The White Knight Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Hardly a stitch up if it was a fair vote! For years the PL have had the upper hand due to numbers. Which is hardly fair as most the riders are owned by EL clubs - as we're not finding out. so much for the EL needing the PL's riders "farcical rules"? You mean the rules in previous seasons that said the PL had priority over the NL and the EL was fair and just? That olnly happened as there were more PL clubs when it come to any vote. The EL have been screwed over for years with this. Maybe if the PL wanted the riders they could splash the cash and buy them?! Perhaps the fact that there are more Premier League Clubs, of which none, to my knowledge are clamouring to join the Elite League might just tell you something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pogo1 Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Why would Glasgow not have a vote? Alan Dick has been a promoter there for 15 years, plus the new owners are not promoters! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 I get that it's unfair in that respect and have said so on the Redcar thread but how is that any different to what the EL have had to put up with for years? As it is, your suggested rule is not one I disagree with TBF. I didn't hear too many PL fans asking that in the past though. PL fans used to claim that the PL was keeping the EL going by letting the EL use their riders. The PL fans never seemed to grasp that the vast majority of doubling up riders are actually owned by EL clubs - which is staggering when there nearly twice as many PL clubs as EL clubs! Maybe if the PL clubs had played fair for years, the EL clubs would not have got their own back when they could (now). Funny how now the PL will only get priority with a small number of doubling up riders (Cook, Stead, Birks, Auty, Starke, Wright and Howarth out of 22 riders) the rules are crap - the EL have suffered for years and the PL fans just rubbed it in. Partly agree with the principle of what you say. However the garnering of assets has been skewed in the favour of the EL in the past with them signing riders without usuing them and loaning to PL - something the PL clubs werent able to do. That didnt neccessarily mean any significant investment (financial or otherwise) on the EL side but means they have more assets. Only in the last couple of years has this changed and even then you hear the suggestion that tge likes of Kurtz are actually Poole riders for example even though its not technically possible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Panda Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Partly agree with the principle of what you say. However the garnering of assets has been skewed in the favour of the EL in the past with them signing riders without usuing them and loaning to PL - something the PL clubs werent able to do. That didnt neccessarily mean any significant investment (financial or otherwise) on the EL side but means they have more assets. Only in the last couple of years has this changed and even then you hear the suggestion that tge likes of Kurtz are actually Poole riders for example even though its not technically possible Kurtz to the best of my knowledge is not a Poole asset yet though its not beyond the realms of possibility............... Yes EL clubs have assets they do not use and loan out................some PL clubs do the same...............but at least the clarification of the rule is in everyone's best interests............. It was totally unfair on the EL when they were told that PL took priority...............then when it became the club of which the rider is an asset took priority if they rode for them it made more sense.............the fact that if a rider is loaned out to another club which is in the same league as his own club but doubles up means that the league his parent club is in gets priority makes sense to me................ RP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grachan Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Funny how, for years, PL clubs (ie the lower league) got priority and the rules were apparently fine. Now the league in which a rider is an asset gets priority and the rules are all wrong just because the lower league can't mess up the EL any more. It was always crazy that the lower league had priority over the higher one. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MANSE Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Glasgow will get priority over Lakeside for Lawson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fromafar Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Glasgow will get priority over Lakeside for LawsonThat's stating the obvious,they own him!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nutz Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) It was always crazy that the lower league had priority over the higher one. Why? A rider should be prioritised for the club he is owned by, irrespective of league. End of. Edited February 10, 2015 by Nutz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Partly agree with the principle of what you say. However the garnering of assets has been skewed in the favour of the EL in the past with them signing riders without usuing them and loaning to PL - something the PL clubs werent able to do. That didnt neccessarily mean any significant investment (financial or otherwise) on the EL side but means they have more assets. Only in the last couple of years has this changed and even then you hear the suggestion that tge likes of Kurtz are actually Poole riders for example even though its not technically possible. The EL and the PL have always worked to the same rules with regards to assets. I'm not sure where this myth comes from that EL clubs have it easier. Poole do seem to have this amazing ability to snap up more riders than any other club but I don't think thats due to them being an EL club. Just due to them being a big club and almost being bale to bully there way around Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalSin Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) The EL and the PL have always worked to the same rules with regards to assets.Have they? Must admit, I always thought that EL clubs could sign "assets" without said rider even turning a wheel for them (albeit a limited number?), while a PL club had to sign a rider, and that rider had to complete 6 home and 6 away fixtures (or simply 12 fixtures?) before the rider became a club asset? I could possibly have completely made that up.. Edited February 10, 2015 by CardinalSin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 The EL and the PL have always worked to the same rules with regards to assets. I'm not sure where this myth comes from that EL clubs have it easier. Poole do seem to have this amazing ability to snap up more riders than any other club but I don't think thats due to them being an EL club. Just due to them being a big club and almost being bale to bully there way around So how did Pboro sign the likes of North and Poole? Assets but unused. Bellego on the other hand despite actually riding for a PL club was not an asset when he moved due to not having ridden enough meeting to qualfy. Adam Ellis signed by Lakeside -unused until tested out in PL and found to be a good prospect. For him to have been an asset of a PL club he wouldve neeed to ride the min number of meetings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Leslie Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Would have been interesting if this rule had been in place last year when Stefan Nielsen was riding for Coventry in the NL and Belle Vue in EL. Presumably Belle Vue (EL) would have had priority over Coventry (NL) because Nielsen is owned by an EL club - Coventry! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronScorpion Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 This, in my opinion, is where the asset system is wrong. An EL club can sign or pay a fee & not ride for them for a rider where , for PL clubs, a rider has to have ridden 12 meetings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Have they? Must admit, I always thought that EL clubs could sign "assets" without said rider even turning a wheel for them (albeit a limited number?), while a PL club had to sign a rider, and that rider had to complete 6 home and 6 away fixtures (or simply 12 fixtures?) before the rider became a club asset? I could possibly have completely made that up.. I'm certain. There is no difference. Clubs have alwats done it. The "agreement" (as there are no rules on assets - there proof the BSPA think they're on dodgy ground with assets straight away!) are that a rider have to do 4 home and 4 away I think it is but they can protect one rider a year. Where as for some obscure reason, Brit are a free for all. The rules were actually brought in because about 20 years ago Eastbourne invited a load of riders (mainly Finns) over for a practice session and signed them all up as assets So how did Pboro sign the likes of North and Poole? Assets but unused. Bellego on the other hand despite actually riding for a PL club was not an asset when he moved due to not having ridden enough meeting to qualfy. Adam Ellis signed by Lakeside -unused until tested out in PL and found to be a good prospect. For him to have been an asset of a PL club he wouldve neeed to ride the min number of meetings. Bellego has caused a lot of problems - you only have to read any Glasgow/Berwick thread for that one. I think it comes down to there not being any hard and fast rules and someone playing silly buggers. As for Ellis, he's a Brit, there seems to be a free for all on them. I think the biggest issue is the whole system is a joke rather than PL clubs are at any kind of disadvantage. And then you have Poole and there games, they pay airfares for riders and then agree to buy them once they have been over here a few months and become an asset of the PL club. But when you look at most of the double uppers, the EL clubs have either bought them or they started with them in the NL. It's Ellis who signed randomly for a club (I'm guessing the Neil Vatcher effect come in hand here!) Would have been interesting if this rule had been in place last year when Stefan Nielsen was riding for Coventry in the NL and Belle Vue in EL. Presumably Belle Vue (EL) would have had priority over Coventry (NL) because Nielsen is owned by an EL club - Coventry! I would hope that the EL has priority over the NL regardless. Professional league vs training league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 One thing we all seem to agree on is that the asset system isnt fit for purpose. Probably defended by those who wouldnt change it as the lesser of 2 evils as a true freelance approach could see the rich clubs 'raid' riders once proven. Is that so different to now though? And at the end of the day each team can only have 7 riders and build within the points limit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 One thing we all seem to agree on is that the asset system isnt fit for purpose. I think thats a fair assessment. One of the reasons it was kept was for work permit reasons but that little scam has been outlawed now. So I wonder what other reasons they have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grachan Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Why? A rider should be prioritised for the club he is owned by, irrespective of league. End of. Why? Because it was always crazy that the lower league had priority over the higher one. That's why. You think a rider should be prioritised for the club he is owned by? I agree. That's what I said in the part of my post that you decided to delete from your quote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2ndbendbeerhut Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 So who rides for who then? Is there a list of riders with their priority somewhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2ndbendbeerhut Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) So who goes where then? (parent club) AutyBatesBirksBlackbird (Mildenhall)CookEllis (Lakeside)GarrityHowarthKennettKerrKing (BSPA) CoventryLawsonMorrisNewmanS LambertR LambertNielsen (Coventry) Belle VueRobson CoventryRoseSarjeant (Coventry)StarkeSteadWellsS WorrallWright Edited February 10, 2015 by 2ndbendbeerhut Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proud panther Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Lewis Blackbird is owned by Mildenhall, so who gets priority, Wolves or Panthers ? Cardinal Sin, please don't come on here & say he belongs to Ipswich, because he doesn't. P.M. me & I will prove it to you. 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.