pugwash Posted February 7, 2015 Report Share Posted February 7, 2015 From the goings on of recent months I suspect that legal issues are not The FIM's strong point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted February 7, 2015 Report Share Posted February 7, 2015 Premier League and doubling up in Elite League is this two Leagues? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iris123 Posted February 7, 2015 Report Share Posted February 7, 2015 Premier League and doubling up in Elite League is this two Leagues? Doesn't really interfere with the Champions League does it?So I guess not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
500cc Posted February 7, 2015 Report Share Posted February 7, 2015 FIFA / UEFA happily restrict players to a maximum of two clubs per season; and none at the same time. Whilst you are comparing self employed riders against employed players (although on a restricted length contract), this isn't black and white. Speedway wants to believe it 'owns' riders when actually those riders change 'ownership' multiple times a week. The BSPA can ban a rider for 28 days because he rides in a different country whilst his UK team has a fixture the same day. It's a can of worms if ever anybody wanted to unravel it, and as primarily an EU based sport, things could change. In my opinion it's difficult to legally ban somebody who isn't contractually obligated to ride for you; and if he is, then you potentially have two clashing EU regulated contracts. Problematic. Only becomes an issue under challenge, but currently Speedway's 'management' of multiple team places is confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iris123 Posted February 7, 2015 Report Share Posted February 7, 2015 FIFA / UEFA happily restrict players to a maximum of two clubs per season; and none at the same time. Whilst you are comparing self employed riders against employed players (although on a restricted length contract), this isn't black and white. It isn't really restricting someones earning power with football though.No-one could honestly play for a couple of teams in different countries and anyway they earn quite enough with one club as it is.It is though a big restriction on a riders earning power by restricting them to only two leagues when they might ride in 4 or 5.......Different kettle of fish imo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KN1 Posted February 7, 2015 Report Share Posted February 7, 2015 Cut the costs in the sport and 2 leagues should be enough for any rider!! If riders start demanding too much then clubs should just turn them down - especially if they cannot afford it. People keep going on about cutting costs, I dont see how apart from some ridiculous rule changes that require riders to spend uunnecessary monies, Ie kevlars this season. I do not believe there are enough riders as yet to fill these positions if it comes in and of what standard and if of a low standard then fans will drift away more so, as its human nature in any domain to go to see the best available, then there is nowhere for these riders to aspire to get to, a ridiculous idea and a lot riders will be more inclined to pack it in with the restraints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim the whipper Posted February 7, 2015 Report Share Posted February 7, 2015 I've always thought that something on these lines should be advocated. I was thinking more in terms of enforced loyalty . Aussies and Yanks have no league . so the only place that will take them untried is the UK . to ride here they would have to adopt British league , therefore no learnig the trade here and then turning their backs on us . or worse still trying to blackmail us into tailoring the whole of British speedway to suit their wishes .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted February 7, 2015 Report Share Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) The BSPA can ban a rider for 28 days because he rides in a different country whilst his UK team has a fixture the same day. That's a different matter. It's not illegal for individual teams to contract riders and insist they're available when required, or at least subject the terms of that contract. They can even state that a rider can't ride for another team, but then riders would then ask for more money or find another profession if they can't make the sport pay. It's quite another thing for a governing body who's not employing the riders to be putting artificial restrictions in place. I don't think the assertion about FIFA/UEFA restricting players to two clubs per season is entirely correct - the transfer windows effectively enforce that, but out-of-contract/unattached/amateur players can be signed at any time. Edited February 7, 2015 by Humphrey Appleby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
