris to Brum, KK to Cov, PK and Watt to Lakeside etc.). The current problem is really to do with riders who are assets of one club deciding themselves they want to ride elsewhere. Surely under this scenario, a transfer fee, if required by the parent club, is not unreasonable. The same would happen in football. Has the asset system ever prevented a rider riding in his chosen league or prevented teams who don't have assets putting teams together. I just can't see this. For example, do you honestly believe NKI, Andersen, Batchelor and Barker will not be lining up in the EL this season? I'm not saying it's perfect. And certainly I feel that when a rider signs a contract it should be for a set period rather than indefinately. However, I can also see the huge disadvantages (much more than short-term pain) abandoning the asset system will cause the more established clubs who have through longevity and investment a greater stake in the asset system than other clubs. Surely, for example, you are not suggesting that Poole should have the substantial fee they paid for Darcy Ward rendered obselete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 You say riders not used by their parent club are always available on loan. Have you told Peterborough that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G the Bee Posted January 6, 2013 Report Share Posted January 6, 2013 THAT is quite easily overcome. Sign him on a long-term contract. Then if they cannot include him in their team they can quite legally and justifiably ask for a transfer fee. I haven't seen a complete asset list for some time (don't even know if the BSPA have one) but last time I did it included riders who had long since hung up their leathers. We are not talking about property or pieces of furniture but human beings. They have rights. Slavery was abolished long ago. That's completely over the top. These riders, whoever they ride for, will be compensated very well for riding for their respective clubs. 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.