Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
Sign in to follow this  
clambo71

Club Assets

Recommended Posts

Can anybody tell me what does a rider gain in becoming an asset of a club.

 

genuine question as I have not been able to find the answer.

 

thanks .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anybody tell me what does a rider gain in becoming an asset of a club.

 

genuine question as I have not been able to find the answer.

 

thanks .

A rider has to be an asset of somebody to be able to get the ride. They are no longer able to own their own contract like uptu the mid 90's. A rider may receive some sign on fee, or goods such as bikes, parts, kevlars, depending on their position and ability. By being attached to a club they have a contact to let them know any relevant news, and for them to act as a contact for availability for meetings and guest bookings.

Edited by Tsunami
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anybody tell me what does a rider gain in becoming an asset of a club.

 

genuine question as I have not been able to find the answer.

 

thanks .

 

Cant see what they gain, all the above would be available as a signing on fee even if they were free agents

 

they can be sacked at any time so it doesnt guarentee a team spot, and with the average restriction every season they might never ride for the club they are an assett of, so as stated above do not see what they gain.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A rider has to ride a certain number of meetings for the club. If the rider was riding for Glasgow the Management Committee then allow any club to sign him. :mad:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A rider has to ride a certain number of meetings for the club. If the rider was riding for Glasgow the Management Committee then allow any club to sign him. :mad:

:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Resurrecting this one, as I was thinking yesterday... Are club assets still a thing?

When was a rider last transferred on a "full transfer" for a transfer fee?

Which rider has the transfer record? Is it still Jason Crump v1.0

Do clubs show rider "assets" on their balance sheets?

Would Leicester, for example, be showing Martin Vaculik and Paweł Przedpełski on their balance sheet? And at what value? As realistically at the moment in the UK they're worthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always thought that club 'assets' were somewhat questionable and open to abuse. I recall that Nikki Pedersen was a Wolves 'asset' but only rode for them the one season and was then 'loaned out' for successive seasons thereafter? There are examples of riders only appearing once for a club and was therefore deemed an 'asset' and subsequent clubs were required to pay a fee if they wished to use him. I recall Dallle Andersson riding a superlative season for Oxford in 1995 although being classed as a Cradley 'asset' despite' having never rode for them until the following season...a mistake in my opinion because he was never the same rider again.

I seem to remember that Seb Ulamek was also a Wolves 'asset' but never rode for them certainly not during his formative years riding in the UK?

Edited by steve roberts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, iainb said:

Resurrecting this one, as I was thinking yesterday... Are club assets still a thing?

When was a rider last transferred on a "full transfer" for a transfer fee?

Which rider has the transfer record? Is it still Jason Crump v1.0

Do clubs show rider "assets" on their balance sheets?

Would Leicester, for example, be showing Martin Vaculik and Paweł Przedpełski on their balance sheet? And at what value? As realistically at the moment in the UK they're worthless.

I don't think you can include rider assets on the clubs (promoters company) balance sheet.  They are not true assets in any real sense as the clubs who "own" them have no legal control over them. Just as you or I are not on the balance sheet of the companies we work for (if applicable) because we are allowed to leave our posts should we wish as long as we adhere to the terms of our contract (i.e. notice period).  The only difference with a speedway rider is that the contract they sign is for a fixed period of time. Normally the duration of a season.  Once that contract expires the rider is free to sign another contract with anyone else.  

Of course others will say that the clubs do have rights over their rider assets and indeed clubs do seem to focus on building 'asset bases' but the fact that they are not contained on balance sheets and that transfer fees are infrequent at best reflects the fact that rider assets have zero value from a business valuation perspective.

I believe this applies to footballers.  Even if they have a long term contract their associated value is not held on the clubs balance sheet.  Something introduced after the Bosman legislation I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, enotian said:

I don't think you can include rider assets on the clubs (promoters company) balance sheet.  They are not true assets in any real sense as the clubs who "own" them have no legal control over them. Just as you or I are not on the balance sheet of the companies we work for (if applicable) because we are allowed to leave our posts should we wish as long as we adhere to the terms of our contract (i.e. notice period).  The only difference with a speedway rider is that the contract they sign is for a fixed period of time. Normally the duration of a season.  Once that contract expires the rider is free to sign another contract with anyone else.  

Of course others will say that the clubs do have rights over their rider assets and indeed clubs do seem to focus on building 'asset bases' but the fact that they are not contained on balance sheets and that transfer fees are infrequent at best reflects the fact that rider assets have zero value from a business valuation perspective.

I believe this applies to footballers.  Even if they have a long term contract their associated value is not held on the clubs balance sheet.  Something introduced after the Bosman legislation I think.

Yeah,  I get what you're saying and I'm no accountant but the riders aren't employees. Back in the day transfer fees were a thing that's why I wondered if things had changed. When a club is sold are the value of the assets included I wonder? Otherwise you're selling nothing but the name and licence to run really

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't clubs have to demonstrate a certain level of financial assets (including a bond and rider assets) before being accepted into the BSPL.  I recall several years ago that Poole 'loaned' an asset to Somerset so that the Rebels met the BSPA criteria!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, iainb said:

Yeah,  I get what you're saying and I'm no accountant but the riders aren't employees. Back in the day transfer fees were a thing that's why I wondered if things had changed. When a club is sold are the value of the assets included I wonder? Otherwise you're selling nothing but the name and licence to run really

 

7 minutes ago, Skidder1 said:

Don't clubs have to demonstrate a certain level of financial assets (including a bond and rider assets) before being accepted into the BSPL.  I recall several years ago that Poole 'loaned' an asset to Somerset so that the Rebels met the BSPA criteria!

Just more smoke and mirrors BS......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Skidder1 said:

Don't clubs have to demonstrate a certain level of financial assets (including a bond and rider assets) before being accepted into the BSPL.  I recall several years ago that Poole 'loaned' an asset to Somerset so that the Rebels met the BSPA criteria!

Pretty sure you are 100% right...

i seem to remember reading a couple of years ago that the BSP want teams to have assets so as they have someone to sell should they close, which then can help pay the creditors.....

I think it may have mentioned that this had replaced the 'bond' (not sure if just for some or all), given tracks didn't always have the money to front up...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said:

 

Just more smoke and mirrors BS......

"Creative" Accounting 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, mikebv said:

Pretty sure you are 100% right...

i seem to remember reading a couple of years ago that the BSP want teams to have assets so as they have someone to sell should they close, which then can help pay the creditors.....

I think it may have mentioned that this had replaced the 'bond' (not sure if just for some or all), given tracks didn't always have the money to front up...

To have assets to sell... surely you need buyers. It's definitely a buyers market I'd say

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, iainb said:

To have assets to sell... surely you need buyers. It's definitely a buyers market I'd say

I presume it's more for loan deals..

A magic merry go round most years isnt it?

Can't remember the last "big transfer" to be honest..

However..

Given Poland can dictate if "your rider" rides for you or not, I wouldnt think paying out any transfer money would be worth it anyway.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

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