500cc Posted February 7, 2015 Report Share Posted February 7, 2015 It isn't really restricting someones earning power with football though.No-one could honestly play for a couple of teams in different countries and anyway they earn quite enough with one club as it is.It is though a big restriction on a riders earning power by restricting them to only two leagues when they might ride in 4 or 5.......Different kettle of fish imo Sure I understand that. I wasn't really directly commenting on the suggestion that riders be limited to two clubs (sorry going off on my own track rather the sticking to the point of the thread !!!). It's perfectly reasonable that riders can earn in multiple countries. I just find it interesting that those clubs / associations can then restrict the rider's earning ability by banning them if they make themselves unavailable for one team in order to ride for another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iris123 Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) It's quite another thing for a governing body who's not employing the riders to be putting artificial restrictions in place. I don't think the assertion about FIFA/UEFA restricting players to two clubs per season is entirely correct - the transfer windows effectively enforce that, but out-of-contract/unattached/amateur players can be signed at any time. Was a case here last week.A Red Bull Salzburgh player had been with another club this season and then was signed(maybe on loan) by partner club RB Leipzig.Deal was done,but then wasn't authorised by the German authorities because this was his third club in one season and it was found it wasn't allowed by FIFA.Although the last I heard they were looking into the legalities of this ruling http://www.sport1.de/fussball/2-bundesliga/2015/01/rb-leipzig-rangnick-erklaert-probleme-beim-transfer-von-quaschner Edited February 8, 2015 by iris123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 I just find it interesting that those clubs / associations can then restrict the rider's earning ability by banning them if they make themselves unavailable for one team in order to ride for another. Because it's a breach of contract unless their contract specifically states the meetings they're allowed to miss (although aren't BSPA contracts all fairly standard and probably say they have to be available for all meetings). Most people would be fired for not turning up to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 The top Polish League clubs already have a limit of tracking a maximum of 3 'foreigners'. Not sure about the lower leagues or in Sweden? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostwalker Posted February 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) The top Polish League clubs already have a limit of tracking a maximum of 3 'foreigners'. Not sure about the lower leagues or in Sweden? Legally the Polish restriction wouldn't hold up in court if challenged. No EU-country can put that kind of restrictions in place. Svemo tried to create this type of rule for a few years ago but they had to remove it because it was against EU-rule. It was replaced by a "gentlemen agreement" which have worked fine for a few seasons but now two teams have brought it foreign riders on Swedish licenses. Edited February 8, 2015 by Ghostwalker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
500cc Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 Because it's a breach of contract unless their contract specifically states the meetings they're allowed to miss (although aren't BSPA contracts all fairly standard and probably say they have to be available for all meetings). Most people would be fired for not turning up to work. It isn't that simple though. Contracts have to be plausible. If the BSPA knowingly allow riders to sign contracts that directly contradict another contract then the validity of that contract can be questioned. It could be argued that's entirely the riders problem, except at the same time the authorities in different countries are discussing how they manage the 'clashes' the riders experience. Forgetting the ban element, a rider could actually be put in an impossible position if both contracts state total availability. And as you say, I believe UK contracts at least state that. Having said all that, I'm not sure if the non-UK contracts are so restrictive on a riders availability. And also you need to have a participant wanting to challenge any contract and for it to make sense to do so. The actual issue I have is that on one hand the authorities are effectively saying the rider needs to manage all his 'self employment' whereas on the other hand those same authorities believe they can separately interfere with those agreements. The rumour of the FIM restricting riders to two leagues being one example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
500cc Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 Legally the Polish restriction wouldn't hold up in court if challenged. No EU-country can put that kind of restrictions in place. Svemo tried to create this type of rule for a few years ago but they had to remove it because it was against EU-rule. It was replaced by a "gentlemen agreement" which have worked fine for a few seasons but now two teams have brought it foreign riders on Swedish licenses. I'm just not convinced that is true. I believe sports can (and do) restrict the number of non-domestic players per team. In the UK I know of. British Basketball League. The new eligibility allows teams to play a maximum of five over-18 non-British players per game, of which a maximum of three can be work permitted. All remaining spots on the team have to be filled by British passport holders. British Ice Hockey (2nd Tier). Not anything like the level of Sweden of course. Teams allowed 4 non-British players (no work permits I believe). But here it gets interesting. There are players who have been playing at this level who were born in Canada, have a British passport through residency, have represented the GB in World Championships Group A (where Sweden of course are quite successful - GB weren't !!!), but count as one of these 4 which even restricts when they can ice (I think only two non-Brits on the ice at any time). It is professional. Not huge but budgets in the £100,000's. German Basketball. Maximum 6 non-Germans on the roster. Italian Basketball. Minimum 5 homegrown players (including one who may be naturalised). Spanish Basketball. Minimum 4 players eligible for the National team. Although I believe there have been some issues over the full restrictions here. My understanding is you can have some restrictions, but need to be careful to meet EC restrictions. For example, I'm not sure you can treat differently non-domestic players who are home-trained. I think the British Basketball regulations attempt to address that particular concern. Even in Elite League Speedway, the number of non-British riders is effectively restricted to 5 with the Fast Track System. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 Was a case here last week.A Red Bull Salzburgh player had been with another club this season and then was signed(maybe on loan) by partner club RB Leipzig.Deal was done,but then wasn't authorised by the German authorities because this was his third club in one season and it was found it wasn't allowed by FIFA.Although the last I heard they were looking into the legalities of this ruling http://www.sport1.de/fussball/2-bundesliga/2015/01/rb-leipzig-rangnick-erklaert-probleme-beim-transfer-von-quaschner Similarly. Our old player Hatem Ben Arfa, when in dispute with the club, played one match with the U21's, and then went on loan to Hull. After another bust up, his loan was cancelled and, as a free agent, tried to join Nice. FIFA has ruled that is his third club and he can't play again this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 You mean like the Speedway World Cup? Well like having two parallel GP competitions in the SGP and SEC. However, it's amazing that the FIM allows GPs to be staged willy nilly with much regard to league programmes, and then grumbles about their own ill-conceived competition being diluted. Was a case here last week.A Red Bull Salzburgh player had been with another club this season and then was signed(maybe on loan) by partner club RB Leipzig.Deal was done,but then wasn't authorised by the German authorities because this was his third club in one season and it was found it wasn't allowed by FIFA.Although the last I heard they were looking into the legalities of this ruling Yes, and it was already amended so as not to penalise players moving to/from summer clubs. I doubt it would stand-up to any legal challenge if it's seen to be actively keeping players out of work. The actual issue I have is that on one hand the authorities are effectively saying the rider needs to manage all his 'self employment' whereas on the other hand those same authorities believe they can separately interfere with those agreements. The rumour of the FIM restricting riders to two leagues being one example. The FIM would better served acting as coordinating body to try to coordinate the various league and international fixtures, and try to come-up with some sort of rider sharing system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Well like having two parallel GP competitions in the SGP and SEC. However, it's amazing that the FIM allows GPs to be staged willy nilly with much regard to league programmes, and then grumbles about their own ill-conceived competition being diluted. Yes, and it was already amended so as not to penalise players moving to/from summer clubs. I doubt it would stand-up to any legal challenge if it's seen to be actively keeping players out of work. Isn't there a huge difference between the two sports that means they can't be bracketed together in what any legal challenge might decide? A footballer not allowed to play for a third club in any one season could mean 'out of work' period. No job at all. A speedway rider not being allowed to ride for more than two teams at any given time means he still has two jobs, therefore is in employment elsewhere. Even if any EU body decided to sit in judgement, it would probably be so far down the list so as to not make it worthwhile for the rider to pursue. Edited February 10, 2015 by Vincent Blackshadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 A speedway rider not being allowed to ride for more than two teams at any given time means he still has two jobs, therefore is in employment elsewhere. Even if any EU body decided to sit in judgement, it would probably be so far down the list so as to not make it worthwhile for the rider to pursue. Well maybe, but if there's a precedent of riding in more than two leagues and rider duties aren't required on a particular day of the week, then why should they be restricted from earning? Where does one draw the line as well - are they also not allowed to take open bookings? What happens if a 'league' declares itself a series of open meetings to get around the restriction? The whole idea just hasn't been thought through properly, and maybe the FIM should just stick to sorting out the messes they've created with FIM Europe amongst others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uk_martin Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Seems to me that people who don't like the notion of the World Speedway League have objected to it primarily on the grounds of it will feature teams for whom the same riders ride for. Now that the FIM are doing something about the riders issue, the same people are objecting to the FIM proposal, just because it eliminates their arguement against the World Speedway League, Well, hard luck. Despite the fact that the World Speedway League wasn't invented here, and despite the fact that it will show British Speedway to be the poor relation (again) it's going to happen. Get used to it, and cut your cloth accordingly. In the long term it will be the competition that teams will aspire to, in the same way as the Champions Leage is for football. 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.