Asset System Flawed

[Grand Central]

Thought he was owned by Reading and they no more, could be wrong though.

 

You may be right ... It doesn't really matter.

Riders who were assets of clubs that fold revert to being assets of the BSPA, I believe.

The BSPA would then want the fee before he rode for another team.

 

To me, having someone as an 'asset' beyond the expiry of their contract on October 31st is just so close to 'ownership' as to be indistinguishable.

 

When my contract ends with someone at work ... That is is it!

I am not retained as an 'asset'.

If someone wanted to retain an option on my future services they could have to pay me a fee and continue to maintain that with further fee payments into the future.

My guess is that Greg has not been picking up such retainers.

But in Speedway he will STILL be regarded as someone's asset and they would want a fee if he returned.

 

It may not be technically ownership ... But it is pretty damn close.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Grand Central

[oldace]

 

It may not be technically ownership ... But it is pretty damn close.

 

Only as long as someone is daft enough to pay loan or transfer fees. If I were a promoter with hardly any assets (Belle Vue for instance) I would simply offer work to a rider the same way I would any other subcontractor and not pay these fees.

[500cc]

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.

I agree with the principle of what you are saying Philip. But the current asset system effectively supports 'ownership' of a rider in terms of you can get income from them when they ride in the UK. Miedzinski was out of British Speedway (2006?) for about the same length of time Hancock has been away, but Swindon were able to get a loan fee last season, and in truth should really have been able to sell him.

 

The set-up is wrong, but as things stand, in terms of British Speedway riders like Hancock remained "owned" as far as the BSPA are concerned.

 

Thought he was owned by Reading and they no more, could be wrong though.

 

I suspected Reading had bought him, but according to the local Coventry newspaper, he won the 2011 World Championship whilst a Coventry asset. Whether that's true I don't know.

[PHILIPRISING]

THAT'S an even more laughable sideshow isn't it. Presumably Ipswich should get some credit for Gollob winning a year earlier.

[500cc]

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.

 

The only problem with that is that the BSPA would refuse to accept the Swindon declaration if they thought they were being that deliberate. If the BSPA refused to budge then Swindon's only recourse would be the courts. On this one I suspect they would lose because they were using an asset without following the standard precedent of paying at least a loan fee to Peterborough. I think the BSPA would lose a lot of court cases involving the asset system, but this is one approach that wouldn't work.

[PHILIPRISING]

With regard to Miedzinski... in truth they should not have been able to sell someone who wasn't theirs to sell. Or even receive a loan fee.

 

The only problem with that is that the BSPA would refuse to accept the Swindon declaration if they thought they were being that deliberate. If the BSPA refused to budge then Swindon's only recourse would be the courts. On this one I suspect they would lose because they were using an asset without following the standard precedent of paying at least a loan fee to Peterborough. I think the BSPA would lose a lot of court cases involving the asset system, but this is one approach that wouldn't work.

 

NOT if the whole concept of riders being regarded as assets was deemed illegal.

[500cc]

THAT'S an even more laughable sideshow isn't it. Presumably Ipswich should get some credit for Gollob winning a year earlier.

There was actually some discussion as to whether he was an Ipswich or BSPA asset. One bright spark who believed he was a BSPA asset went on to say that therefore he was effectively a Matt Ford asset !!! Don't show this thread to any Poole fans though, as they may latch-on and claim Gollob as a Poole World Champion !!!

[oldace]

The only problem with that is that the BSPA would refuse to accept the Swindon declaration if they thought they were being that deliberate. If the BSPA refused to budge then Swindon's only recourse would be the courts. On this one I suspect they would lose because they were using an asset without following the standard precedent of paying at least a loan fee to Peterborough. I think the BSPA would lose a lot of court cases involving the asset system, but this is one approach that wouldn't work.

 

Not really, Swindon's team would be entirely legal within the rules and they could simply track Batchelor if they wanted all completely legally. A promoter, or promoters, who wanted to challenge that would be risking an awful lot in legal costs.

[500cc]

With regard to Miedzinski... in truth they should not have been able to sell someone who wasn't theirs to sell. Or even receive a loan fee.

 

 

Absolutely agree.

 

Would have saved us all the acrimony from the last year too !!!

 

It is the worst illustration of the asset system. I stand to be corrected, but I believe 2006 was AM's first season in British speedway. For Swindon to get any fee 6 years later for simply being the first to employ a foreign rider who didn't appear in the UK in the interim 5 seasons, and for which Swindon occurred no additional costs (in fact it would have cost them more if he was already an asset of another club) is simply ludicrous.

 

The only thing I'd like to see is a system in place to ensure compensation to clubs who develop young British riders. But even that needs managing. Being the first National League club to track a star 15 year old for one season isn't an open cheque book for compensation. The key is rewarding development and over a reasonable time frame.

[philfromcov]

a simple question....

 

do they have to sign for a team (to become an asset that is) or can they remain "free"

[PHILIPRISING]

NOT as up to speed on soccer's situation regarding freedom of movement as I would like to be, but believe football has a perfectly workable system to protect clubs who develop young players. As you say, this could actually benefit British speedway.

[500cc]

Not really, Swindon's team would be entirely legal within the rules and they could simply track Batchelor if they wanted all completely legally. A promoter, or promoters, who wanted to challenge that would be risking an awful lot in legal costs.

The BSPA would simply deduct all Batchelors points and fine Swindon. Whatever we think of the rules they are the rules, and more importantly the BSPA decides on every contentious issue. And thats fine and correct.

 

You have to be very careful with legal challenges. Challenging how an association regulates their sport is not something anybody is likely to win. You have to challenge things like restraint of trade (including unfairly limiting reasonable earnings) or unfair dismissal. Yes, there is a cross over, but its the true employment issues that are key. Courts do not look kindly on anybody abusing their position. There is an agreed precedent to pay loan fees that with the odd exception everybody has accepted without complaint. If a promoter were to legally challenge the asset system, I would suggest they'd be very unwise to do it whilst blatantly refusing to pay loan fees.

 

I'm somebody who strongly believes the asset system will not stand-up under a legal challenge. However, because of its long term precedent, I doubt any judge would simply insist its removed in one full swoop. A judge would protect riders freedom of movement outside of a financial contract, but in terms of the interaction between promoters, I very much doubt he'd make their assets worthless immediately. I suspect he/she would support (or at least not object to) a phased loan system providing it didn't unfairly restrict riders

[Pirate Nick]

There was actually some discussion as to whether he was an Ipswich or BSPA asset. One bright spark who believed he was a BSPA asset went on to say that therefore he was effectively a Matt Ford asset !!! Don't show this thread to any Poole fans though, as they may latch-on and claim Gollob as a Poole World Champion !!!

 

I've just sent a request into the Council to have him given the Freedom of the Borough and a statue erected in his honour in the town centre

[A ORLOV]

I've just sent a request into the Council to have him given the Freedom of the Borough and a statue erected in his honour in the town centre

Will it be next to the statue for Matt Ford ?

[Pirate Nick]

Will it be next to the statue for Matt Ford ?

 

Obviously not as thats hallowed ground and Gollob is a mere mortal

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv]

THAT'S an even more laughable sideshow isn't it. Presumably Ipswich should get some credit for Gollob winning a year earlier.

Too right - the boy was nothing until he learnt his trade at Foxhall !! ;-)

[Tsunami]

The BSPA would simply deduct all Batchelors points and fine Swindon. Whatever we think of the rules they are the rules, and more importantly the BSPA decides on every contentious issue. And thats fine and correct.

 

You have to be very careful with legal challenges. Challenging how an association regulates their sport is not something anybody is likely to win. You have to challenge things like restraint of trade (including unfairly limiting reasonable earnings) or unfair dismissal. Yes, there is a cross over, but its the true employment issues that are key. Courts do not look kindly on anybody abusing their position. There is an agreed precedent to pay loan fees that with the odd exception everybody has accepted without complaint. If a promoter were to legally challenge the asset system, I would suggest they'd be very unwise to do it whilst blatantly refusing to pay loan fees.

 

I'm somebody who strongly believes the asset system will not stand-up under a legal challenge. However, because of its long term precedent, I doubt any judge would simply insist its removed in one full swoop. A judge would protect riders freedom of movement outside of a financial contract, but in terms of the interaction between promoters, I very much doubt he'd make their assets worthless immediately. I suspect he/she would support (or at least not object to) a phased loan system providing it didn't unfairly restrict riders

 

All promoters sign a contract at the beginning of every season to say they will abide by the BSPA rules.

[Guest wolfhound]

The current disputes currently doing the rounds regarding Hans Andersen, Troy Batchelor and Niels Kristian Iversen is creating nothing but bad feeling all round.

Peterborough seem awash with so-called assets but they cannot all ride for the club at the same time and if Swindon should want to employ one of those assets which cannot be fitted into the Peterborough 1-7 for 2013, then why are Peterborough being so dogmatic? They will receive loan fees after all!

 

Well here is a suggestion which could remove the problem as it now exists:

 

A parent club asset must have ridden during the previous 2 back-to-back seasons period for that club, (ie 2010 & 2011 or 2011 & 2012 etc) otherwise he would become a free agent with no compensation paid!

The likes of Iversen has not ridden for Peterborough since 2010, so King’s Lynn could sign him without immediately with no compensation payable to Peterborough BUT Andersen and Batchelor would not become free agents as yet due to both riding for Peterborough in 2011. This means they would unfortunately have to see out the 2013 season with another club before becoming free agents on November 1^st or of course be recalled by Peterborough, thereby delaying their free agent ‘status’.

 

With the asset system permitting rich clubs to buy an undisclosed number of riders and then effectively hold them to ransom is not only unfair but quite probably a restriction of trade should opportunities be closed following a club’s delaying tactics thus leaving riders on the fence and unemployed and not of their own making.

 

Placing a 2 back-to-back seasons period stipulation upon clubs would make those with big asset bases either sign them to ride, have to loan many of them to Premier League clubs (where permitted by converted averages) or have to release their registrations altogether with no compensation in return.

Attempting to juggle so many riders to fit in with the points limit would be a monumental task and almost impossible for management and promoters alike meaning a club’s asset base would have to be trimmed and in some cases severely!

 

With this suggestion, riders in particular would be in a much better position for IF any rider had no intention of riding for his parent club, all he would have to do is not ride in the UK for 2 back-to-back seasons and he would become a free agent! – Now I am advocating such a move but the possibilty would be there and I’m sure it would be taken up by someone!

 

Re-signing a rider by the same club following a 2 year back-to-back seasons absence would be quite in order for it would be the rider's decision to sign for that club and not because his parent club had an indefinte hold upon him.

 

As I said earlier, the suggestion does not remove the current day problems concerning Batchelor and Andersen but would reduce such similar occurrences taking place in the future.

* The suggestion does not apply to double-up riders who often belong to a lower League club anyway but would apply to same League clubs.

 

So would the promoters agree to the suggestion?

Well I can think of a few who would and we all know who they are but the current argy-bargy taking place suggests that one team would object very, very strongly but moves should be made to bring this sorry nonsense to an end and why not begin in 2013?

 

Having made my point, I’m now ready for the flak to head my way but before you commit to print, do YOU have any suggestions to remove/amend or whatever the asset system?

It is easy to keep quiet but remember, it requires a ‘hard skin’ to air opinions on the BSF as many of you know!

[racers and royals]

Interesting interview with Gary Patchett on GP website.

 

http://speedwaygp.com/news/article/2180/transfer-turmoil

[Irk Deflector]

The current disputes currently doing the rounds regarding Hans Andersen, Troy Batchelor and Niels Kristian Iversen is creating nothing but bad feeling all round.

Peterborough seem awash with so-called assets but they cannot all ride for the club at the same time and if Swindon should want to employ one of those assets which cannot be fitted into the Peterborough 1-7 for 2013, then why are Peterborough being so dogmatic? They will receive loan fees after all!

 

Bad feelings all round for sure!

 

I wonder how much of it kicked off at the BSPA Conference when the 2 rider in the top 20 rule was put in place?

 

Never mind Peterborough you only had 5 riders in the top 20 and it seems you were planning to use 3 of them in 2013.

 

Did the BSPA pull a fast one? Was the decision in the best interests of the sport or one that suited those who who don't put their money where there mouth is?