Crump99 4,484 Posted November 18, 2013 HERE'S another hypothetical scenario ... You work in a local shop, which is rented by the owner of the business. One day he comes in and says he is closing it down, walks away leaving you out of work.. A few days later someone else rents the shop and offers you employment, which you accept. But then the previous owner demands a fee from the new owner for your employment. Surely, that in effect is the situation facing the current Peterborough riders? Couldn't give a stuff tbh, more interested in the bigger picture, the rest will sort itself out! 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EnglishRoundabout 1,752 Posted November 18, 2013 My sincere condolences to the Peterborough fans on here with the news of the closure of the EOES. Like many have already said, great track, excellent viewing. Its refreshing also to see there are no KKS type posters who see this as an opportunity to take a cheap snipe as per the Swindongate affair in the summer. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Warren2 65 Posted November 18, 2013 The source is Peterborough evening telegraph sports writer Mark Plummers twitter. Thanks mate :-) Fingers crossed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Haza 1,778 Posted November 18, 2013 Couldn't give a stuff tbh, more interested in the bigger picture, the rest will sort itself out! I agree 100% and I,m a Lynn fan but am a regular at the Showground most weeks - the main thing is to find a new owner as any speedway fan should not want this club to die its one of the best race tracks in the UK and will be a massive loss to the EL in 2014 , as for the rights and wrongs of who owns or don't own the rider assets that's for another day . 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hodgy 982 Posted November 18, 2013 HERE'S another hypothetical scenario ... You work in a local shop, which is rented by the owner of the business. One day he comes in and says he is closing it down, walks away leaving you out of work.. A few days later someone else rents the shop and offers you employment, which you accept. But then the previous owner demands a fee from the new owner for your employment. Surely, that in effect is the situation facing the current Peterborough riders? You are confusing rented v purchased, consider it a loan v transfer. Surely the argument is with the club that sold their soul??? Right or wrong they took cash for ownership. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crump99 4,484 Posted November 18, 2013 (edited) YOU are still missing the real point here... we are assuming, for the sake of argument, that riders cannot be classified as assets. If Rick Frost has no current contract with them and isn't paying them then what right has he to effectively sell them? As Hodgy has broken formation, and still not giving a stuff, if he purchased them then he has the right? Surely now is no different to when Horton sold it to him, NEW Panthers chief Rick Frost has issued a seven word statement of intent after assuming control of the city club.Berkshire-based plant hire businessman Frost completed his takeover – which included the purchase of all Peterborough assets – from previous owner Colin Horton over the weekend after lengthy negotiations. Edited November 18, 2013 by Crump99 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nboy 13 Posted November 18, 2013 outstanding venue, thrilling track, friendly fans, nice bar, amazing hog roast van. hope someone comes in to at least run NL a few times per year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TesarRacing 1,825 Posted November 19, 2013 (edited) HERE'S another hypothetical scenario ... You work in a local shop, which is rented by the owner of the business. One day he comes in and says he is closing it down, walks away leaving you out of work.. A few days later someone else rents the shop and offers you employment, which you accept. But then the previous owner demands a fee from the new owner for your employment. Surely, that in effect is the situation facing the current Peterborough riders? I understand entirely the point you are making Philip, but it doesn't exactly paint a very attractive picture to any prospective purchaser of Peterborough Speedway. Hypothetical scenario... A new promoter/owner comes in to run the club and doesn't have to purchase/use the current riders/assets. Would the new owner be prepared to purchase assets/riders if in the event he decides to sell after a year, the riders are worthless? So the new owner would only be prepared to loan riders I would think, how is that going to work. You can't suddenly change a system that has been 'working' for many years without a lot of fallout. Perhaps Swindon would be happy to loan it's assets to the new owner?!! Edited November 19, 2013 by TesarRacing 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wealdstone 3,454 Posted November 19, 2013 I have always defended RF as he and Peterborough have been serially shafted by those in charge and also lost money. I am not surprised that he has walked away. What I cannot forgive is the way it has been done and the timing, virtually ensuring no Panthers next season even if a buyer could be found. From this point of view he is far worse than previous owners. They at least found a buyer before leaving Panthers in the lurch. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trees 2,814 Posted November 19, 2013 I would feel the same Wealdstone!!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mudflaps 664 Posted November 19, 2013 I have always defended RF as he and Peterborough have been serially shafted by those in charge and also lost money. I am not surprised that he has walked away. What I cannot forgive is the way it has been done and the timing, virtually ensuring no Panthers next season even if a buyer could be found. From this point of view he is far worse than previous owners. They at least found a buyer before leaving Panthers in the lurch. Yes on the face of it I'm afraid I have to agree with you, there has to be more than this than we are being made aware of. It would appear (due to the timing of the announcement) to be that RF has pulled out of Speedway because of the outcome of the AGM rule changes. Maybe he thought most of his asset base would become redundant and worthless with the introduction of the new rules - effectively removing upton 20 foreign riders from our shores... Also I'd imagine he thought that the playing field was not level with regards to the dispersing the NL reserve riders amongst the Top tier teams... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hackett 220 Posted November 19, 2013 I would guess that the promotion were hoping that Sky Sports sponsorship would of taken the edge of the financial situation .. With that unlikely to be determined before the AGM I guess they counted there losses and walked away. Personally I would of done the same , with attendances of 770 and having to pay a rent to the EoS its a no win situation. Throw in the loss of Sky Sports money and main sponsor it pretty much a no brainer business wise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Midland Red 2,383 Posted November 19, 2013 I would guess that the promotion were hoping that Sky Sports sponsorship would have taken the edge of the financial situation .. With that unlikely to be determined before the AGM I guess they counted their losses and walked away. Personally I would have done the same , with attendances of 770 and having to pay a rent to the EoS it's a no win situation. Throw in the loss of Sky Sports money and main sponsor it pretty much a no brainer business wise. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Humphrey Appleby 13,977 Posted November 19, 2013 (edited) You can't suddenly change a system that has been 'working' for many years without a lot of fallout. Of course you can - it happened after Bosman. If a speedway rider went to court over restraint-of-trade, then it would probably be ruled illegal anyway, and that would be that. The speedway asset system has just become a merry-go-round of riders being loaned by one promoter to another promoter who in turns loans to another promoter. There are virtually no full transfers anymore because the system has become such a joke and there's no guarantee you can use a rider for more than a season. How many of the current promoters actually paid anything for their assets anyway? Some of the Sky money could have been allocated to a compensation scheme to phase out the asset system, but that's presumably all been squandered now. Maybe riders could be transferred to the BSPA who can charge loan fees until their original 'owners' are deemed to have received suitable compensation, but it's high time to knock this archaic nonsense on the head. Edited November 19, 2013 by Humphrey Appleby 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
houdi 535 Posted November 19, 2013 HERE'S another hypothetical scenario ... You work in a local shop, which is rented by the owner of the business. One day he comes in and says he is closing it down, walks away leaving you out of work.. A few days later someone else rents the shop and offers you employment, which you accept. But then the previous owner demands a fee from the new owner for your employment. Surely, that in effect is the situation facing the current Peterborough riders? Not really a proper comparison though is it. Unless of course you are saying that previous shop owner had to originally 'buy' his employee for say £20,000 to work for him, as well as then paying him a wage. If it is wrong for Frost to seek to sell his assets, then it was wrong for him to have to originally buy those same riders in the first place. Typical of the muddled and inconsistent thinking that bedevils the sport. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
