Humphrey Appleby Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 So no, the rider isn't 'owned' by anyone. He's perfectly entitled to get a job in Aldi if he so wishes. If you have a particular trade though, then it is a form of ownership if a body is restricting where and when you can ply that trade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 Since riders are self employed and not paid a year round salary or retainer it is difficult to see how the asset system can possibly stand up legally. For me the biggest problem with the system is that British youngsters cost clubs money in loans fees so are either not given the opportunities or only given a very short time to achieve their average when they step up a league. An untried foreign rider could be bought in for similar money but will become a club asset and therefore is worth giving a long run in the hope he will come good as he would then be financially beneficial to the club. I can see how the asset system can benefit the clubs but it is a nonsense that youngsters can become assets of a club they have never ridden for and who have done nothing for them training wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGT Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 If Darren Bent wanted to leave Aston Villa this January, would Villa be unfair asking for a transfer fee? Seeing as he cost the club £18/24 million then I'd say that they'd be wise to ask for a transfer fee, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans fan Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) But they are not owned ... that is the point. is there registration owned by a club or the bspa ??? Edited January 7, 2013 by hans fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montie Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 Nothing wrong with the asset system.....its them that run it thats wrong!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sancho Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 But they are not owned ... that is the point. Can you explain then why Kings Lynn were happy to "BUY" Rory Schlein from Coventry and not NKI from Peterborough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 is there registration owned by a club or the bspa ??? NOT sure that registration as such comes into it. Riders are licensed by the SCB as an affiliate of the ACU and have a contract with the club they ride for which has an expiry date, usually October 31 ... which is the crux of the matter. Can you explain then why Kings Lynn were happy to "BUY" Rory Schlein from Coventry and not NKI from Peterborough NO, cannot speak for KL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sancho Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 OK Can you explain why any club would buy a rider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 OK Can you explain why any club would buy a rider Because under the current system they can make money in future transfers or loan fees if they pay the right price Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
500cc Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 Can you explain then why Kings Lynn were happy to "BUY" Rory Schlein from Coventry and not NKI from Peterborough According to the Peterborough promotion (as reported In their local paper anyway) the BSPA determined that as a result of an illegal approach Kings Lynn were required to buy Sclhlien. in contrast the BSPA decided that Iversen could be loaned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruiser McHuge Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 in football a player signs a 2 or 3 year contract with a club and becomes an employee of that club..as soon as that contract ends he is free to go anywhere he wants and the club cannot stop him. speedway riders are classed as self employed..they do a deal with a club and in my experience it is usually for the coming season concerned....i cannot see how this makes them as asset of a club for life...there will be riders out there who haven't ridden for ages who will still be a asset to somebody without even knowing it...surely this is not right...no rider signs a contract for life that's for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
500cc Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 in football a player signs a 2 or 3 year contract with a club and becomes an employee of that club..as soon as that contract ends he is free to go anywhere he wants and the club cannot stop him. speedway riders are classed as self employed..they do a deal with a club and in my experience it is usually for the coming season concerned....i cannot see how this makes them as asset of a club for life...there will be riders out there who haven't ridden for ages who will still be a asset to somebody without even knowing it...surely this is not right...no rider signs a contract for life that's for sure. Highlights an interesting point that not all riders will necessarily know who they are an asset of as when they are inactive there is presumably no correspondence with their 'owner' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 Highlights an interesting point that not all riders will necessarily know who they are an asset of as when they are inactive there is presumably no correspondence with their 'owner' All riders know whose asset they are. They have to sign the transfer forms. Only time they don't is if a club is taken over in total Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
