Assets and rider poaching

[DC2]

 

After the scandals involving Batchelor,  Miedzinski, Klindt and Morris, it’s about time there were clear rules regarding assets and team-building:

any rider (whether an asset or not) who rode for the club this season and who is offered a contract (on the same terms plus inflation) before 1 December must sign for that club or sit out the season;

any asset who has not been offered a contract by his parent club before 1 December is free to sign for another club.

That would stop poaching and stop clubs sitting on assets and it would encourage loyalty which benefits the fan base.

[poolebolton]

19 minutes ago, DC2 said:

 

After the scandals involving Batchelor,  Miedzinski, Klindt and Morris, it’s about time there were clear rules regarding assets and team-building:

any rider (whether an asset or not) who rode for the club this season and who is offered a contract (on the same terms plus inflation) before 1 December must sign for that club or sit out the season;

any asset who has not been offered a contract by his parent club before 1 December is free to sign for another club.

That would stop poaching and stop clubs sitting on assets and it would encourage loyalty which benefits the fan base.

Thats great apart from if a club doesn't have a say on assets away from the club before December the 1st then they might never get a rider they want. 

Jason Doyle could have been stuck at Leicester for years potentially. 

Should just be the same as Poland and sweden have a set window and you have to name your team by a set date. 

[Steve0]

Hmmm!  These are self employed riders and employment laws enable them to ride for whoever they want - you can’t force a rider to ride for a specific club - the same way any other employed person can choose who they work for

[SteveLyric2]

43 minutes ago, DC2 said:

 

After the scandals involving Batchelor,  Miedzinski, Klindt and Morris, it’s about time there were clear rules regarding assets and team-building:

any rider (whether an asset or not) who rode for the club this season and who is offered a contract (on the same terms plus inflation) before 1 December must sign for that club or sit out the season;

any asset who has not been offered a contract by his parent club before 1 December is free to sign for another club.

That would stop poaching and stop clubs sitting on assets and it would encourage loyalty which benefits the fan base.

What 'scandals'?

[SteveLyric2]

1 minute ago, Steve0 said:

Hmmm!  These are self employed riders and employment laws enable them to ride for whoever they want - you can’t force a rider to ride for a specific club - the same way any other employed person can choose who they work for

But promoters can delay making their rider asset available to others until their 1-7 is confirmed.

[DC2]

2 minutes ago, Steve0 said:

Hmmm!  These are self employed riders and employment laws enable them to ride for whoever they want - you can’t force a rider to ride for a specific club - the same way any other employed person can choose who they work for

 

Not forcing a rider to ride for a club, just making it a rule that he will have to sit out a year if he doesn’t. A similar rule to a team-building points limit.

[Daniel Smith]

39 minutes ago, DC2 said:

 

After the scandals involving Batchelor,  Miedzinski, Klindt and Morris, it’s about time there were clear rules regarding assets and team-building:

any rider (whether an asset or not) who rode for the club this season and who is offered a contract (on the same terms plus inflation) before 1 December must sign for that club or sit out the season;

any asset who has not been offered a contract by his parent club before 1 December is free to sign for another club.

That would stop poaching and stop clubs sitting on assets and it would encourage loyalty which benefits the fan base.

There already is a window until 1st January. 

But rider's cannot legally be forced into contracts they don't want, that's totally against slavery laws.

It should always remain rider choice where they want to be.

If rider's want to move on because of better pay or they feel more wanted then so be it. If Morris is offered £100 per point and Poole offer £200 why shouldn't he be allowed to move?? If there's companies out there offering you better wages you move on, it's as simple as that to be honest. 

[Daniel Smith]

1 minute ago, DC2 said:

 

Not forcing a rider to ride for a club, just making it a rule that he will have to sit out a year if he doesn’t. A similar rule to a team-building points limit.

That's blackmail and slavery all in one.

[DC2]

2 minutes ago, Daniel Smith said:

That's blackmail and slavery all in one.

 

That’s a Sun headline. It’s neither blackmail, nor slavery, is it.

I don’t know if it’s contrary to employment law. In many employment contracts there are restraint of trade and non-competition clauses and in football, for example, there are transfer windows and Cup-tied rules which include an element of restraint of trade.

In speedway, averages, assessed averages, CL/PL conversion rates and team-building limits are effectively restraint of trade.

[stevebrum]

44 minutes ago, Skidder1 said:

What 'scandals'?

My sentiment too. The only ‘scandal’ of any description was AM and Poole forcing a deal against the wishes of his parent club Swindon.

Its been clear since that ‘scandal’ that riders will go where they want and the rider asset system is disrespected by riders and clubs.

Its no scandal today.

[Daniel Smith]

1 hour ago, DC2 said:

 

That’s a Sun headline. It’s neither blackmail, nor slavery, is it.

I don’t know if it’s contrary to employment law. In many employment contracts there are restraint of trade and non-competition clauses and in football, for example, there are transfer windows and Cup-tied rules which include an element of restraint of trade.

In speedway, averages, assessed averages, CL/PL conversion rates and team-building limits are effectively restraint of trade.

So which bit of "you sign this contract or you're banned for a year" is not blackmailing??

[DC2]

2 minutes ago, Daniel Smith said:

So which bit of "you sign this contract or you're banned for a year" is not blackmailing??

 

The whole lot. Don’t make your point with hyperbole.

[noggin]

The biggest issue I see is another club benefiting from a bargain average, Morris rode crap for a season and could potentially now come back an 8 point rider after a year away, thus being worthless,.

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv]

2 hours ago, DC2 said:

 

After the scandals involving Batchelor,  Miedzinski, Klindt and Morris, it’s about time there were clear rules regarding assets and team-building:

any rider (whether an asset or not) who rode for the club this season and who is offered a contract (on the same terms plus inflation) before 1 December must sign for that club or sit out the season;

any asset who has not been offered a contract by his parent club before 1 December is free to sign for another club.

That would stop poaching and stop clubs sitting on assets and it would encourage loyalty which benefits the fan base.

Lets use your scenario

Kyle Bickley starts at Worky last year

Lets say he was on £40 per point

Fast forward 5 years and in order for him not to miss a whole season somewhere along the line he still potentially has to ride for  £40 per point even if he progresses to No1 status

Bonkers

[2ndbendbeerhut]

Bonkers and speedway..... so an excellent idea

[Daniel Smith]

30 minutes ago, DC2 said:

 

The whole lot. Don’t make your point with hyperbole.

I think you're getting upset for being ripped to pieces. 

What you're suggesting IS blackmail and comes under the bracket of modern slavery.

When such conditions like yours are put in place at the expiration of a contract, it is blackmail. Those same conditions comes under the modern slavery act for being forced to work against your will.

Being forced to ride for the same team even though you don't want to be there is illegal. It's also illegal to suggest that if a contract isn't signed a rider should be suspended while out of contracted employment. 

Stop getting defensive and draw a line in the sand, that what you suggest isn't possible and move on.

[bigcatdiary]

2 hours ago, noggin said:

The biggest issue I see is another club benefiting from a bargain average, Morris rode crap for a season and could potentially now come back an 8 point rider after a year away, thus being worthless,.

He could also have another crap season, he had a bad year, sometimes it happens.

[DC2]

4 hours ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said:

Lets use your scenario

Kyle Bickley starts at Worky last year

Lets say he was on £40 per point

Fast forward 5 years and in order for him not to miss a whole season somewhere along the line he still potentially has to ride for  £40 per point even if he progresses to No1 status

Bonkers

 

Craig Cook might be a better example. In his first season with Workington he started as a lowly paid reserve but he ended it as number one. The pay rate offered for the following season could have been the number one rate plus inflation, so it’s referenced by finishing position in the team. Just a suggestion to counteract the wealthy teams poaching riders.

 

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv]

But there is no such thing as a No1 rate and a reserve rate

Infact Id expect some clubs are paying reserves as much as others are offering No1s

Clubs will only be offering (in most cases) a 1 year contract at a time therefore can only (IMO) demand loyalty for 1 year at a time

[Crazy robin]

5 hours ago, noggin said:

The biggest issue I see is another club benefiting from a bargain average, Morris rode crap for a season and could potentially now come back an 8 point rider after a year away, thus being worthless,.

I’d like to think Swindon would say no thanks to Nick if he attains that average as the loyalty the club have shown him especially last year has been dumped on them from a very high point.