Vincent Blachshadow 2,937 Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) I wonder why none of the top Peterborough assets appear to want to ride for their parent club? Perhaps Peterborough need to start looking internally to address this issue. Regarding the 'rule' which states that a rider must be bought by a club after spending 2 on loan if they intend to stay for a 3rd?! Is that actually a 'rule'? Had the Chapman's been aware of this rule, I'm sure they would not have pursued NKI in the way they have. Who knows, had they have known of this 'rule' then maybe they'd have signed NKI outright and loaned in Schlein as someone suggested. Also, do rider have a choice in whether they become an assest of a club? And maybe he bought Rooboy because others had enquired about him on loan but Puk has stated last season that he'd be happy at KL. Of course riders have a choice - they sign the paperwork. Edited December 20, 2012 by Vincent Blackshadow Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5 FURROW 97 Posted December 20, 2012 now why would I mention that. Poor bird would get reamed if I mention their name She may be winding me up but I don't believe she is. As I said, now waiting for official confirmation Quote she may be winding me up aint MJJ racing cos it's full of Bullsh*t every time its mouth moves you have to wonder if its a lie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pointsmeanplayoffs 417 Posted December 20, 2012 It's no surprise that the majority of the current group of promoters are in favour of the asset system as this 'majority' have spent years building up their asset base?!? Only the riders can change this situation, by from now on refusing to become an asset of any club. Instead they could remain free agents who can travel the world riding for who they want, over whatever length of contract they want. Within 5-10 years, without clubs being able to attain new assets, the current system would be defunct and riders would be free for whoever. Perhaps high profile cases like those at Peterborough will help to highlight this issue. In my opinion it would be bad for the sport if the asset system would be challenged in the courts as already cash strapped clubs (like Peterborough) would struggle to pay legal fees especially from their paltry attendances. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy17 226 Posted December 20, 2012 Nicki Pedersen to do half a season. By which time we get the funds to buy Iversen. Or if we can't get Pedersen or Iversen. I'd go for Zagar if he's willing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
G the Bee 639 Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) I think what many on here are forgetting is it is not in Kings Lynn's interests to have the asset system challenged either. They have assets too, albeit few at the level of top EL riders due to the amount of time they spent in the PL. Over time they have been and will continue to be receiving loan fees and benefits from rider sales like any other clubs. I wonder if posters like GRW123 were anti the asset system a few years ago when Poole shelled out a fortune to buy Darcy Ward from Kings Lynn? Of course, under his suggestion, Poole could have loaned Darcy from Lynn for the 2010 and 2011 seasons and he would have been able to have been released from his Kings Lynn contract, and join Poole for free at the beginning of the 2012 season. The problem is, people are only thinking about the current situation with Iversen etc and not previous occasions where their clubs have benefited from the asset system. Edited December 20, 2012 by G the Bee 7 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrss 691 Posted December 20, 2012 where do lynn get the funds to buy iversen in half a season while they are paying pedersen or zagar its a stupid thing to write Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
orion 7,618 Posted December 20, 2012 So lets assume that KL don't buy PUK. Does that mean that Peterborough will pay him next year - as he is one of their assets who had a job offer elsewhere (which he accepted) but was prevented from doing so by Peterborough. When you are impacting on someone earning a living - that is where the asset system is very wrong. If he has a contract with them and they are stopping him earning elsewhere then surely they should pay him the equivalent what KL offered to sit the year out - seems fair to me! HIS job offer that was against the rules ..no one is stopping Puk earning a living all he has do is find a club who can find a place in there side under the rules . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
g13webb 4,254 Posted December 20, 2012 I don't blame Frost in a way, he has bought these assets after all, he's invested in British speedway, now it's Buster's turn, if they knew that was the rule why didn't they invest in Niels this season instead of Rory? Surely they could have loaned Rory this season? On the other hand I hope that Lynn and Boro will do some sort of deal for Lynn to buy Niels contract over this and next season?? Exactly!!! I don't suppose the Chapmans knew of the rule, or anyone else did for that matter. Surely had they been aware of a rule like this, don't you think they would have purchased Niels instead of Rory..Cos they would... Peterborou didn't go to the MC because of Lynn breaking his 'So-called rule' they went because Lynn spoke to Niels first without talking to Panthers. Quite simply, Chapman wanted Rooboy and Puk in his team but, for whatever reason (maybe the silver's run out) only wants to buy one of them. Seems he opted to buy the rider willing to ride elsewhere and loan Puk because he'd 'only' ride for KL. Maybe he got that wrong! Lynn jumped the gun, Peterborough are playing by the rules. Whether you like it or not and regardless of your dislike of the current asset system there's only one team in the wrong here and it's not Panthers. Who knows who voted for what. The sport is all about secret 'goings-on' and if the face fits. We hear about riders assets but we never see laid down rules and guidlines so each of us supporters or/and riders knows whats happening. and may be you got it wrong. the Chapmans have, in the last 20 years devoted all their time and money into this sport. Unlike a lot of promoters they have done it from the bottom, buying premises and building the whole package. They own the stadium, and fund the presentation from the grass roots upwards, They're not like the majority of promoters who rent their race track on race night only. they're in it for the duration. Any spare cash going has to be juggled between track or riders . I am in no doubt, whatever Buster did he did for the sport and not for personal rewards..... Time for Lynn and Swindon to get their hands in their pockets and buy these riders if they want to use them. Simple as that. Just like you did last year with Meidzinski. (I imagined you would come out with crap like that) Shame really, how this Micky Mouse sport just has to keep shooting itself in the foot. When looking on the world stage, we are regarded as the 4 th best country in the speedway world . In each of the top three, Poland, Sweden and Denmark , they have depensed with an asset system and replaced it with one of contracts. Why cant we do the same.???? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve0 5,517 Posted December 20, 2012 Because the few clubs with many assets like to control things! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Griff 5 Posted December 20, 2012 HIS job offer that was against the rules ..no one is stopping Puk earning a living all he has do is find a club who can find a place in there side under the rules . If Kings Lynn want to name a team early then it's up to them to sign the riders legitimately. If they want a rider on loan they must wait to see if he's available first. It's not rocket surgery. They've chanced their arm and lost. Teams with no assets have to be prepared to accept they are the last in the pecking order. Hence Belle Vue's situation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vincent Blachshadow 2,937 Posted December 20, 2012 Exactly!!! I don't suppose the Chapmans knew of the rule, or anyone else did for that matter. Surely had they been aware of a rule like this, don't you think they would have purchased Niels instead of Rory..Cos they would... Peterborou didn't go to the MC because of Lynn breaking his 'So-called rule' they went because Lynn spoke to Niels first without talking to Panthers. Why wouldn't they have known about that rule? How do you know KL weren't trying to pull a flanker by signing the rider they might not get as a full asset in the belief that they would be allowed to sign the one that 'only wants to ride for Lynn' despite the 3rd season rule. How do you know why Peterborough went to the MC? Their rider was approached before being released by a team that'd had him on loan for the past two years. Could have been a double complaint Who knows who voted for what. The sport is all about secret 'goings-on' and if the face fits. We hear about riders assets but we never see laid down rules and guidlines so each of us supporters or/and riders knows whats happening. and may be you got it wrong. the Chapmans have, in the last 20 years devoted all their time and money into this sport. Unlike a lot of promoters they have done it from the bottom, buying premises and building the whole package. They own the stadium, and fund the presentation from the grass roots upwards, They're not like the majority of promoters who rent their race track on race night only. they're in it for the duration. Any spare cash going has to be juggled between track or riders . I am in no doubt, whatever Buster did he did for the sport and not for personal rewards..... Your point being? Are you suggesting they should be allowed to illegally approach other promoters' assets or that they be allowed to circumvent a rule because they own their own stadium? Shame really, how this Micky Mouse sport just has to keep shooting itself in the foot. When looking on the world stage, we are regarded as the 4 th best country in the speedway world . In each of the top three, Poland, Sweden and Denmark , they have depensed with an asset system and replaced it with one of contracts. Why cant we do the same.???? Because several clubs have paid out for these assets and others have accepted money for their assets transferring them to another club - your's also, probably the record fee received by a promoter. Now you want these assets to be made illegal. Unbelievable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrss 691 Posted December 20, 2012 why dont peterborough accept puk wont ride for them and move on Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PHILIPRISING 7,298 Posted December 20, 2012 THE crux of all this is whether the rules are legitimate. Cannot reveal names but a few years (not too many) ago when a new promoter was coming into speedway he enquired of his lawyer, an expert on European law, what she thought of the BSPA rulebook and specifically riders with no contracts being classified as assets. Apparently he had to pick her up off the floor because she was laughing so much. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve0 5,517 Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) THE crux of all this is whether the rules are legitimate. Cannot reveal names but a few years (not too many) ago when a new promoter was coming into speedway he enquired of his lawyer, an expert on European law, what she thought of the BSPA rulebook and specifically riders with no contracts being classified as assets. Apparently he had to pick her up off the floor because she was laughing so much. Exactly my point! It will take just one wronged rider to resolve this through the courts and the problem will be resolved once and for all - PUK would be a good candidate as he is the one losing out in all this through no fault of his! It the only way to have a truly level playing field Edited December 20, 2012 by Steve0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigcatdiary 3,165 Posted December 20, 2012 THE crux of all this is whether the rules are legitimate. Cannot reveal names but a few years (not too many) ago when a new promoter was coming into speedway he enquired of his lawyer, an expert on European law, what she thought of the BSPA rulebook and specifically riders with no contracts being classified as assets. Apparently he had to pick her up off the floor because she was laughing so much. I have no doubt the whole asset system will laughed out of court IF and only IF it ever gets that far, but who Phil is going to challenge it. The BSPA are a law entirely governed and policed by their own and the SCB are about as much use as a chocolate teapot. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
