clambo71 Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 Can anybody tell me what does a rider gain in becoming an asset of a club. genuine question as I have not been able to find the answer. thanks . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 (edited) Can anybody tell me what does a rider gain in becoming an asset of a club. genuine question as I have not been able to find the answer. thanks . A rider has to be an asset of somebody to be able to get the ride. They are no longer able to own their own contract like uptu the mid 90's. A rider may receive some sign on fee, or goods such as bikes, parts, kevlars, depending on their position and ability. By being attached to a club they have a contact to let them know any relevant news, and for them to act as a contact for availability for meetings and guest bookings. Edited April 15, 2014 by Tsunami 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Third Man Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 Can anybody tell me what does a rider gain in becoming an asset of a club. genuine question as I have not been able to find the answer. thanks . Cant see what they gain, all the above would be available as a signing on fee even if they were free agents they can be sacked at any time so it doesnt guarentee a team spot, and with the average restriction every season they might never ride for the club they are an assett of, so as stated above do not see what they gain. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyretrax Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 A rider has to ride a certain number of meetings for the club. If the rider was riding for Glasgow the Management Committee then allow any club to sign him. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george.m Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 A rider has to ride a certain number of meetings for the club. If the rider was riding for Glasgow the Management Committee then allow any club to sign him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IainB Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 Resurrecting this one, as I was thinking yesterday... Are club assets still a thing? When was a rider last transferred on a "full transfer" for a transfer fee? Which rider has the transfer record? Is it still Jason Crump v1.0 Do clubs show rider "assets" on their balance sheets? Would Leicester, for example, be showing Martin Vaculik and Paweł Przedpełski on their balance sheet? And at what value? As realistically at the moment in the UK they're worthless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve roberts Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 (edited) I've always thought that club 'assets' were somewhat questionable and open to abuse. I recall that Nikki Pedersen was a Wolves 'asset' but only rode for them the one season and was then 'loaned out' for successive seasons thereafter? There are examples of riders only appearing once for a club and was therefore deemed an 'asset' and subsequent clubs were required to pay a fee if they wished to use him. I recall Dallle Andersson riding a superlative season for Oxford in 1995 although being classed as a Cradley 'asset' despite' having never rode for them until the following season...a mistake in my opinion because he was never the same rider again. I seem to remember that Seb Ulamek was also a Wolves 'asset' but never rode for them certainly not during his formative years riding in the UK? Edited July 2, 2021 by steve roberts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enotian Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 7 hours ago, iainb said: Resurrecting this one, as I was thinking yesterday... Are club assets still a thing? When was a rider last transferred on a "full transfer" for a transfer fee? Which rider has the transfer record? Is it still Jason Crump v1.0 Do clubs show rider "assets" on their balance sheets? Would Leicester, for example, be showing Martin Vaculik and Paweł Przedpełski on their balance sheet? And at what value? As realistically at the moment in the UK they're worthless. I don't think you can include rider assets on the clubs (promoters company) balance sheet. They are not true assets in any real sense as the clubs who "own" them have no legal control over them. Just as you or I are not on the balance sheet of the companies we work for (if applicable) because we are allowed to leave our posts should we wish as long as we adhere to the terms of our contract (i.e. notice period). The only difference with a speedway rider is that the contract they sign is for a fixed period of time. Normally the duration of a season. Once that contract expires the rider is free to sign another contract with anyone else. Of course others will say that the clubs do have rights over their rider assets and indeed clubs do seem to focus on building 'asset bases' but the fact that they are not contained on balance sheets and that transfer fees are infrequent at best reflects the fact that rider assets have zero value from a business valuation perspective. I believe this applies to footballers. Even if they have a long term contract their associated value is not held on the clubs balance sheet. Something introduced after the Bosman legislation I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IainB Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 44 minutes ago, enotian said: I don't think you can include rider assets on the clubs (promoters company) balance sheet. They are not true assets in any real sense as the clubs who "own" them have no legal control over them. Just as you or I are not on the balance sheet of the companies we work for (if applicable) because we are allowed to leave our posts should we wish as long as we adhere to the terms of our contract (i.e. notice period). The only difference with a speedway rider is that the contract they sign is for a fixed period of time. Normally the duration of a season. Once that contract expires the rider is free to sign another contract with anyone else. Of course others will say that the clubs do have rights over their rider assets and indeed clubs do seem to focus on building 'asset bases' but the fact that they are not contained on balance sheets and that transfer fees are infrequent at best reflects the fact that rider assets have zero value from a business valuation perspective. I believe this applies to footballers. Even if they have a long term contract their associated value is not held on the clubs balance sheet. Something introduced after the Bosman legislation I think. Yeah, I get what you're saying and I'm no accountant but the riders aren't employees. Back in the day transfer fees were a thing that's why I wondered if things had changed. When a club is sold are the value of the assets included I wonder? Otherwise you're selling nothing but the name and licence to run really Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 Don't clubs have to demonstrate a certain level of financial assets (including a bond and rider assets) before being accepted into the BSPL. I recall several years ago that Poole 'loaned' an asset to Somerset so that the Rebels met the BSPA criteria! