Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Tosh1218

Loan Riders

Recommended Posts

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?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :D
 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Palavaaro was being treated like a slave and, only being available to work for the highest bidder?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

i think it was a restraint of trade in a supposedly free labour market but i really don't want to argue because others think differently and thats fine

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2020 at 11:31 AM, Gordon Pairman said:

As I said, a very fine line. 

The BSPA managed to find a loophole that all of the premier league's lawyers couldn't? Okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, OldRacer said:

The BSPA managed to find a loophole that all of the premier league's lawyers couldn't? Okay.

I don’t know what that means. What Premier League lawyers? What loophole?

In all the cases mentioned - Summers to Glasgow, Kus to Newcastle, Palovaara to Leicester, Miedzinski to Poole - the rider wasn’t blocked. Glasgow and Newcastle agreed to the purchase, Poole went to SCB arbitration and Leicester declined to pursue their interest. 
I’ll give you a fifth if you like - when Chris Morton, David Gordon and I bought Belle Vue at the end of 2006, we were desperate to keep Kenneth Bjerre. Further, BSPA had issued a “hands off” warning to all the other teams. 
Despite this, Kenneth chose to ride for Peterborough in 2007 and neither Belle Vue nor BSPA could stop him. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is there a rule now that stops a rider owning his own registration and in effect loaning himself out?

i think this is something Richard Green did, bought his own contract so got loan fees as well as points 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
Sign in to follow this  

×

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