Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

Rye House 2018


Recommended Posts

On 1/24/2019 at 5:10 PM, Daniel Smith said:

It's clear what I mean. The rider's took advantage of promoters that clearly had no idea about Speedway.

Is it well done Harris? Through the rider's greed, the club closed down and they wasn't paid their full contract and actually ended up worse off because of it, so it isn't "well done" at all for anyone. 

As someone who actually watched Rye House and Harris week in, week out I can assure you it wasn't the rider who caused the club to close down but the shambolic amateurs who ran the club. 

Edited by SFTGNigel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, startline sid said:

BMR are only the leaseholders - as far as I know the Lee Valley authority actually own the stadium

 

They must have paid Len a few bob to take control of the stadium. A new leaseholder is the only chance speedway has of returning to Hoddesdon. I'm not holding my breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, cityrebel said:

They must have paid Len a few bob to take control of the stadium. A new leaseholder is the only chance speedway has of returning to Hoddesdon. I'm not holding my breath.

I would guess Clydesdale bank is the new leaseholder of the stadium.

Warren Scott seems to have resigned all his directorships of various companies, and a Robert Scott has been appointed as a director instead.

Warren Scott is still showing as the main (sole) shareholder of Carter & Bailey Ltd, which I believe is Rye House Speedway, but Clydesdale Bank have a fixed and floating charge over the whole of the property, assets and rights of the company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a fairly common tactic to go bankrupt which means those who are owed don't get it - normally it's a business not the person themselves.  Like a phoenix from the ashes you can then rise again - shadow directors are common, with the real owner in the background..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2019 at 9:18 AM, Sings4Speedway said:

But at least everyone will know where they stand. Pay up at the end of each meeting and a rider will turn up for the next (considering how easy it is to do via bank transfer these days). Should never be situations where riders ride for 9 meetings without getting paid. No pay, no ride but no risk of being banned. 

According to a rider I know, when I spoke to him a couple of years ago, it is still in the rules that all riders have to sign a document to say they have been paid for the previous meeting before the start of the next meeting. Obviously the reality is that riders sign even when they haven't been paid for all sorts of reasons and we end up with this type of story where riders are owed large sums. Of course, the authorities would blame the rider in these circumstances for not refusing to ride. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, SPEEDY69 said:

It's a fairly common tactic to go bankrupt

It isn't.  It's very much a last resort. 

If you're declared bankrupt your bank accouts are frozen, you can't get credit or take out loans.   You can't act as a director of a company and you can't even manage a company without telling everyone you deal with about your banruptcy.  

A bankrupt is usually released after a year, but it still stays on records for 6 years, so even after a year, a bankrupt will still have problems getting a bank account, getting loans, credit, even taking out insurance.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/9/2019 at 5:25 PM, False dawn said:

According to a rider I know, when I spoke to him a couple of years ago, it is still in the rules that all riders have to sign a document to say they have been paid for the previous meeting before the start of the next meeting. Obviously the reality is that riders sign even when they haven't been paid for all sorts of reasons and we end up with this type of story where riders are owed large sums. Of course, the authorities would blame the rider in these circumstances for not refusing to ride. 

It’s the team captain that has to sign that  not all riders.its an official scb document.clearly they don’t give a stuff either .so long as they’ve got there money ay.! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Rayleigh said:

I still don't understand that if riders are still owed money from the Rye House management then why has that not been paid from the bond? or, if the bond was not paid, why has the BSPA not sued the Rye House management?

The BSPA only use the bond to pay standard rates. If riders had a contract that paid them more then they have to sue the Rye House promotion and a major part of that was recently made bankrupt! 

The situation appears to be that the riders have been paid at standard rate but therefore still feel they are owed money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris116 said:

The BSPA only use the bond to pay standard rates. If riders had a contract that paid them more then they have to sue the Rye House promotion and a major part of that was recently made bankrupt! 

The situation appears to be that the riders have been paid at standard rate but therefore still feel they are owed money. 

Thanks Chris, but as Carter & Bailey Ltd who owns the leasehold of the stadium and according to Companies House is still active but with Robert Scott not Warren Scott as director, then the BSPA could address their issues there or would this action open a "can of worms" for the BSPA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Rayleigh said:

Thanks Chris, but as Carter & Bailey Ltd who owns the leasehold of the stadium and according to Companies House is still active but with Robert Scott not Warren Scott as director, then the BSPA could address their issues there or would this action open a "can of worms" for the BSPA?

You will probably find that the leaseholders Carter & Bailey are a 'different' company to the speedway promoters BMR. If that's the case, then they might not be liable for the latter's debt. Of course, i could be wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 10:30 AM, Chris116 said:

The BSPA only use the bond to pay standard rates. If riders had a contract that paid them more then they have to sue the Rye House promotion and a major part of that was recently made bankrupt! 

The situation appears to be that the riders have been paid at standard rate but therefore still feel they are owed money. 

If that is true Chris then that is ridiculous. The Bond is there to cover ANY debts incurred by a promotion, who is to say the debt to a rider is too large or the debt to a landlord is too excessive, the bond should be there to make sure in the event of a promotor not fulfilling his obligations the BSPA will make good these debts (presumably the BSPA did not get paid in full themselves).

Maybe the debts were so large that the BSPA exhausted the bond without paying everybody in full, if this is the case then BSPA should list in detail how the bond was distributed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rayleigh said:

If that is true Chris then that is ridiculous. The Bond is there to cover ANY debts incurred by a promotion, who is to say the debt to a rider is too large or the debt to a landlord is too excessive, the bond should be there to make sure in the event of a promotor not fulfilling his obligations the BSPA will make good these debts (presumably the BSPA did not get paid in full themselves).

Maybe the debts were so large that the BSPA exhausted the bond without paying everybody in full, if this is the case then BSPA should list in detail how the bond was distributed.

The debt owed by the Rye House promotion was way above the Bond amount. The standard rate allows the BSPA to split the amount owed evenly for all 7 rider's. 

A bar has to be set somewhere. Would you think it's fair if a No1 is owed £50,000 and a No7 owed £2,000, should the No7 miss out because the No1 takes all the Bond?!?

I'm not sure but, Bomber's the only Rye rider I've seen saying he's owed money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Daniel Smith said:

The debt owed by the Rye House promotion was way above the Bond amount. The standard rate allows the BSPA to split the amount owed evenly for all 7 rider's. 

A bar has to be set somewhere. Would you think it's fair if a No1 is owed £50,000 and a No7 owed £2,000, should the No7 miss out because the No1 takes all the Bond?!?

I'm not sure but, Bomber's the only Rye rider I've seen saying he's owed money. 

How much was the total debt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy