Loan Riders

[Tsunami]

47 minutes ago, Byker Biker said:

I'm afraid not, the riders are free to work for whom and where they like, granted there may be argy bargy because the club that holds the registration wants to offer a team place and some newby promoter has made an illegal approach offering the rider brewsters to go elsewhere. The BSPA has an appeal process which runs all the way to the ACU but ultimately the rider will ride where he chooses and in my example the club owning the registration gets a loan fee and the club making an illegal approach gets a fine. If club A says you can have him on a transfer only basis then it goes to appeal.

The process has been taken to Barristers by certainly one rider I know as well as the BSPA and has been acknowledged as legal and definately not a Bosman.

I have highlighted something that others who disagree with the asset  system usually forget. If a rider was the Asset one presumes that the rider could only ride abroad with the permission of the Asset owner, his home GB club. What the home club owns is the riders registration for riding in the GB only.

[Byker Biker]

11 minutes ago, Tsunami said:

I have highlighted something that others who disagree with the asset  system usually forget. If a rider was the Asset one presumes that the rider could only ride abroad with the permission of the Asset owner, his home GB club. What the home club owns is the riders registration for riding in the GB only.

Correct and the riders/offshore clubs are protected by the ISLB fixture list "first logged first served" which is what maintains their self employed status for the time being.

That's without the DMU, SVEMO, MA, AMA and other federation agreements.

 

Edited January 2, 2020 by Byker Biker

[Diamondboy]

On 1/1/2020 at 7:55 PM, PotteringAround said:

I always find comments like this particularly stupid.

Of course the paying customer in a sport has a right to know the rules by which the team he supports are competing.  And indeed the Speedway regulations are in the public domain, as are all the averages, and the competition rules.

It was even a fair question to ask what the mechanism for loan fees was.  If teams could negotiate their own loan fee levels it could lead to an unfair competitive advantage.  And this question was answered.  There was a set loan fee scale which makes things fair.

But to demand the intimate costings of a private limited company is just ridiculous.   No business operates like that.  When you bought your Christmas turkey at Tesco, they will have told you the price they wanted for it.  They'd have told you it's weight and any information you needed to know to be able to gauge what you were getting for your money.   But you really expect Tesco to tell you how much they paid for the turkey, or how much their rent and utilities bills are?      That's just ridiculous.

 

But do Tesco go cap in hand asking fans for donations because they are skint?

[ch958]

interesting points, i don;'t care about the loan system i just can't see how its legal and enforceable but u guys seem to know better

[Gordon Pairman]

3 hours ago, ch958 said:

interesting points, i don;'t care about the loan system i just can't see how its legal and enforceable but u guys seem to know better

If you can elaborate on why you think it’s not legal or enforceable, I’ll be happy to explain to you why it is. 
The Bosman ruling is often cited but it has no relevance, nor, as far as I know, has it ever been used for any sport other than football. 

The main reason why Bosman is not relevant to Speedway is because it relates to contracts of employment and the aftermath. BSPA’s retained list system, which encompasses purchase/sale agreements and loan fees, is a commercial agreement amongst promoters. Riders are, at all times, free agents. 

[racers and royals]

9 minutes ago, Gordon Pairman said:

If you can elaborate on why you think it’s not legal or enforceable, I’ll be happy to explain to you why it is. 
The Bosman ruling is often cited but it has no relevance, nor, as far as I know, has it ever been used for any sport other than football. 

The main reason why Bosman is not relevant to Speedway is because it relates to contracts of employment and the aftermath. BSPA’s retained list system, which encompasses purchase/sale agreements and loan fees, is a commercial agreement amongst promoters. Riders are, at all times, free agents. 

Gordon if riders are indeed free agents,  is it not restrictive to that rider when the club he wants to ride for is told that the club that holds his registration will only agree if the other club buy him- in other words will not loan him to them.

[Tsunami]

27 minutes ago, racers and royals said:

Gordon if riders are indeed free agents,  is it not restrictive to that rider when the club he wants to ride for is told that the club that holds his registration will only agree if the other club buy him- in other words will not loan him to them.

Like Havvy did to us with Matej Kus.

[Gordon Pairman]

50 minutes ago, racers and royals said:

Gordon if riders are indeed free agents,  is it not restrictive to that rider when the club he wants to ride for is told that the club that holds his registration will only agree if the other club buy him- in other words will not loan him to them.

The rider can ride wherever he wants to. BSPA cannot block that. The only thing they can do is enforce the circumstance under which he is permitted to ride. 
Teams can ask SCB to arbitrate, and any decision might restrict the team but not the rider. 
I accept it’s a fine line, but the line is there nonetheless 

[racers and royals]

9 minutes ago, Gordon Pairman said:

The rider can ride wherever he wants to. BSPA cannot block that. The only thing they can do is enforce the circumstance under which he is permitted to ride. 
Teams can ask SCB to arbitrate, and any decision might restrict the team but not the rider. 
I accept it’s a fine line, but the line is there nonetheless 

Thanks- seems like a VAR line to me. 

[Gordon Pairman]

38 minutes ago, racers and royals said:

Thanks- seems like a VAR line to me. 

I like the analogy!

To be honest, I have never liked the retained list system but it has its merits. It acts as an additional level of financial security, over and above the bond monies. 

