Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

Recommended Posts

I still don't understand that if riders are still owed money from the Rye House management then why has that not been paid from the bond? or, if the bond was not paid, why has the BSPA not sued the Rye House management?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Rayleigh said:

I still don't understand that if riders are still owed money from the Rye House management then why has that not been paid from the bond? or, if the bond was not paid, why has the BSPA not sued the Rye House management?

The BSPA only use the bond to pay standard rates. If riders had a contract that paid them more then they have to sue the Rye House promotion and a major part of that was recently made bankrupt! 

The situation appears to be that the riders have been paid at standard rate but therefore still feel they are owed money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chris116 said:

The BSPA only use the bond to pay standard rates. If riders had a contract that paid them more then they have to sue the Rye House promotion and a major part of that was recently made bankrupt! 

The situation appears to be that the riders have been paid at standard rate but therefore still feel they are owed money. 

Thanks Chris, but as Carter & Bailey Ltd who owns the leasehold of the stadium and according to Companies House is still active but with Robert Scott not Warren Scott as director, then the BSPA could address their issues there or would this action open a "can of worms" for the BSPA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Rayleigh said:

Thanks Chris, but as Carter & Bailey Ltd who owns the leasehold of the stadium and according to Companies House is still active but with Robert Scott not Warren Scott as director, then the BSPA could address their issues there or would this action open a "can of worms" for the BSPA?

You will probably find that the leaseholders Carter & Bailey are a 'different' company to the speedway promoters BMR. If that's the case, then they might not be liable for the latter's debt. Of course, i could be wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 10:30 AM, Chris116 said:

The BSPA only use the bond to pay standard rates. If riders had a contract that paid them more then they have to sue the Rye House promotion and a major part of that was recently made bankrupt! 

The situation appears to be that the riders have been paid at standard rate but therefore still feel they are owed money. 

If that is true Chris then that is ridiculous. The Bond is there to cover ANY debts incurred by a promotion, who is to say the debt to a rider is too large or the debt to a landlord is too excessive, the bond should be there to make sure in the event of a promotor not fulfilling his obligations the BSPA will make good these debts (presumably the BSPA did not get paid in full themselves).

Maybe the debts were so large that the BSPA exhausted the bond without paying everybody in full, if this is the case then BSPA should list in detail how the bond was distributed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Rayleigh said:

If that is true Chris then that is ridiculous. The Bond is there to cover ANY debts incurred by a promotion, who is to say the debt to a rider is too large or the debt to a landlord is too excessive, the bond should be there to make sure in the event of a promotor not fulfilling his obligations the BSPA will make good these debts (presumably the BSPA did not get paid in full themselves).

Maybe the debts were so large that the BSPA exhausted the bond without paying everybody in full, if this is the case then BSPA should list in detail how the bond was distributed.

The debt owed by the Rye House promotion was way above the Bond amount. The standard rate allows the BSPA to split the amount owed evenly for all 7 rider's. 

A bar has to be set somewhere. Would you think it's fair if a No1 is owed £50,000 and a No7 owed £2,000, should the No7 miss out because the No1 takes all the Bond?!?

I'm not sure but, Bomber's the only Rye rider I've seen saying he's owed money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rayleigh said:

Maybe the debts were so large that the BSPA exhausted the bond without paying everybody in full, if this is the case then BSPA should list in detail how the bond was distributed.

And whenever have the BSPA ever done that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Daniel Smith said:

The debt owed by the Rye House promotion was way above the Bond amount. The standard rate allows the BSPA to split the amount owed evenly for all 7 rider's. 

A bar has to be set somewhere. Would you think it's fair if a No1 is owed £50,000 and a No7 owed £2,000, should the No7 miss out because the No1 takes all the Bond?!?

I'm not sure but, Bomber's the only Rye rider I've seen saying he's owed money. 

How much was the total debt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rayleigh said:

How much was the total debt?

£100,000+. That is the owners whole debt, including the stupid MX track installation etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Daniel Smith said:

£100,000+. That is the owners whole debt, including the stupid MX track installation etc

But surely the Bond (I believe to be 50K - 60K) is to only cover Speedway related debts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Daniel Smith said:

The debt owed by the Rye House promotion was way above the Bond amount. The standard rate allows the BSPA to split the amount owed evenly for all 7 rider's. 

A bar has to be set somewhere. Would you think it's fair if a No1 is owed £50,000 and a No7 owed £2,000, should the No7 miss out because the No1 takes all the Bond?!?

I'm not sure but, Bomber's the only Rye rider I've seen saying he's owed money. 

Aaron Summers made it known a week or two back he’s owed money still, as are other team members. Said he hasn’t wanted to come out publicly but felt any riders paying the club to use the track for practise days being laid on in jan and feb should know they’re lining the pockets of people still owe other riders money and wanted to explain his disgust that they are able to earn revenue from the track while still owing riders money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Rayleigh said:

But surely the Bond (I believe to be 50K - 60K) is to only cover Speedway related debts.

It does, but you asked what the promotions debt is. Speedway debt is around the £70,000 - £80,000. It's more than the bond and in total own over £100,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 89buttons said:

Aaron Summers made it known a week or two back he’s owed money still, as are other team members. Said he hasn’t wanted to come out publicly but felt any riders paying the club to use the track for practise days being laid on in jan and feb should know they’re lining the pockets of people still owe other riders money and wanted to explain his disgust that they are able to earn revenue from the track while still owing riders money.

As an unlicensed track, there's very little BSPA can do about it. Maybe the riders could sue the promoters for loss of earnings. Probably more chance of getting blood out of a stone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Daniel Smith said:

The debt owed by the Rye House promotion was way above the Bond amount. The standard rate allows the BSPA to split the amount owed evenly for all 7 rider's. 

A bar has to be set somewhere. Would you think it's fair if a No1 is owed £50,000 and a No7 owed £2,000, should the No7 miss out because the No1 takes all the Bond?!?

I'm not sure but, Bomber's the only Rye rider I've seen saying he's owed money. 

Doesn't mean he's the only one though, just that others don't choose to make it public.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Daniel Smith said:

The debt owed by the Rye House promotion was way above the Bond amount. The standard rate allows the BSPA to split the amount owed evenly for all 7 rider's. 

A bar has to be set somewhere. Would you think it's fair if a No1 is owed £50,000 and a No7 owed £2,000, should the No7 miss out because the No1 takes all the Bond?!?

I'm not sure but, Bomber's the only Rye rider I've seen saying he's owed money. 

Aaron Summers is saying he still owed money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy