Swindon 2013

[Steve0 5,517]

The BSPA shoot themselves in the foot again - it seems its ok to take a rider for a third season on loan when a rider doesn't want to return to his parent club (NKI) but not for a second season because a rider doesn't want to return to his parent club (Batch) - what a crock! Total lack of consistency!

 

Looks like a police line-up from the Peterborough newspaper article

Edited January 5, 2013 by Steve0

[MattK 3,447]

There does seem to be a lack of consistency.

 

Looks as if Batchelor may have talked himself out of a team place in Britain as well.

[Crazy robin 2,963]

What an absoloute joke these men are at the top table of the sport.

 

It's nothing to do with what decisions they make but the inconsistency they show.

 

A farce is an understatement & I actually agree with everything the Panthers have said on their press release so no Swindon bias from me.

[BluTiger 21,692]

It makes you wonder if they have 3 hats with different decisions in them, and they roll a dice to decide what hat the ruling will come from. You must admit, they are consistantly inconsistant !

[500cc 309]

The BSPA is simply not fit for purpose. The inconsistency in recent years beggars belief. What we are now seeing as the end game. It is likely all Sky money will be lost in a years time. 2013 will be the toughest year this country has experienced in recent times, because the credit culture of modern times has hidden the true financial problems faced by families. To pre-empt this it appears the BSPA are attempting to spread the assets. The trouble is some clubs aren't stupid. Birmingham won't pay over the odds for Barker, because amongst other things, they have no guarantee how the asset system will work going forward nor the real value of these assets.

 

Last years AM decision by the BSPA will now come back to bite. Allowing him to go on loan, allowing that loan period to be abused to the extent that all value from AM has potentially been lost was scandalous. Now it appears Swindon are being forced to buy Anderson and Batchelor if they want to use them. They may buy them, but I doubt they will for the amount requested by Peterborough.

 

Best option for Swindon may be the rumoured 'Schlien' rule. Agree to buy them, see the state of the sport at the end of the season, and if things are poor, let them revert to Peterborough by not paying the fee.

 

And I totally understand Peterborough's position. The BSPA have walked into this as usual. There has been no long term strategy and its all come to a head particularly because of the Sky money and the recession. There does come a point at which promoters or riders may take the legal route. The brink of bankruptcy is one. No further interest in British speedway is another. Are the BSPA prepared to risk a legal challenge. Who blinks first? Who is more daring?

 

We have contentious issues every year. I do fear that because of the current state of speedway and the economy, this may be the year something finally blows.

Edited January 5, 2013 by 500cc

[TonyE 822]

The 'asset system' in all its glory!

[bobxski 23]

All this mud slinging is getting rather tiresome!! The thing I find it strange and Peterborough must be smarting in the knowledge, is that Hans, Batch, NKI and MJJ have all turned them down?!?! Why?? You will always get the other commitments stories but with 3 of them that is not the case!! Oh and how long before Kenneth Bjerre joins that group?

[G the Bee 639]

I know this is a Swindon thread, but it seems the debate has moved on a little to discussion of the asset system as a whole.

 

My own opinion, for what it's worth, is that it is not the asset system itself that is the problem. I agree it is not ideal, and some may question its legality, however the system has been in place years and, as long as its rules are understood by all promotions, adhered to and applied consistently, the system should work well.

 

Essentially, a parent club has first option on a rider's services. If the parent club cannot use, or decides not to use that rider, the rider is free to go on loan. If the rider chooses to ride elsewhere when he is in the parent team's plans then, if the parent club does not wish to loan that rider, the rider must file a transfer request and the rider must be purchased by his new club.

 

What is the problem is that the rules do not appear to be applied consistently. I have said a number of times,but as far as I can see this problem stretches back years. The Oxford and Greg Hancock situation from the winter of 2004/05 springs to mind when, and I will be happy to be corrected, as far as I can remember Coventry wanted to use Greg and offered him a place but he elected to go to Oxford. Oxford were then allowed to loan Hancock whilst Coventry were told they had to buy Scott Nicholls who had decided to leave Ipswich and join Coventry.

 

Obviously some question the legality of the asset system (and I am no legal expert) but it strikes me that it will only work if all the promotions play by the rules and the rules are applied consistently. Assuming the posts on the Peterborough article linked to above are accurate, then:

 

If Iversen has been offered a place at Peterborough, or has categorically stated he will only ride for a certain club, that club should have to purchase him.

 

The same for Batchelor.

 

Andersen has reportedly turned down offers from Peterborough and Coventry (who were prepared to purchase him). Therefore Swindon should have to purchase him too (and it appears they have offered to do so). If the two parties cannot agree a sum, it should go to arbitration.

 

Furthermore, the Birmingham promotion should have to purchase Ben Barker simply because he is required by his parent club.

 

In all cases, if two clubs cannot agree a fee, it should go to arbitration. There should also be strict penalties for clubs who default on payments when buying assets. For example, docking league points etc (a bit like in football when clubs are found to be in breach of certain regulations).

 

Sure it does mean that asset rich clubs, which tend to be the more established clubs, call the shots to a certain extent but I actually don't see what is wrong with that. Any new promotion should understand they have to build their asset base up over time and, until they are more established or have made some inroads into the transfer market, will be forced to play a waiting game whilst other promotions sort their teams out.

 

Graham Drury said when the Brummies promotion purchased Danny King last April:

“We are acutely aware that our asset base is insufficient at Elite League level and we are taking steps to put that right."

I assume he felt their asset base was insufficient because it meant Brummies would be playing a waiting game to put their teams together unless they had assets of their own and as a result would be at a competitive disadvantage.

[keef 105]

Batch and Doyley top 2 by a long way in first round of Oz champs at Gillman. Shame the Turban Twins are not there, or Kid Morris. Bruv, who lives in Adelaide, was chatting to Batch, The Sedgmens, and Tommy Cox(Leigh's former mechanic.) Mr.Adams was in attendance.

[noggin 1,388]

So Poole get away with tapping up AM & only paying a loan, but we have to buy TB who wasn't even considered in Boro's plans, what a crock the BSPA are, more like they see we have a nice new sponsor so want their slice of the cake, bunch of two faced hypocrites who are unfit for the Job. no wonder British Speedway is dying a slow death.

Edited January 5, 2013 by noggin

[Gemini 4,894]

.....G the Bee..... In all cases, if two clubs cannot agree a fee, it should go to arbitration. There should also be strict penalties for clubs who default on payments when buying assets. For example, docking league points etc (a bit like in football when clubs are found to be in breach of certain regulations).

 

That won't work either. I'm sure Belle Vue, who were already bottom of the league, wouldn't have minded losing a few more points when they stopped paying for Rory Schlein.

[G the Bee 639]

That won't work either. I'm sure Belle Vue, who were already bottom of the league, wouldn't have minded losing a few more points when they stopped paying for Rory Schlein.

 

Perhaps not, but if they were starting this season with a ten point handicap they might. This is what tends to happen in football.

 

And, of course, we can't assume a club defaulting on a payment will be bottom of the league. What if they are in contention for a play-off place?

Edited January 5, 2013 by G the Bee

[stevebrum 6,820]

So Poole get away with tapping up AM & only paying a loan,

 

The `Poole` rule.

[stratton 1,491]

Batch and Doyley top 2 by a long way in first round of Oz champs at Gillman. Shame the Turban Twins are not there, or Kid Morris. Bruv, who lives in Adelaide, was chatting to Batch, The Sedgmens, and Tommy Cox(Leigh's former mechanic.) Mr.Adams was in attendance.

Good news for Batch and Doyley ! Tungate doing ok i think he will do well for Poole has a lot of potential.

[hagonshocker 1,956]

A total farce how the hell can the corrupt BSPA rule in KL's favour yet force Swindon to buy Batchelor??....is it because they sniff Excalibur can afford to help subsidise any fee I wonder?...personally I say stuff Peterboro refuse to line there pockets spend the backers money on Zagar and Shemak...yes I said Shemak!! No-one left to buy Panthers unwanted assets unless Belle Vue ask Matt for more 'bricks'......

Edited January 5, 2013 by hagonshocker