baldinhio 16 Posted January 10, 2013 Some promotions can be `fairer` when they have an asset base that they can`t use in one team, instead of trying to hold other teams building plans to ransom. The asset base system is pretty crumbly right now. However these teams with large asset bases shouldnt be out of pocket either. They choose to buy up riders because they have the finance to do so, but when that systems starts to fail they have to bear some of that responsibility also. Think the asset base system is archaic and another way forward needs to be implemented, but with some consideration to those who do have a large asset base already. The replacement of the asset system with fixed term contracts in principle makes a lot of sense. However, the following points need to be reflected upon: 1. How do you compensate clubs such as Peterborough that have invested cash in the asset system? One option may be to say the asset system will be ended in, say, five years time. This allows time for a fair recovery of the asset value. The five years may not be sufficient. Not knowing what clubs pay and what loan fees are achievable I cannot calculate what would be fair. 2. For a fixed term contract to work with removal of the loan policy and the bickering it entails, riders under contract would need to be at the same club for the period of their contract which will remove the need to fit in a points limit on an annual basis. There is no point arguing for a fixed term contract and then saying a year later the rider cannot fit in because he has had a good season. Maybe a maximum contract period will need to be stipulated. I feel the idea of a consistent team will appeal to the younger audience as I know it is a bug bear of my kids that riders move from season to season. They do not see any long term association with riders. 3. The effect on clubs that recieve transfer fees. Financially they will be worse off. Will they survive? Will they continue to bring younger riders through? Some complain at the likes of Peterborough paying large sums of cash to smaller clubs. Perhaps they forget the benefit to the smaller clubs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevebrum 6,834 Posted January 10, 2013 So, a thought crossed your mind? Must have been a long and lonely journey. The longest journey i could undertake is to try find an F P post with any substance. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daniel Smith 5,694 Posted January 10, 2013 How much are Anderson, Batchelor & Iversen worth roughly in transfers?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
essaitch 24 Posted January 10, 2013 How much are Anderson, Batchelor & Iversen worth roughly in transfers?? Depends who's asking I guess!! Somewhere between 50 and 100K? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mudflaps 664 Posted January 10, 2013 Depends who's asking I guess!! Somewhere between 50 and 100K? I think you are a bit top heavy with the guess there Steve! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Game On 1,117 Posted January 10, 2013 Depends who's asking I guess!! Somewhere between 50 and 100K? More like between 50 and 60k Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BluTiger 21,719 Posted January 10, 2013 Maybe Peterborough will use their own asset instead for once at reserve, plenty to choose from..... Poole, North, Vissing, Moller, Brzozowski Could i just point out that p'boro started last season with 5 of their own assets, so your 'for once' comment carries no vailidity at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daniel Smith 5,694 Posted January 10, 2013 Harkness Gets Involved http://speedwaygp.com/news/article/2183/harkess-decision-time-for-panthers%20#speedway 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champs99 103 Posted January 10, 2013 Harkness Gets Involved http://speedwaygp.co...thers #speedway So when was the rule , that you have to declare your team by a certain date to suit your rivals needs, bought in? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BluTiger 21,719 Posted January 10, 2013 So when was the rule , that you have to declare your team by a certain date to suit your rivals needs, bought in? Yesterday evening at 7.45pm in his kichen, in consultation with his pet budgie.....More tosh, speedway's ruler's are a complete joke. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hans fan 1,001 Posted January 10, 2013 Harkness Gets Involved http://speedwaygp.co...thers #speedway hardly a surprise is it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevebrum 6,834 Posted January 10, 2013 Harkness Gets Involved http://speedwaygp.co...thers #speedway Read the article in the Speedway Star. Certainly seems a common sense approach to me. If you arent planning to use your asset that season then he can go on loan. Nowt wrong with that. Forcing another to buy instead isnt anything other than trying to be awkward. Harkness is right, in todays economy its almost suicidal to expect all clubs to buy instead of loan - whatever the precedent set. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve0 5,517 Posted January 10, 2013 Read the article in the Speedway Star. Certainly seems a common sense approach to me. If you arent planning to use your asset that season then he can go on loan. Nowt wrong with that. Forcing another to buy instead isnt anything other than trying to be awkward. Harkness is right, in todays economy its almost suicidal to expect all clubs to buy instead of loan - whatever the precedent set. Of course it makes sense and I hope it is sorted out soon 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BluTiger 21,719 Posted January 10, 2013 Read the article in the Speedway Star. Certainly seems a common sense approach to me. If you arent planning to use your asset that season then he can go on loan. Nowt wrong with that. Forcing another to buy instead isnt anything other than trying to be awkward. Harkness is right, in todays economy its almost suicidal to expect all clubs to buy instead of loan - whatever the precedent set. You really still dont get it do you, its unreal ! Its not the loaning out which is the problem, its the tapping up of riders before parent clubs are approached, doing deals before that permission is sought. It is not allowed in any sport, and rightly so. And in Barker's case, he verbally acccepted terms, which in law is a contract although hard to prove. P'boro and Coventry have not broken the rules here, we all know the teams that have. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigcatdiary 3,173 Posted January 10, 2013 Harkness Gets Involved http://speedwaygp.com/news/article/2183/harkess-decision-time-for-panthers%20#speedway And about as much use as a chocolate teapot Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
