Barrow Boy 2 172 Posted July 28, 2019 Sarjeant being a Leicester asset was sent a contract to sign and return to ride for his parent club's BCL team. He did not do so and did not contact the club to explain why. When he was asked to explain he said that he had signed for Glasgow as they had offered him more money. Leicester were then entitled to ask for a fee to compensate them having had to buy him in the first place or presumably they could have prevented him from joining Glasgow. Leicester however then offered his place to Ellis Perks who as it happens is doing a better job than Sarjeant ever could. 1 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fromafar 10,375 Posted July 28, 2019 7 minutes ago, Barrow Boy 2 said: Sarjeant being a Leicester asset was sent a contract to sign and return to ride for his parent club's BCL team. He did not do so and did not contact the club to explain why. When he was asked to explain he said that he had signed for Glasgow as they had offered him more money. Leicester were then entitled to ask for a fee to compensate them having had to buy him in the first place or presumably they could have prevented him from joining Glasgow. Leicester however then offered his place to Ellis Perks who as it happens is doing a better job than Sarjeant ever could. Happy Days,Leicester dodge a bullet then. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Al 708 Posted July 28, 2019 59 minutes ago, SharpenRake said: It's not Glasgow fault that both Newcastle and Edinburgh decided to change there mind. In Leicester case they played hard ball over Sargeant so Glasgow has done the same. You have to wonder why Leicester didn't basically give Glasgow there money back or was Stuart just hoping Glasgow was going to give him a freebie. You have missed the point. I was saying that it's the system that is wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Al 708 Posted July 28, 2019 55 minutes ago, Gazc said: If we insist on a sale then what's the problem. Obviously you never moaned about the system when we allowed you to use Victor or did you ?. No didn't think so. For your information, I have always thought the asset system is wrong and actually illegal, and have made that opinion at various times in the past! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Al 708 Posted July 28, 2019 38 minutes ago, Pep said: If Glasgow are preventing one of their employees from earning money does that mean we can assume Leicester have started paying their riders? Dunno - no idea what arrangements Leicester have for payment to riders! Do you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gazc 7,098 Posted July 28, 2019 4 minutes ago, Big Al said: For your information, I have always thought the asset system is wrong and actually illegal, and have made that opinion at various times in the past! I tend to agree with you on that one , but it is still in place and as such we are entitled to ask for a full transfer. Nothing illegal or wrong about it. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tapeworm 169 Posted July 28, 2019 (edited) I'd rather be a turnip than a swede! It's poor Victor I feel sorry for. Seemed like a nice bloke. At Glasgow in 2014, he was given an assessed average of 7.00 so had to be run at No 1 when, whilst a competent rider, he had patently not reached that level. I am unaware of his having complained about this despite, possibly, losing a fair income from points money as well as the ignomony of always competing against other teams' star riders. Since then, he's been the victim of the numbers game at both Newcastle and Edinburgh this season.......... and now, apparently, the loser in a twit-for-tat historical tiff between Glasgow and Leicester. Perhaps he should change his name to Victim Palovaara? Or abandon all aspirations to ride in our crazy league set-ups? Edited July 28, 2019 by Tapeworm attempt to beat predictive text 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bent billy 26 Posted July 28, 2019 who says Leicester have not being paying the riders, it seems to me that it is speculative gossip by neer do well so called supporters of speedway. Once again everyone seems to have an opinion on how the club should be run, the club needs support not slagging off every opportunity by so called supporters who don't have an idea how things work. The current promotion and owners have turned round the fortunes of the club with there hard earnt money since taking over from David Hemsley a lot to be said for that in this current climate. The riders were not paid by the previous promotion but this is an entirely new promotion who are known in speedway as paying their dues 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MD 1,307 Posted July 28, 2019 2 hours ago, Gazc said: I tend to agree with you on that one , but it is still in place and as such we are entitled to ask for a full transfer. Nothing illegal or wrong about it. Seriously though, why are we even engaging in buying rider registrations any more. The system is widely discredited and we've had first hand experience of being burned with the Lawson and Summers signings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Al 708 Posted July 28, 2019 3 hours ago, bent billy said: who says Leicester have not being paying the riders, it seems to me that it is speculative gossip by neer do well so called supporters of speedway. Once again everyone seems to have an opinion on how the club should be run, the club needs support not slagging off every opportunity by so called supporters who don't have an idea how things work. The current promotion and owners have turned round the fortunes of the club with there hard earnt money since taking over from David Hemsley a lot to be said for that in this current climate. The riders were not paid by the previous promotion but this is an entirely new promotion who are known in speedway as paying their dues Well we await the reply from Pep on that matter, to give substance to his inference. I'm not going to be waiting up all night for it, though. That's if he/she hasnt been ejected by now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pep 24 Posted July 28, 2019 7 hours ago, Big Al said: Well we await the reply from Pep on that matter, to give substance to his inference. I'm not going to be waiting up all night for it, though. That's if he/she hasnt been ejected by now. That’s a pity you decided not to wait up but you can have a look at the attached while you’re eating your cornflakes. Robert Lambert asked Jack Thomas why he wasn’t riding and the reply was ‘being paid helps’. So based on what I read on JT’s Instagram page do you think my question was a fair one or as Bent Billy put it ‘speculative gossip’? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Al 708 Posted July 29, 2019 20 hours ago, Gazc said: I tend to agree with you on that one , but it is still in place and as such we are entitled to ask for a full transfer. Nothing illegal or wrong about it. Not strictly by law illegal no, probably because it hasn't been adjudged so by a court yet. But it is absolutely wrong, and I repeat it is the system which allows it to be done,that is wrong. We have one situation whereby a rider who is not currently engaged by a club at the time in question, is not allowed to work by undertaking guest bookings. We have another scenario whereby a club, that is not currently employing a rider, is allowed to prevent him from working in the UK. Make of that what you will, but it seems to me that slavery is still well and truly alive. And it's just plain daft, and wrong. It is not as if the "restraining club" is even paying the rider a retaining fee with those conditions built into it, or at least I presume not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Al 708 Posted July 29, 2019 8 hours ago, Pep said: That’s a pity you decided not to wait up but you can have a look at the attached while you’re eating your cornflakes. Robert Lambert asked Jack Thomas why he wasn’t riding and the reply was ‘being paid helps’. So based on what I read on JT’s Instagram page do you think my question was a fair one or as Bent Billy put it ‘speculative gossip’? So are you saying that because Mr Thomas inferred at one point in time that he was owed money, that was applicable over a longer period of time to more than him? Your comment refers to "riders" - in the plural - so you're going to have to come up with a lot more than this to get out of the hole you've dug yourself into. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loose Diamond Posted July 30, 2019 On 7/28/2019 at 11:18 AM, SharpenRake said: It's not Glasgow fault that both Newcastle and Edinburgh decided to change there mind. In Leicester case they played hard ball over Sargeant so Glasgow has done the same. You have to wonder why Leicester didn't basically give Glasgow there money back or was Stuart just hoping Glasgow was going to give him a freebie. Probably. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loose Diamond Posted July 30, 2019 On 7/28/2019 at 1:07 PM, Tapeworm said: I'd rather be a turnip than a swede! It's poor Victor I feel sorry for. Seemed like a nice bloke. At Glasgow in 2014, he was given an assessed average of 7.00 so had to be run at No 1 when, whilst a competent rider, he had patently not reached that level. I am unaware of his having complained about this despite, possibly, losing a fair income from points money as well as the ignomony of always competing against other teams' star riders. Since then, he's been the victim of the numbers game at both Newcastle and Edinburgh this season.......... and now, apparently, the loser in a twit-for-tat historical tiff between Glasgow and Leicester. Perhaps he should change his name to Victim Palovaara? Or abandon all aspirations to ride in our crazy league set-ups? Yes maybe he could/should. Yes they are a bit! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites