Asset System Flawed

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv 10,706]

THAT'S an even more laughable sideshow isn't it. Presumably Ipswich should get some credit for Gollob winning a year earlier.

Too right - the boy was nothing until he learnt his trade at Foxhall !! ;-)

[Tsunami 10,219]

The BSPA would simply deduct all Batchelors points and fine Swindon. Whatever we think of the rules they are the rules, and more importantly the BSPA decides on every contentious issue. And thats fine and correct.

 

You have to be very careful with legal challenges. Challenging how an association regulates their sport is not something anybody is likely to win. You have to challenge things like restraint of trade (including unfairly limiting reasonable earnings) or unfair dismissal. Yes, there is a cross over, but its the true employment issues that are key. Courts do not look kindly on anybody abusing their position. There is an agreed precedent to pay loan fees that with the odd exception everybody has accepted without complaint. If a promoter were to legally challenge the asset system, I would suggest they'd be very unwise to do it whilst blatantly refusing to pay loan fees.

 

I'm somebody who strongly believes the asset system will not stand-up under a legal challenge. However, because of its long term precedent, I doubt any judge would simply insist its removed in one full swoop. A judge would protect riders freedom of movement outside of a financial contract, but in terms of the interaction between promoters, I very much doubt he'd make their assets worthless immediately. I suspect he/she would support (or at least not object to) a phased loan system providing it didn't unfairly restrict riders

 

All promoters sign a contract at the beginning of every season to say they will abide by the BSPA rules.

[Guest wolfhound]

The current disputes currently doing the rounds regarding Hans Andersen, Troy Batchelor and Niels Kristian Iversen is creating nothing but bad feeling all round.

Peterborough seem awash with so-called assets but they cannot all ride for the club at the same time and if Swindon should want to employ one of those assets which cannot be fitted into the Peterborough 1-7 for 2013, then why are Peterborough being so dogmatic? They will receive loan fees after all!

 

Well here is a suggestion which could remove the problem as it now exists:

 

A parent club asset must have ridden during the previous 2 back-to-back seasons period for that club, (ie 2010 & 2011 or 2011 & 2012 etc) otherwise he would become a free agent with no compensation paid!

The likes of Iversen has not ridden for Peterborough since 2010, so King’s Lynn could sign him without immediately with no compensation payable to Peterborough BUT Andersen and Batchelor would not become free agents as yet due to both riding for Peterborough in 2011. This means they would unfortunately have to see out the 2013 season with another club before becoming free agents on November 1^st or of course be recalled by Peterborough, thereby delaying their free agent ‘status’.

 

With the asset system permitting rich clubs to buy an undisclosed number of riders and then effectively hold them to ransom is not only unfair but quite probably a restriction of trade should opportunities be closed following a club’s delaying tactics thus leaving riders on the fence and unemployed and not of their own making.

 

Placing a 2 back-to-back seasons period stipulation upon clubs would make those with big asset bases either sign them to ride, have to loan many of them to Premier League clubs (where permitted by converted averages) or have to release their registrations altogether with no compensation in return.

Attempting to juggle so many riders to fit in with the points limit would be a monumental task and almost impossible for management and promoters alike meaning a club’s asset base would have to be trimmed and in some cases severely!

 

With this suggestion, riders in particular would be in a much better position for IF any rider had no intention of riding for his parent club, all he would have to do is not ride in the UK for 2 back-to-back seasons and he would become a free agent! – Now I am advocating such a move but the possibilty would be there and I’m sure it would be taken up by someone!

 

Re-signing a rider by the same club following a 2 year back-to-back seasons absence would be quite in order for it would be the rider's decision to sign for that club and not because his parent club had an indefinte hold upon him.

 

As I said earlier, the suggestion does not remove the current day problems concerning Batchelor and Andersen but would reduce such similar occurrences taking place in the future.

* The suggestion does not apply to double-up riders who often belong to a lower League club anyway but would apply to same League clubs.

 

So would the promoters agree to the suggestion?

Well I can think of a few who would and we all know who they are but the current argy-bargy taking place suggests that one team would object very, very strongly but moves should be made to bring this sorry nonsense to an end and why not begin in 2013?

 

Having made my point, I’m now ready for the flak to head my way but before you commit to print, do YOU have any suggestions to remove/amend or whatever the asset system?

It is easy to keep quiet but remember, it requires a ‘hard skin’ to air opinions on the BSF as many of you know!

[racers and royals 8,723]

Interesting interview with Gary Patchett on GP website.

 

http://speedwaygp.com/news/article/2180/transfer-turmoil

[Irk Deflector 130]

The current disputes currently doing the rounds regarding Hans Andersen, Troy Batchelor and Niels Kristian Iversen is creating nothing but bad feeling all round.

Peterborough seem awash with so-called assets but they cannot all ride for the club at the same time and if Swindon should want to employ one of those assets which cannot be fitted into the Peterborough 1-7 for 2013, then why are Peterborough being so dogmatic? They will receive loan fees after all!

 

Bad feelings all round for sure!

 

I wonder how much of it kicked off at the BSPA Conference when the 2 rider in the top 20 rule was put in place?

 

Never mind Peterborough you only had 5 riders in the top 20 and it seems you were planning to use 3 of them in 2013.

 

Did the BSPA pull a fast one? Was the decision in the best interests of the sport or one that suited those who who don't put their money where there mouth is?

[hrhbig 69]

Have not had time to read all of the posts on this topic, but was wondring if I am the only person who "feels" that maybe a conspiracy of sorts is being perputrated in order to sort out this obviously flawed system ??

[Hunty 189]

Interesting interview with Gary Patchett on GP website.

 

http://speedwaygp.co...ransfer-turmoil

 

He has stated what many have stated on here, the biggest imput is that he belives that riders could mount legal action against the system becuase it hinders there right to find work!

 

We need to sort these problems out or start to introduce a new system! Its rules and systems like this that make speedway in Britain unactractive and difficult to understand.

[philfromcov 326]

if the asset system collapses, lets say because of restraint of trade, then just like football, you would need a mid season transfer window, so if a riders on a 4.oo but his next GSA lets say will be 6.00, surley you cannot then stop another team coming along and offering that rider a better deal?

 

im guessing there would be a months /weeks notice at the moment, which would have to work both ways

 

as the riders will be fully contracted, both sides would be able to terminate contract, so you would see alot of riders moving around mid season?

[DunRobin 465]

if the asset system collapses, lets say because of restraint of trade, then just like football, you would need a mid season transfer window, so if a riders on a 4.oo but his next GSA lets say will be 6.00, surley you cannot then stop another team coming along and offering that rider a better deal?

 

im guessing there would be a months /weeks notice at the moment, which would have to work both ways

 

as the riders will be fully contracted, both sides would be able to terminate contract, so you would see alot of riders moving around mid season?

Football's mid-season transfer system is nothing to do with the Bosman ruling! Footballers were still free to move at anytime during the season following the Bosman ruling & a transfer fee was payable or a loan deal, if the player was still under contract. The transfer window came in due to a UEFA rule change affecting all European clubs. Therefore the present moves during the season would still be able to happen even if the asset system was overturned.

[speedibee 3,091]

I think any rider who has had a fee paid for them who then chooses not to ride in the uk . should be made to reimburse the promotion the fee or not be allowed to ride anywhere . any rider who has been brought up to standard by a single club who makes the same choice should have his value estimated by the BSPA and be made to pay that amount before riding elsewhere.

[seanmuffe 105]

All promoters sign a contract at the beginning of every season to say they will abide by the BSPA rules.

 

Is that correct,----- sorry :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

Seriously though that would be a step in the right direction.

[HeathenatOdsal85! 1]

Isn't there a fundamental difference though with football due to the average system which means riders who are assets can't sometimes be used even if the club wanted to. In football clubs can sign and play however many top quality performers that they want to. Therefore the argument exists that clubs should be compensated with a loan or transfer fee as they are not being allowed to build or manage the club in the way they want that is best for their business.

 

In effect, some are saying that it's restraint of trade that clubs / the bspa don't let a rider become a free agent at the end of their contract, but surely it could be argued that the true restraint of trade comes from the average system, as it forces clubs to release riders they may want to use.

