ASpeedwayfan 30 Posted October 2, 2019 Interesting to see both Holders are riding for Torun next season despite them being relegated to the 2nd division. I'd like to see them both at poole next season 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
poolebolton 464 Posted October 2, 2019 2 minutes ago, ASpeedwayfan said: Interesting to see both Holders are riding for Torun next season despite them being relegated to the 2nd division. I'd like to see them both at poole next season No thank you. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ASpeedwayfan 30 Posted October 2, 2019 20 minutes ago, poolebolton said: No thank you. I think they'd be worth a shot. Rather have them at poole rather be against Poole Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ray c 2,299 Posted October 2, 2019 8 minutes ago, ASpeedwayfan said: I think they'd be worth a shot. Rather have them at poole rather be against Poole chris yes jack no jack has not settled this season 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
STEVEHOLS54 380 Posted October 3, 2019 (edited) On 10/2/2019 at 11:43 AM, ray c said: chris yes jack no jack has not settled this season Assuming money is still tight, I honestly can't see Ford letting both Kurtz & Jack Holder go. Bearing in mind both are assets so Poole get first choice. IF Chris Holder is allowed back then Ford faces a difficult decision of perhaps which one of the above does he loan out. Assuming that is he were to retain Klindt and Josh G. Having said that who says he won't maybe sacrifice one of those last 2 in order to keep both Holders and Kurtz. Even if conventional logic from many fans is that Klindt and Josh G should be the first names on the team sheet for 2020. Edited October 3, 2019 by STEVEHOLS54 typos Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lisa-colette 6,028 Posted October 3, 2019 5 minutes ago, STEVEHOLS54 said: IF Chris Holder is allowed back then Ford faces a difficult decision of perhaps which one of the above does he loan out. Assuming that is he were to retain Klindt and Josh G. Having said that who says he won't maybe sacrifice one of those last 2 in order to keep both Holders and Kurtz. They can get lost with that idea! Josh and Nic in first, and if that means not being able to keep Brady or Jack, then tough. They should go. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ray c 2,299 Posted October 3, 2019 6 minutes ago, STEVEHOLS54 said: Assuming money is still tight, I honestly can't see Ford letting both Kurtz & Jack Holder go. Bearing in mind both are assets so Poole get first choice. IF Chris Holder is allowed back then Ford faces a difficult decision of perhaps which one of the above does he loan out. Assuming that is he were to retain Klindt and Josh G. Having said that who says he won't maybe sacrifice one of those last 2 in order to keep both Holders and Kurtz. Even if conventional logic from many fans is that Klindt and Josh G should be the first names on the team sheet for 2020. I really thought that jack would become an out and out no1 but he failed far short on that score. so I do think he will return to somerset next season providing they are in the top flight cant see klindt being anywhere but poole same with josh . hopefully nico will return as well but not poole asset . 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skidder1 7,636 Posted October 3, 2019 Some people may recall that MF stated in the Winter 2018/19 off season that if Chris and Jack Holder wanted to ride together at any track other than Poole then that club would have to buy them rather than loan them. Whilst the feeling may be a little different now regarding Jack, I would think its still very much the view about CH. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theblueboy 960 Posted October 3, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Skidder1 said: Some people may recall that MF stated in the Winter 2018/19 off season that if Chris and Jack Holder wanted to ride together at any track other than Poole then that club would have to buy them rather than loan them. Whilst the feeling may be a little different now regarding Jack, I would think its still very much the view about CH. Of course, any promoter interested in CH, or any Poole asset, should just invoke Miedzinski’s Law, which I’m sure you recall was a Swindon asset, wanted by his own club, however, Poole rode roughshod over that promotions wishes because he was on an extremely attractive average. By the time you’d used and abused the asset, with Poole paying only a loan fee, he was more or less worthless and rode part of a season on an over inflated average never to be seen in the UK again. I respectfully would argue if CH, or any Poole asset, can agree a contract elsewhere, then all you’ll be entitled to will be a loan fee. If Poole wanted to challenge a self employed riders status, as an asset, I look forward to Matt taking it to the relevant authority. Edited October 3, 2019 by theblueboy 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skidder1 7,636 Posted October 3, 2019 2 minutes ago, theblueboy said: Of course, any promoter interested in CH, or any Poole asset, should just invoke Miedzinski’s Law, which I’m sure you recall was a Swindon asset, wanted by his own club, however, Poole rode roughshod over that promotions wishes because he was on an extremely attractive average. By the time you’d used and abused the asset, with Poole paying only a loan fee, he was more or less worthless and rode part of a season on an over inflated average never to be seen in the UK again. I respectfully would argue if CH, or any Poole asset, can agree a contract elsewhere, then all you’ll be entitled to will be a loan fee. If Poole wanted to challenge a self employed riders status, as an asset, I look forward to Matt taking it to the relevant authority. Ha ha still smarts a bit then?! Different BSPA MC nowadays and I can't believe MF riding 'roughshod' over Terry Russel or whoever the promoter was then, Gary somebody was it? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevebrum 6,821 Posted October 3, 2019 4 minutes ago, theblueboy said: Of course, any promoter interested in CH, or any Poole asset, should just invoke Miedzinski’s Law, which I’m sure you recall was a Swindon asset, wanted by his own club, however, Poole rode roughshod over that promotions wishes because he was on an extremely attractive average. By the time you’d used and abused the asset, with Poole paying only a loan fee, he was more or less worthless and rode part of a season on an over inflated average never to be seen in the UK again. I respectfully would argue if CH, or any Poole asset, can agree a contract elsewhere, then all you’ll be entitled to will be a loan fee. If Poole wanted to challenge a self employed riders status, as an asset, I look forward to Matt taking it to the relevant authority. Exactly. Riders will ride where they want irregardless of who owns their contract. The Miedzinski ruling. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bald Bloke 3,286 Posted October 3, 2019 25 minutes ago, Skidder1 said: Some people may recall that MF stated in the Winter 2018/19 off season that if Chris and Jack Holder wanted to ride together at any track other than Poole then that club would have to buy them rather than loan them. Whilst the feeling may be a little different now regarding Jack, I would think its still very much the view about CH. Can he stop them earning a living, and refuse to loan them ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skidder1 7,636 Posted October 3, 2019 4 minutes ago, Bald Bloke said: Can he stop them earning a living, and refuse to loan them ? He won't be stopping them earning a living - they'll have jobs in Poland, Sweden etc. As far as CH is concerned it may well depend on which club supports/sponsors his visa/work permit application - and I know who has done the majority of the paperwork up to now!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phillipsr 2,053 Posted October 3, 2019 6 minutes ago, Bald Bloke said: Can he stop them earning a living, and refuse to loan them ? In reality no and I think if he tried it would be the end of this whole ridiculous asset system we have, Riders will ride where riders want to ride and rightly so, sooner we have a system where riders are treated as self employed who can sign contracts year to year and are free to move outside of those contracts the better 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ArthurRudge 347 Posted October 3, 2019 The asset system is worth diddly squat, they can and will ride where the want, love to see any promoter try and contest it legally be a right laugh. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites