Asset System Flawed

[hrhbig]

Have not had time to read all of the posts on this topic, but was wondring if I am the only person who "feels" that maybe a conspiracy of sorts is being perputrated in order to sort out this obviously flawed system ??

[Hunty]

Interesting interview with Gary Patchett on GP website.

 

http://speedwaygp.co...ransfer-turmoil

 

He has stated what many have stated on here, the biggest imput is that he belives that riders could mount legal action against the system becuase it hinders there right to find work!

 

We need to sort these problems out or start to introduce a new system! Its rules and systems like this that make speedway in Britain unactractive and difficult to understand.

[philfromcov]

if the asset system collapses, lets say because of restraint of trade, then just like football, you would need a mid season transfer window, so if a riders on a 4.oo but his next GSA lets say will be 6.00, surley you cannot then stop another team coming along and offering that rider a better deal?

 

im guessing there would be a months /weeks notice at the moment, which would have to work both ways

 

as the riders will be fully contracted, both sides would be able to terminate contract, so you would see alot of riders moving around mid season?

[DunRobin]

if the asset system collapses, lets say because of restraint of trade, then just like football, you would need a mid season transfer window, so if a riders on a 4.oo but his next GSA lets say will be 6.00, surley you cannot then stop another team coming along and offering that rider a better deal?

 

im guessing there would be a months /weeks notice at the moment, which would have to work both ways

 

as the riders will be fully contracted, both sides would be able to terminate contract, so you would see alot of riders moving around mid season?

Football's mid-season transfer system is nothing to do with the Bosman ruling! Footballers were still free to move at anytime during the season following the Bosman ruling & a transfer fee was payable or a loan deal, if the player was still under contract. The transfer window came in due to a UEFA rule change affecting all European clubs. Therefore the present moves during the season would still be able to happen even if the asset system was overturned.

[speedibee]

I think any rider who has had a fee paid for them who then chooses not to ride in the uk . should be made to reimburse the promotion the fee or not be allowed to ride anywhere . any rider who has been brought up to standard by a single club who makes the same choice should have his value estimated by the BSPA and be made to pay that amount before riding elsewhere.

[seanmuffe]

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

 

Is that correct,----- sorry :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

Seriously though that would be a step in the right direction.

[HeathenatOdsal85!]

Isn't there a fundamental difference though with football due to the average system which means riders who are assets can't sometimes be used even if the club wanted to. In football clubs can sign and play however many top quality performers that they want to. Therefore the argument exists that clubs should be compensated with a loan or transfer fee as they are not being allowed to build or manage the club in the way they want that is best for their business.

 

In effect, some are saying that it's restraint of trade that clubs / the bspa don't let a rider become a free agent at the end of their contract, but surely it could be argued that the true restraint of trade comes from the average system, as it forces clubs to release riders they may want to use.

 

It's a bit chicken and egg, but I can see why in some respects an asset system is valid in some form, as a club may sign a rider they wish, in all good faith to have at their club for the long term, but due to the average system (which lets be honest who's rules seem to change annually) they can't, so being forced to release the rider to another club, so receiving a loan fee at least seems fair enough as they may wish to have that rider as part of their team in future and see them as a fundamental part of their club, but obviously due to no fault of their own with the average system can't.

 

So a loan fee or transfer fee is almost like a form of compensation to the parent club created by the bspa's own rules because the parent club can't use a rider they wish. And as we know a club not being a me to use the riders they want can have a massive impact on a club and fans, can so negatively effect the business by having to release riders who are crowd favourites and so on (Maybe not too much of a stretch to think that in some cases the average system has in some cases been close to putting clubs in jeopardy)

 

Therefore I quite like the idea mooted earlier by Wolfhound which if I understand correctly that a rider would have to be away from their parent club for at least 2 seasons before becoming truly free again, as at least this would enable the parent club the chance to bring the rider back.

 

I also do understand why there is an average system - I'm not particularly arguing against that here - that's a different discussion, I'm just seeing the asset system in a bigger context taking the average system into account.

[g13webb]

I thought the article in the S/S this week was pretty good ( The Property Market, by John Burbidge) It highlighted all the problems of the asset system. It also pointed out all the issues if it was disbanded, and why it shouldn't happen. My feelings are, if we think only of the good of the sport, there are no problems, it only when we bring in personal thoughts and profits do we have these issues. ( I remembered Kennett being valued at £80K , that was bloody ridiculous) Like the article said rather then a repeat of troubles we had this year, we need stronger guidelines from the BSPA and a deadline date put in place...............Don't wait till next year, lets sort it out now........

[SteveLyric2]

I thought the article in the S/S this week was pretty good ( The Property Market, by John Burbidge) It highlighted all the problems of the asset system. It also pointed out all the issues if it was disbanded, and why it shouldn't happen. My feelings are, if we think only of the good of the sport, there are no problems, it only when we bring in personal thoughts and profits do we have these issues. ( I remembered Kennett being valued at £80K , that was bloody ridiculous) Like the article said rather then a repeat of troubles we had this year, we need stronger guidelines from the BSPA and a deadline date put in place...............Don't wait till next year, lets sort it out now........

 

Paul Burbidge!!

 

I think the SCB/ACU should get involved in setting a timescale for promotions. This would be helped by having an earlier BSPA General Meeting ie prior to the end of the season!

[Irk Deflector]

Perhaps I should have said 'through choice' which is what your preceding post was inferring - riders averages not fitting etc.

 

As you can see, I have edited my post.

 

All I know about the Peterborough situation is what I have read on riders twitter posts and the response by the Peterborough promotion in the press, I think the Panthers promotion raise a number of good points. Namely:

 

Hans Andersen was offered terms twice but turned them down. Another club (Coventry) was prepared to purchase him and he turned them down too. Is it surprising they want a transfer fee for him? Swindon seem prepared to buy him and I suspect arbitration will be involved.

