raymondbudd Posted November 7, 2014 Report Share Posted November 7, 2014 I've put this in the general section (rather than international) on the basis that its more about assets / loan moves than this one in particular. Looking at the news story on SGP Hampel is on his way out of Zielona Gora on a loan move to another Polish club. Which raises the question are there any clubs in the UK who would claim he is an asset of? If there is, then surely as an EU member state (Poland) this loan or transfer fee would go to the UK club? This was something which irked me the other week when Middlo claimed that all the riders in the Poole side during the Champions league meeting were club assets (of Poole). Whilst I am only guessing, I would suggest that there are also Polish sides of these riders who would also claim that they were assets (of the Polish side). So when is a rider a bonfide asset of a club (as per EU law)? and why on earth has nobody seriously looked at this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted November 7, 2014 Report Share Posted November 7, 2014 I've put this in the general section (rather than international) on the basis that its more about assets / loan moves than this one in particular. Looking at the news story on SGP Hampel is on his way out of Zielona Gora on a loan move to another Polish club. Which raises the question are there any clubs in the UK who would claim he is an asset of? If there is, then surely as an EU member state (Poland) this loan or transfer fee would go to the UK club? This was something which irked me the other week when Middlo claimed that all the riders in the Poole side during the Champions league meeting were club assets (of Poole). Whilst I am only guessing, I would suggest that there are also Polish sides of these riders who would also claim that they were assets (of the Polish side). So when is a rider a bonfide asset of a club (as per EU law)? and why on earth has nobody seriously looked at this? Because the retain-and-transfer system only applies to BSPA members, and only between its members in Britain. It's never applied to riders signing for teams outside of their own countries, although I'm not even sure Poland and Sweden have any sort of transfer system anyway. EU law has nothing to do with it - the Bosman ruling only made transfer fees illegal for out-of-contract players moving between EU countries. In that sense, speedway already complied with Bosman, although even domestic transfer systems are on shaky legal grounds anyway. You don't pay a transfer fee if you want to work for Sainsbury's instead of Tesco, so why on earth does still rubbish still exist in British speedway? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandorum Posted November 7, 2014 Report Share Posted November 7, 2014 So when is a rider a bonfide asset of a club (as per EU law)? and why on earth has nobody seriously looked at this? Probably because it is too stupid for words and would not stand up in a court in Bongo BongoLand let alone one here. It's fantasy speedway played out by speedway's fantasists. I am sure World Champion Greg Hancock cares tuppence which team in the UK owns him but obviously someone thinks they do. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted November 7, 2014 Report Share Posted November 7, 2014 SCRAPPING the 'assets' in Britain might be a bitter pill to swallow at first but I'm sure it would prove beneficial in the long run and help spread whatever riders are available amongst the member tracks. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted November 7, 2014 Report Share Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) SCRAPPING the 'assets' in Britain might be a bitter pill to swallow at first but I'm sure it would prove beneficial in the long run and help spread whatever riders are available amongst the member tracks. It's long since been a joke, as hardly any promotions really develop riders anymore, nor transfer fees paid. It's just a merry-go-round of loaning, claiming fees for riders that haven't ridden for their parent promotion in years. I think it would be reasonable to pay compensation to the first team that a rider rode for, and they're in (say) under 21 or in the first 3 years of their career, if they move to another team. However, that should be one-off and with no ongoing rights to the rider, and outside of those conditions, no fees are payable whatsoever when that rider moves elsewhere. Edited November 7, 2014 by Humphrey Appleby 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WembleyLion Posted November 8, 2014 Report Share Posted November 8, 2014 I agree with doubts expressed above. Speedway riders are also self-employed so I'm not really sure how they can be looked upon as assets of a particular club. Maybe something in the contracts they sign? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted November 8, 2014 Report Share Posted November 8, 2014 UNLESS something has changed BSPA contracts expire on October 31st. In Sweden and Poland, for example, riders often sign one, two or even three year contracts but once they expire they are free to move elsewhere. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted November 8, 2014 Report Share Posted November 8, 2014 (edited) Speedway riders are also self-employed so I'm not really sure how they can be looked upon as assets of a particular club. Maybe something in the contracts they sign? Nothing more than a gentlemens' agreement. Riders are still assets of a promoter regardless of whether they have a contract or not, and certainly aren't paid for the privilege unless you take testimonials into account. It's little more than indentured servitude, and only survives because no-one has rocked the boat until now. Edited November 8, 2014 by Humphrey Appleby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymondbudd Posted November 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2014 If what Phil says is true (and I have no reason to doubt it), I find it incredible that's it's never challenged by a rider. Using the UK for example if a rider is loaned out by its "parent" club, a fee is paid by the receiving club ( I once saw £500 per average point quoted). This money could otherwise be paid to the rider. As far as the EU is concerned, it makes no difference if the loan is to Wolverhampton or Wroclaw it's the year 2014 and as such there are no trade barriers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WembleyLion Posted November 8, 2014 Report Share Posted November 8, 2014 Some good points being made on this thread. Perhaps the collapse of this dubious ownership system is near to an end which is possibly why there do not appear to be many transfers these days and certainly not many that involve much money. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted November 8, 2014 Report Share Posted November 8, 2014 As far as the EU is concerned, it makes no difference if the loan is to Wolverhampton or Wroclaw it's the year 2014 and as such there are no trade barriers. The EU is only concerned with international trade and movement of labour. The BSPA asset system would be a UK issue. 1 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.