 

It's a bit chicken and egg, but I can see why in some respects an asset system is valid in some form, as a club may sign a rider they wish, in all good faith to have at their club for the long term, but due to the average system (which lets be honest who's rules seem to change annually) they can't, so being forced to release the rider to another club, so receiving a loan fee at least seems fair enough as they may wish to have that rider as part of their team in future and see them as a fundamental part of their club, but obviously due to no fault of their own with the average system can't.

 

So a loan fee or transfer fee is almost like a form of compensation to the parent club created by the bspa's own rules because the parent club can't use a rider they wish. And as we know a club not being a me to use the riders they want can have a massive impact on a club and fans, can so negatively effect the business by having to release riders who are crowd favourites and so on (Maybe not too much of a stretch to think that in some cases the average system has in some cases been close to putting clubs in jeopardy)

 

Therefore I quite like the idea mooted earlier by Wolfhound which if I understand correctly that a rider would have to be away from their parent club for at least 2 seasons before becoming truly free again, as at least this would enable the parent club the chance to bring the rider back.

 

I also do understand why there is an average system - I'm not particularly arguing against that here - that's a different discussion, I'm just seeing the asset system in a bigger context taking the average system into account.

[g13webb 4,254]

I thought the article in the S/S this week was pretty good ( The Property Market, by John Burbidge) It highlighted all the problems of the asset system. It also pointed out all the issues if it was disbanded, and why it shouldn't happen. My feelings are, if we think only of the good of the sport, there are no problems, it only when we bring in personal thoughts and profits do we have these issues. ( I remembered Kennett being valued at £80K , that was bloody ridiculous) Like the article said rather then a repeat of troubles we had this year, we need stronger guidelines from the BSPA and a deadline date put in place...............Don't wait till next year, lets sort it out now........

[Skidder1 7,636]

I thought the article in the S/S this week was pretty good ( The Property Market, by John Burbidge) It highlighted all the problems of the asset system. It also pointed out all the issues if it was disbanded, and why it shouldn't happen. My feelings are, if we think only of the good of the sport, there are no problems, it only when we bring in personal thoughts and profits do we have these issues. ( I remembered Kennett being valued at £80K , that was bloody ridiculous) Like the article said rather then a repeat of troubles we had this year, we need stronger guidelines from the BSPA and a deadline date put in place...............Don't wait till next year, lets sort it out now........

 

Paul Burbidge!!

 

I think the SCB/ACU should get involved in setting a timescale for promotions. This would be helped by having an earlier BSPA General Meeting ie prior to the end of the season!

[Irk Deflector 130]

Perhaps I should have said 'through choice' which is what your preceding post was inferring - riders averages not fitting etc.

 

As you can see, I have edited my post.

 

All I know about the Peterborough situation is what I have read on riders twitter posts and the response by the Peterborough promotion in the press, I think the Panthers promotion raise a number of good points. Namely:

 

Hans Andersen was offered terms twice but turned them down. Another club (Coventry) was prepared to purchase him and he turned them down too. Is it surprising they want a transfer fee for him? Swindon seem prepared to buy him and I suspect arbitration will be involved.

 

Troy Batchelor is alleged to have made public statements about his desire not to return to Peterborough. Again, are the Panthers promotion being unfair asking for a transfer fee for a rider who, it would seem, does not want to ride for them?

 

NKI has said he will ride for Kings Lynn or no one. Is it surprising they want a transfer fee for him? To be honest, I find the BSPA decision to allow Kings Lynn to loan him baffling and inconsistent as Iversen has also stated his desire not to ride for his parent club.

 

In Bjerre, Andersen, NKI and Batchelor (don't forget they also have Ryan Sullivan) Panthers have a number of top-level assets, most of which I suspect they have purchased themselves at some point. If they do want to sell the ones that clearly wish to ride elsewhere, I can't say I blame them.

I would also imagine the Panthers didn't want the two rider in the top 20 restriction and would have opted for a strong top 3 this season. With Panthers having five in the top 20 is it any wonder the other promoters decided on this ruling? Perhaps the BSPA should have purchased the 3 riders Panthers could not use this season! Edited January 26, 2013 by Irk Deflector