poole keith Posted June 4, 2018 Report Share Posted June 4, 2018 53 minutes ago, PHILIPRISING said: BUT it is the promoters who don't want freedom of movement and rely on the assets system. thats why i said promoters with very small asset base would benefit from a change in the system, now and in the future,obviously promoters with large asset base wouldnt want change but thats only a few and it would only take one rider to challenge the system,and 2 or 3 promoters to finance his challenge 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebv Posted June 4, 2018 Report Share Posted June 4, 2018 11 minutes ago, poole keith said: thats why i said promoters with very small asset base would benefit from a change in the system, now and in the future,obviously promoters with large asset base wouldnt want change but thats only a few and it would only take one rider to challenge the system,and 2 or 3 promoters to finance his challenge I think it's more a collective decision to say "move along please, nothing to see here"... Especially given the way the asset system works in Poland and Sweden... Especially given the way the system works in other sports (eg 'The Bosman')... And especially given the EU free movement/restraint of trade laws... I would suggest it is something that uses a large carpet and a brush in the hope it doesn't ever get challenged... And who knows, maybe the system is actually integral is keeping tracks open, so therefore riders are quite happy to continue with the status quo? After all, a closed track earns a rider no money at all, and no opportunity for future earnings either.. And do they get a signing on fee when they become 'an asset'? One that is then used to buy equipment to ride over here? (and more than likely eleswhere)! If so, maybe that would need paying back? Murky waters though I would think should anyone actually take out a grievance under EU Employment Laws.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldRacer Posted June 4, 2018 Report Share Posted June 4, 2018 (edited) 39 minutes ago, mikebv said: And who knows, maybe the system is actually integral is keeping tracks open It's a zero sum game with money going from some clubs to other clubs. No new money comes into British speedway. Just those who have been around for a while and know the game preying on others. If your club relies on illegal contracts to operate, you don't have a sustainable business. Finally, any new club looking to open like Leicester are put at a further disadvantage by being forced to give money to established tracks. Do we really need more barriers to entry in British speedway? Edited June 4, 2018 by OldRacer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbiter Posted June 4, 2018 Report Share Posted June 4, 2018 About time this asset system was axed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebv Posted June 4, 2018 Report Share Posted June 4, 2018 27 minutes ago, OldRacer said: It's a zero sum game with money going from some clubs to other clubs. No new money comes into British speedway. Just those who have been around for a while and know the game preying on others. If your club relies on illegal contracts to operate, you don't have a sustainable business. Finally, any new club looking to open like Leicester are put at a further disadvantage by being forced to give money to established tracks. Do we really need more barriers to entry in British speedway? I remember reading in the SS earlier in the year one club quoting that they were advised to get more assets to ensure that they then had a "bond" large enough to be allowed to compete... As you say, not exactly a 'sure footing' with which to grow your business. . Particularly when it's built on the potential 'shifting sands' of Employment Law.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbiter Posted June 4, 2018 Report Share Posted June 4, 2018 Ford is moaning because none of his assets wanna ride for him lmfao! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted June 4, 2018 Report Share Posted June 4, 2018 25 minutes ago, Orbiter said: Ford is moaning because none of his assets wanna ride for him lmfao! it isn't that they do not want to ride for him, it is that they do not want to ride in England and although he has lots of assets, those that do want to ride here he has to loan them out if other teams want them and can't keep them like they would be if we had a squad system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbiter Posted June 4, 2018 Report Share Posted June 4, 2018 Fords finished Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted June 4, 2018 Report Share Posted June 4, 2018 46 minutes ago, Orbiter said: Fords finished Haha would take more than this to finish Matt ford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray c Posted June 5, 2018 Report Share Posted June 5, 2018 12 hours ago, foreverblue said: Haha would take more than this to finish Matt ford. Let's be honest the season we are having at Poole would make anyone want to pack it in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reliant Robin Posted June 5, 2018 Report Share Posted June 5, 2018 (edited) 18 hours ago, PHILIPRISING said: BUT it is the promoters who don't want freedom of movement and rely on the assets system. I'd suggest that if there was freedom of movement then costs for Promoters would increase at an even faster rate. Riders would be better off and be open to the highest bidder each year, even more so than they are now. Who do we think those increased costs would end up being passed onto? Edited June 5, 2018 by Reliant Robin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted June 5, 2018 Report Share Posted June 5, 2018 29 minutes ago, ray c said: Let's be honest the season we are having at Poole would make anyone want to pack it in It isn't finished yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perton Wolf Posted June 5, 2018 Report Share Posted June 5, 2018 The ''asset'' system is farcical, bin it and bring the sport into the 21st century. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perton Wolf Posted June 5, 2018 Report Share Posted June 5, 2018 30 minutes ago, Reliant Robin said: I'd suggest that if there was freedom of movement then costs for Promoters would increase at an even faster rate. Riders would be better off and be open to the highest bidder each year, even more so than they are now. Who do we think those increased costs would end up being passed onto? Or one could argue that clubs would no longer have to pay a ''loan fee'' - thereby saving money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyke Posted June 5, 2018 Report Share Posted June 5, 2018 6 minutes ago, Perton Wolf said: The ''asset'' system is farcical, bin it and bring the sport into the 21st century. Most likely also illegal according to employment law 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reliant Robin Posted June 5, 2018 Report Share Posted June 5, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Perton Wolf said: Or one could argue that clubs would no longer have to pay a ''loan fee'' - thereby saving money. I don't think it would save them money....any saving would be spent, and some, if riders had complete freedom of movement. I'm not saying I'm I complete agreement with the 'asset' system how it currently is, but scrapping it completely isn't the answer and would not do supporters of the Sport in UK any favours in my opinion. I do think a Club should have to use their assets within a timeframe or lose them rather than sitting on them indefinitely. Edited June 5, 2018 by Reliant Robin 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perton Wolf Posted June 5, 2018 Report Share Posted June 5, 2018 1 minute ago, tyke said: Most likely also illegal according to employment law Also encourages clubs to farm a large number of assets and then hold other clubs to ransom for them, even if they have no intent of picking them to ride for the club again. The whole system is really bizarre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capone Posted June 6, 2018 Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 dont know if ive missed it somewhere, but its strange that c. holder, is the only aussie unable to get visa/ work permit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWC Posted June 6, 2018 Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 Is Milik a Poole asset? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner85 Posted June 6, 2018 Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 On 6/3/2018 at 11:25 AM, DC2 said: Swindon 46.74 Wolves 47.44 Belle Vue 43.98 Poole 42.54 Rye House 43.73 Somerset 41.93 Kings Lynn 38.46 Leicester 43.02 Those are the 2017 finishing averages. For 2018, to encourage continuity and fan loyalty any team should have been allowed to keep the same riders, regardless of average, or build a new team to the fourth highest average ((Rye’s 43.73). That could have meant the top three clubs keeping the same team and the bottom five replacing a couple of riders with better ones, whether they be established Championship scorers or emerging riders (UK or foreign). If they chose emerging riders they would truly be investing in their team’s future and would get closer to and ultimately overtake the top teams. Sweden used to have a limit for the next year which would be the average of the top three from the previous season. Over time the limit got higher and higher and overall made the teams more expensive. our limit is designed to keep costs down...rightly or wrongly 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.