Noodles 1,337 Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) I also wouldn't look at a house that I couldn't afford to buy And you can't force someone to rent their house if they are adamant they want to sell, but you can't afford it. Edited January 17, 2013 by Noodles Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevebrum 6,834 Posted January 18, 2013 I think you will find Larsen and Fisher were signed before last week!!! try and keep up You are obviously obsessed by bad mouthing the Panthers, but at least try and keep to the facts. A panthers fan thinking there promotion is being consistent, as expected. I dont need to bad mouth the Panthers, your own assets are doing a decent enough job to escape which says all i need to know. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TesarRacing 1,825 Posted January 18, 2013 Think I'd rather rent it out to get some money coming in as that's the most logical answer. Well at least it's your decision to make rather than some committee, made up of househunters who may or may not have an interest in buying or renting your house! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
foreverblue 6,122 Posted January 18, 2013 And you can't force someone to rent their house if they are adamant they want to sell, but you can't afford it. No you cant but if there are no buyers it would be sensible to rent it or you have no money coming in at all 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PHILIPRISING 7,298 Posted January 18, 2013 And you can't force someone to rent their house if they are adamant they want to sell, but you can't afford it. BUT would you try and sell or rent a home that you actually didn't own? 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hans fan 1,001 Posted January 18, 2013 BUT would you try and sell or rent a home that you actually didn't own? in the eyes of the bspa who run/govern the sport in this country he is owned...riders, promoters have to follow the rules sanctioned by the the bspa don't they ???it's fairly obvious you and paul burbidge don't like the asset system,why don't you take the bspa members to task about it 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Noodles 1,337 Posted January 18, 2013 (edited) BUT would you try and sell or rent a home that you actually didn't own? But these are the rules that ALL promoters aware of and should adhere to on all occasions and not just when it suits their own agenda's. I don't recall Kings Lynn or Speedway Star berating the asset system when Ward & Batchelor were sold for large sums of money. it's fairly obvious you and paul burbidge don't like the asset system,why don't you take the bspa members to task about it Edited January 18, 2013 by Noodles 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Know 221 Posted January 18, 2013 But these are the rules that ALL promoters aware of and should adhere to on all occasions and not just when it suits their own agenda's. I don't recall Kings Lynn or Speedway Star berating the asset system when Ward & Batchelor were sold for large sums of money. You cannot own a person,you cannot stop a person working. Hans should take them to the european court. He will win without a doudt and frost would back down before it even went that far. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve0 5,517 Posted January 18, 2013 Well at least it's your decision to make rather than some committee, made up of househunters who may or may not have an interest in buying or renting your house! At least with a house you can own it - no one OWNS the riders! But these are the rules that ALL promoters aware of and should adhere to on all occasions and not just when it suits their own agenda's. I don't recall Kings Lynn or Speedway Star berating the asset system when Ward & Batchelor were sold for large sums of money. Always going on about the rules! So explain why Coventry were given permission to speak to Hans and Swindon weren't? The rules state that if the parent club don't plan on using a rider, the club that they were last on loan with has first refusal! A good example of NOT adhering to the rules on all occasions and just when it suits their own agendas Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Noodles 1,337 Posted January 18, 2013 (edited) You cannot own a person,you cannot stop a person working. Hans should take them to the european court. He will win without a doudt and frost would back down before it even went that far. Then why hasn't he done it? Why has no-one ever done it? Who is stopping him from working - he could have ridden for Coventry? He could have ridden for Peterborough? He chose not to so if he wants to ride for Swindon they have to purchase him. They obviously agree with the concept of owning riders, why else would they have bought Doyle? Edited January 18, 2013 by Noodles 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vincent Blachshadow 2,937 Posted January 18, 2013 BUT would you try and sell or rent a home that you actually didn't own? Quite clearly, though, the respective purchasers/tenants believe the current owners do 'own' them, having just used the current system to add to their own property portfolios. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve0 5,517 Posted January 18, 2013 Then why hasn't he done it? Why has no-one ever done it? Who is stopping him from working - he could have ridden for Coventry? He could have ridden for Peterborough? He chose not to so if he wan't to ride for Swindon they have to purchase him. They obviously agree with the concept of owning riders, why else would they have bought Doyle? Would you work for a derisory amount of money? I know I wouldn't so hardly an offer. As said above, Coventry shouldn't have been talking to him anyway and FYI Swindon didn't buy Doyle - they swapped him with Magic! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Noodles 1,337 Posted January 18, 2013 (edited) At least with a house you can own it - no one OWNS the riders! Always going on about the rules! So explain why Coventry were given permission to speak to Hans and Swindon weren't? The rules state that if the parent club don't plan on using a rider, the club that they were last on loan with has first refusal! A good example of NOT adhering to the rules on all occasions and just when it suits their own agendas Would you work for a derisory amount of money? I know I wouldn't so hardly an offer. As said above, Coventry shouldn't have been talking to him anyway and FYI Swindon didn't buy Doyle - they swapped him with Magic! Interesting so could Peterborough have swapped Magic for Doyle? So if I am offered a job and I don't like the salary they are offering I can take them to European Court? Edited January 18, 2013 by Noodles Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grachan 7,365 Posted January 18, 2013 The rules state that if the parent club don't plan on using a rider, the club that they were last on loan with has first refusal! Do they? Which rule? Hope you're right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsunami 10,219 Posted January 18, 2013 Do they? Which rule? Hope you're right. It is correct, that is the system. Folks keep banging on about the word 'own' in respect of the rider. Clubs hold a rider's registration for the UK, so therefore have a role in where he rides. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