 

Troy Batchelor is alleged to have made public statements about his desire not to return to Peterborough. Again, are the Panthers promotion being unfair asking for a transfer fee for a rider who, it would seem, does not want to ride for them?

 

NKI has said he will ride for Kings Lynn or no one. Is it surprising they want a transfer fee for him? To be honest, I find the BSPA decision to allow Kings Lynn to loan him baffling and inconsistent as Iversen has also stated his desire not to ride for his parent club.

 

In Bjerre, Andersen, NKI and Batchelor (don't forget they also have Ryan Sullivan) Panthers have a number of top-level assets, most of which I suspect they have purchased themselves at some point. If they do want to sell the ones that clearly wish to ride elsewhere, I can't say I blame them.

I would also imagine the Panthers didn't want the two rider in the top 20 restriction and would have opted for a strong top 3 this season. With Panthers having five in the top 20 is it any wonder the other promoters decided on this ruling? Perhaps the BSPA should have purchased the 3 riders Panthers could not use this season! Edited January 26, 2013 by Irk Deflector

[speedibee]

I would like to see the financial aspect of the asset system removed somehow as this is affecting the the signing of riders rather than their ability , this years NL has seen a larger than usual amount of signings of untried riders of dubious quality , the reason for this is rather like the reason for buying a lottery ticket , one of the untried could be another Richie Worrall and would attract a reasonable fee if then sold on . unfortunately for every Richie Worrall there are a hundred lads who will never make the grade , and while these lads are given opportunities on the off chance they could bring in some cash others who are never going to be world beaters but are dedicated and solid scorers walk away disillusioned by being cast aside .

Edited January 26, 2013 by speedibee

[HenryW]

Isn't there a fundamental difference though with football due to the average system which means riders who are assets can't sometimes be used even if the club wanted to. In football clubs can sign and play however many top quality performers that they want to. Therefore the argument exists that clubs should be compensated with a loan or transfer fee as they are not being allowed to build or manage the club in the way they want that is best for their business.

Surely an EL speedway team can sign as many top riders as they want as well...They just need to ensure that their fielded 7 riders need to fit under the average limit at each meeting....If they wanted to pay others to sit on the "bench", then that is fine with the rules....

 

In effect, some are saying that it's restraint of trade that clubs / the bspa don't let a rider become a free agent at the end of their contract, but surely it could be argued that the true restraint of trade comes from the average system, as it forces clubs to release riders they may want to use.

As I suggested above, I would disagree with this comment.

Surely the average system just dictates the strength of the team put out on track...It doesn't dictate the strength of a retained "squad"....

There is surely no restraint of trade if riders are being paid a salary and are asked to sit out a meeting because they can't fit into the point limit for a meeting....

 

The problem is that speedway riders are generally not offered a guaranteed salary whether they race or not...and if someone is not being paid a salary then surely their "employer" should have no claim over them....

[Mixy230]

Speedibee "I would like to see the financial aspect of the asset system removed somehow as this is affecting the the signing of riders rather than their ability , this years NL has seen a larger than usual amount of signings of untried riders of dubious quality"

But on the other hand, we have all moaned that young riders never get a chance. Surely all new riders are of dubious quality untill they have been tested within the riguers of speedway life?

[Vince]

I would like to see the financial aspect of the asset system removed somehow as this is affecting the the signing of riders rather than their ability , this years NL has seen a larger than usual amount of signings of untried riders of dubious quality , the reason for this is rather like the reason for buying a lottery ticket , one of the untried could be another Richie Worrall and would attract a reasonable fee if then sold on . unfortunately for every Richie Worrall there are a hundred lads who will never make the grade , and while these lads are given opportunities on the off chance they could bring in some cash others who are never going to be world beaters but are dedicated and solid scorers walk away disillusioned by being cast aside .

 

For me this is the biggest flaw of the asset system. It actually encourages promoters to bring in untried foreign riders and give the a long run in the team to try to get them to a point where they have some financial value. There is no point in their helping a young Brtitish lad make his way in a higher league because there is no long term benefit for their club.

Much better if British lads could not become assets until they had ridden 10 or 12 meetings for the club that wants to sign them. A fee could be applicable to be paid to NL clubs if the lad then qualifies to become an asset in the higher league.

[speedibee]

Speedibee "I would like to see the financial aspect of the asset system removed somehow as this is affecting the the signing of riders rather than their ability , this years NL has seen a larger than usual amount of signings of untried riders of dubious quality"

But on the other hand, we have all moaned that young riders never get a chance. Surely all new riders are of dubious quality untill they have been tested within the riguers of speedway life?

2 years back I would have agreed . but now we have a thriving amateur set up with the MDL , so lads can now join an MDL squad and prove themselves worthy of a chance by virtue of their results and dedication to the sport . so theres no need for promoters to be signing Lottery tickets .just one more thing to add . signing riders on the chance they could be value added is not fair on the people who pay to watch , they expect to be watching a team built to win not a team to potentially , make money .

[Tsunami]

2 years back I would have agreed . but now we have a thriving amateur set up with the MDL , so lads can now join an MDL squad and prove themselves worthy of a chance by virtue of their results and dedication to the sport . so theres no need for promoters to be signing Lottery tickets .just one more thing to add . signing riders on the chance they could be value added is not fair on the people who pay to watch , they expect to be watching a team built to win not a team to potentially , make money .

 

So what is the point of a development league then. If you only built a team to win everytime you would not give untried youngsters the chance. I quote you both Mildenhall and Wimbledon in the past and probably Dudley now.