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 17 minutes ago, iainb said: Yeah, I get what you're saying and I'm no accountant but the riders aren't employees. Back in the day transfer fees were a thing that's why I wondered if things had changed. When a club is sold are the value of the assets included I wonder? Otherwise you're selling nothing but the name and licence to run really 7 minutes ago, Skidder1 said: Don't clubs have to demonstrate a certain level of financial assets (including a bond and rider assets) before being accepted into the BSPL. I recall several years ago that Poole 'loaned' an asset to Somerset so that the Rebels met the BSPA criteria! Just more smoke and mirrors BS...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebv Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 15 minutes ago, Skidder1 said: Don't clubs have to demonstrate a certain level of financial assets (including a bond and rider assets) before being accepted into the BSPL. I recall several years ago that Poole 'loaned' an asset to Somerset so that the Rebels met the BSPA criteria! Pretty sure you are 100% right... i seem to remember reading a couple of years ago that the BSP want teams to have assets so as they have someone to sell should they close, which then can help pay the creditors..... I think it may have mentioned that this had replaced the 'bond' (not sure if just for some or all), given tracks didn't always have the money to front up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IainB Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 11 minutes ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said: Just more smoke and mirrors BS...... "Creative" Accounting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IainB Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 47 minutes ago, mikebv said: Pretty sure you are 100% right... i seem to remember reading a couple of years ago that the BSP want teams to have assets so as they have someone to sell should they close, which then can help pay the creditors..... I think it may have mentioned that this had replaced the 'bond' (not sure if just for some or all), given tracks didn't always have the money to front up... To have assets to sell... surely you need buyers. It's definitely a buyers market I'd say 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebv Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 11 minutes ago, iainb said: To have assets to sell... surely you need buyers. It's definitely a buyers market I'd say I presume it's more for loan deals.. A magic merry go round most years isnt it? Can't remember the last "big transfer" to be honest.. However.. Given Poland can dictate if "your rider" rides for you or not, I wouldnt think paying out any transfer money would be worth it anyway.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enotian Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 28 minutes ago, iainb said: "Creative" Accounting you're not allowed to be that creative. From an association perspective they may insist upon clubs having rider assets. Indeed I understand that is why Newcastle picked up Roynon this season. But from a business valuation perspective the riders are not assets and do not feature on the balance sheet. By acquiring a licence you might obtain the riders 'registration' which entitles you to first option on that rider or a loan fee from another club but these are just rules of the association. I think it was Matej Kus where there was a stand off where he refused to ride for Redcar and Redcar didn't want to loan him out and Newcastle didn't want to buy him. Ultimately he rode for Newcastle as a compromise was reached. Not sure if Newcastle bought him but got their fingers burnt on his baking trays if they did. The riders are sole traders or private businesses in their own right. I don't think if I sub contracted some work to Google that I could include the value of Google on my companies balance sheet. Might be worth a try. If you look at Newcastle this season. They've had to raise £8k via Just Giving. As far as I'm aware at no point did another promoter offer to buy Archie Freeman. A young talent who could go very far in the sport and the potential to improve dramatically over the next couple of seasons and entertain supporters for hopefully many many seasons. In ever sense a potential asset to a club. Just not from a financial perspective because once any contract he has agreed expires he is effectively free to sign a contract with anyone else despite what the association might think. Especially as he might at some stage decide to ply his trade in Poland or Sweden, without any transfer fee being applicable. The IPL in cricket is an interesting comparison. Ben Stokes went for £1.4m in one of their auctions. Who received the £1.4m?? Durham CC? the ECB? Ben Stokes? I'm not sure who can claim to 'own' him? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IainB Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 It's all very strange isn't it? Are loan fees still a thing then? Whereby your leasing/loaning a worthless asset. Just done a quick Google and it looks as though the last big transfer, or one of them, was the late Lee Richardson back in 2004 for £32,000 + VAT. If memory serves they bought him to replace Leigh Adams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IainB Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 23 minutes ago, enotian said: From an association perspective they may insist upon clubs having rider assets. Indeed I understand that is why Newcastle picked up Roynon this season. Was Roynon a free agent then? He's been around for years? Or was he "owned" by the BSPL? If so, talk about hitting a club when they're down, offloading a rider to a financially struggling club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enotian Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 1 minute ago, iainb said: Was Roynon a free agent then? He's been around for years? Or was he "owned" by the BSPL? If so, talk about hitting a club when they're down, offloading a rider to a financially struggling club. Not sure to be honest. I assume he was an asset of BSPL. Maybe Coventry was his last "owner"? I'm not sure if Newcastle had to pay to acquire him but I was told he was retained over Mountain (at the point he was released) because Roynon would become an asset and Mountain wouldn't. So the notion still exists even if it has zero financial status. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IainB Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 2 minutes ago, enotian said: Not sure to be honest. I assume he was an asset of BSPL. Maybe Coventry was his last "owner"? I'm not sure if Newcastle had to pay to acquire him but I was told he was retained over Mountain (at the point he was released) because Roynon would become an asset and Mountain wouldn't. So the notion still exists even if it has zero financial status. I think you've hit the nail on the head there... it all seems to be pretty notional these days I think 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.