It worked better when there were more transfers and keeping them has been fought for by the lower leagues who often need to sell a rider’s registration in order to balance the books. With loan rates remaining relatively low, however, it’s been cheaper to “rent” rather than to buy and so the transfer market has all but dried up. 

In my view, the solution to getting rid of retained lists would have been to double the loan rates in year one - thus repaying the teams that had invested in riders - but also increase the Bond level. Year two loan rates would be 80% of year 1, year 3 60% etc and each year the bond would increase. 
 

By year 6, there would be no retained lists so no transfers, no loan fees and the cash bond level would be at the sort of level needed nowadays in the case of a default. 

It all sounds easy to me 
 

[szkocjasid]

9 hours ago, Gordon Pairman said:

If you can elaborate on why you think it’s not legal or enforceable, I’ll be happy to explain to you why it is. 
The Bosman ruling is often cited but it has no relevance, nor, as far as I know, has it ever been used for any sport other than football. 

The main reason why Bosman is not relevant to Speedway is because it relates to contracts of employment and the aftermath. BSPA’s retained list system, which encompasses purchase/sale agreements and loan fees, is a commercial agreement amongst promoters. Riders are, at all times, free agents. 

If riders are free agents, how do you hear about a rider being blocked from riding? Say Palovaara at Leicester last season?

[False dawn]

7 hours ago, Gordon Pairman said:

I like the analogy!

To be honest, I have never liked the retained list system but it has its merits. It acts as an additional level of financial security, over and above the bond monies. 

It worked better when there were more transfers and keeping them has been fought for by the lower leagues who often need to sell a rider’s registration in order to balance the books. With loan rates remaining relatively low, however, it’s been cheaper to “rent” rather than to buy and so the transfer market has all but dried up. 

In my view, the solution to getting rid of retained lists would have been to double the loan rates in year one - thus repaying the teams that had invested in riders - but also increase the Bond level. Year two loan rates would be 80% of year 1, year 3 60% etc and each year the bond would increase. 
 

By year 6, there would be no retained lists so no transfers, no loan fees and the cash bond level would be at the sort of level needed nowadays in the case of a default. 

It all sounds easy to me 
 

Hang on. I think this sounds sensible. As a lifelong speedway fan in Britain, I'm a bit unsure what to say. 

[Gordon Pairman]

13 hours ago, szkocjasid said:

If riders are free agents, how do you hear about a rider being blocked from riding? Say Palovaara at Leicester last season?

Palovaara wasn’t blocked from riding. Glasgow said Leicester had to buy him. Leicester said no. Had Leicester really wanted him, they could have appealed to SCB and used him while the appeal was being held.

[ch958]

therefore he WAS blocked from working - would be unlawful if he was a plumber or a teacher, that was the point i was trying to make. If a football team doesn't offer a new contract or one at reduced terms the player is free. I really can't see how anyone could argue with that.

But I'm sure someone will haha

[Gordon Pairman]

2 hours ago, ch958 said:

therefore he WAS blocked from working - would be unlawful if he was a plumber or a teacher, that was the point i was trying to make. If a football team doesn't offer a new contract or one at reduced terms the player is free. I really can't see how anyone could argue with that.

But I'm sure someone will haha

How was he blocked?

Leicester chose not to use him because they decided that the cost was too high.

If I choose not to use a plumber because the cost is too high, then I’m not blocking him. The footballer and the teacher are employees. The speedway rider and the plumber are self employed contractors. 
 

As I said before, it’s a fine line but the line does exist. 

[ch958]

well its all semantics Gordon, as you say its a fine line, have a nice evening

[Gordon Pairman]

21 minutes ago, ch958 said:

well its all semantics Gordon, as you say its a fine line, have a nice evening

As I said, a very fine line. 

Another example might be 2012 when Poole wanted to use Adrian Miedzinski who was on Swindon’s retained list. Swindon wanted AM but he didn’t want to ride for them. He signed for Poole and the transaction went to SCB for a binding arbitration.

[Tsunami]

20 hours ago, Gordon Pairman said:

As I said, a very fine line. 

Another example might be 2012 when Poole wanted to use Adrian Miedzinski who was on Swindon’s retained list. Swindon wanted AM but he didn’t want to ride for them. He signed for Poole and the transaction went to SCB for a binding arbitration.

So once again, as in the Kus transfer to Newcastle from Redcar, the riders wishes were upheld, and he went to the team he wanted to ride for, and the transfer fee was adjudicated by the SCB. No breach of freedom of movement there.

[Big Al]

On 1/2/2020 at 9:12 AM, ch958 said:

if someone is an employee, they get paid and have certain protections. If a team can't fit a rider in, that rider is essentially redundant and able to seek work. elsewhere unfettered by his previous employer. Yes, its working at the moment and no one is complaining too much but sooner or later a Bosman type situation will arise. 

So what do you think of the Victor Palovaara case last season? Glasgow chose not to employ him, yet they were able to prevent him taking up an offer of work from Leicester.

[Gordon Pairman]

12 minutes ago, Big Al said:

So what do you think of the Victor Palovaara case last season? Glasgow chose not to employ him, yet they were able to prevent him taking up an offer of work from Leicester.

See above. Glasgow didn’t stop Palovaara riding.