500cc Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 All riders know whose asset they are. They have to sign the transfer forms. Only time they don't is if a club is taken over in total Many thanks for the info. The scenario I was wondering about are foreign riders who haven't ridden in the UK for many years. Take Greg Hancock for example. To the best of my knowledge he was a Coventry asset in 2011, presumably owned by Sandhu. It appears Horton has bought the Coventry assets. Does this mean that Hancock had to sign transfer forms to transfer his ownership from Sandhu to Horton? What happens if he doesn't want to? Or is that the part you refer to in your last sentence where its an automatic transfer. Whilst Hancock probably is au fait with what's going on in the UK, I'd be less sure about a Pole who rode briefly as a youngster and wouldn't be aware of things such as club ownership changes. Equally Peterborough's asset list contains a number of riders unlikely to ride in the UK. Would any of them have to sign transfer forms if they were for example "individually swapped" with another promoter? Does it mean that an asset can only be sold (individually) if the rider agrees and signs the forms? If Bjerre signs for Peterborough, then there is no place for Batchelor. Peterborough say the BSPA require Swindon to purchase him to ride this year. What happens if Batchelor refuses to sign the transfer form. Doesn't that prevent the purchase? Is he forced to sign the forms in order to ride for Swindon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 Many thanks for the info. The scenario I was wondering about are foreign riders who haven't ridden in the UK for many years. Take Greg Hancock for example. To the best of my knowledge he was a Coventry asset in 2011, presumably owned by Sandhu. It appears Horton has bought the Coventry assets. Does this mean that Hancock had to sign transfer forms to transfer his ownership from Sandhu to Horton? What happens if he doesn't want to? Or is that the part you refer to in your last sentence where its an automatic transfer. Whilst Hancock probably is au fait with what's going on in the UK, I'd be less sure about a Pole who rode briefly as a youngster and wouldn't be aware of things such as club ownership changes. Equally Peterborough's asset list contains a number of riders unlikely to ride in the UK. Would any of them have to sign transfer forms if they were for example "individually swapped" with another promoter? Does it mean that an asset can only be sold (individually) if the rider agrees and signs the forms? If Bjerre signs for Peterborough, then there is no place for Batchelor. Peterborough say the BSPA require Swindon to purchase him to ride this year. What happens if Batchelor refuses to sign the transfer form. Doesn't that prevent the purchase? Is he forced to sign the forms in order to ride for Swindon? Yes it is. A club takeover doesn't involve individual riders contracts. All transfer forms have to be signed by the three parties. The seller, the buyer and the rider. Interesting about Batch. To be transferred he has to sign the forms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 AT the risk of repeating myself ad infinitum ... Hancock isn't 'owned' by anyone in the UK. Nor, for that matter, are any riders who do not have a current, valid contract with a British club. Does anyone believe that their current employer actually "owns" them? And that even if you went and worked overseas for a number of years they would still "own" you? You cannot, surely, just transfer ownership of someone without their knowledge or, indeed, agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 AT the risk of repeating myself ad infinitum ... Hancock isn't 'owned' by anyone in the UK. Nor, for that matter, are any riders who do not have a current, valid contract with a British club. Does anyone believe that their current employer actually "owns" them? And that even if you went and worked overseas for a number of years they would still "own" you? You cannot, surely, just transfer ownership of someone without their knowledge or, indeed, agreement. As many have pointed out the notion of clubs owning riders is a nonsense. A savvy promoter would offer Batchelor a job for the season but simply refuse to pay a loan or transfer or so much as a bean to Peterborough, the whole thing is a nonsense. A self employed tradesman being "owned" by the first person he does a job for, it is ludicrous. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Know Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 AT the risk of repeating myself ad infinitum ... Hancock isn't 'owned' by anyone in the UK. Nor, for that matter, are any riders who do not have a current, valid contract with a British club. Does anyone believe that their current employer actually "owns" them? And that even if you went and worked overseas for a number of years they would still "own" you? You cannot, surely, just transfer ownership of someone without their knowledge or, indeed, agreement. The sysytem needs a revamp and is in place due to the greed of the promotors who have driven the sport into the ground. Its like a load of school chillden playing twit for tat with who rides here and messing riders around.Every year it is the same old storey with this, no thought for fans and such and one of the reasons so many have waliked. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 AT the risk of repeating myself ad infinitum ... Hancock isn't 'owned' by anyone in the UK. Nor, for that matter, are any riders who do not have a current, valid contract with a British club. Does anyone believe that their current employer actually "owns" them? And that even if you went and worked overseas for a number of years they would still "own" you? You cannot, surely, just transfer ownership of someone without their knowledge or, indeed, agreement. Yes, WE all know that one cannot OWN another person ... But the asset system as operated currently often mimics this, doesn't it? Using Greg Hancock as an example. He will still be regarded as being the asset of one promotion. And if Greg were to return to Britain to ride for any other team you can be damned sure that that same promoter would want a loan or transfer fee before any new contact was registered. Whether or not that is technically 'ownership' seems to be just a semantic irrelevance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Know Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 Yes, WE all know that one cannot OWN another person ... But the asset system as operated currently often mimics this, doesn't it? Using Greg Hancock as an example. He will still be regarded as being the asset of one promotion. And if Greg were to return to Britain to ride for any other team you can be damned sure that that same promoter would want a loan or transfer fee before any new contact was registered. Whether or not that is technically 'ownership' seems to be just a semantic irrelevance. Thought he was owned by Reading and they no more, could be wrong though. 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.