Nl Cant Now Have Assets

[Argos 262]

Can't wait for the fans forum at Birmingham next Wednesday, I have my question ready to Mr Mole :Is it true that NL teams can now not have assets, if this is true what about your statement at the start of last season that you wanted to build up an asset base ready for when we apply to go in the PL,

I will be very interested in his response

[Heathen1984 139]

Nl clubs can av assets. Cradley av clegg, perry, Neale n armo

[MONKEYBOY 2]

Its correct, NL teams can no loner sign NEW Rider assets, but the ones they already own are still theirs.

[John Leslie 3,213]

It's correct that NL teams can't sign assets anymore.

 

Don't know what happens to riders who have apparently signed as assets of NL clubs in the past. Don't know whether NL teams can retain them, or whether they have a set time to set them on, or whether they become free agents again. Would be interesting to know the answer.

[Sings4Speedway 3,249]

Atrocious! Its the NL teams that give the new riders a chance and have to endure as much failure as success. However the ability to sign the riders as assets and then profit from the few that make the grade is a fundamental element that belongs to the NL and preventing teams in one league from possessing assets its discriminatory and bullying.

 

For me the whole asset and contractual agreements with riders is floored. Ditch all assets as they are not actually worth anything and sign rolling contracts e.g 4,8,12 matches etc at the end of the contract either party can decide to part ways or remain for the length of the next rolling contract. This would even out the power balance between riders and clubs rather than solely resting with the promotions as it is at present.

[John Leslie 3,213]

I think it's quite right that NL teams shouldn't be able to sign assets.

 

NL teams pick up riders from training schools, have the benefit of using them in their teams without paying a signing on fee, then pay them only minimal points money which is designed to just cover expenses. How at the end of that can you justify allowing them to ask a PL or EL team to pay thousands for a rider that they have invested next to nothing in?

 

There used to be (and maybe still is) a kind of "finders fee" paid to NL teams when a rider signs for PL or EL after riding in NL. I think it was a scaled amount depending on the riders NL average. I wouldn't have any objection to that system if it still exists.

[uk_martin 1,606]

What did Boston Barracudas get for "discovering" and nurturing Darcy Ward?

[speedibee 3,091]

having no assets means riders would be free to blackmail clubs , If you dont pay them what they feel they are worth after taking a risk and helping them to develop , they will simply go to another club that will , I would like to see None E.U riders become assets of British Speedway , when they decide not to ride here anymore after being brought on by British Speedway , they or the Polish /Swedish/ Danish team that wishes to employ them should pay a compensation fee to British Speedway Poland, Sweden ,Denmark should also pay loan fees for these riders even when they are still riding in the U.K . If these foreigners dont Like it the answer is simple .go straight to Poland ,Sweden Denmark , and miss th uk out in the first place .

[pete cc 322]

Some NL clubs are run as a business, so if they can not ask someone to sign a contract that must be against some sort of employment rights.?

[spiegal 294]

The matter is now under discussion, and it would not be sensible to get involved in this at the present time

[Islander15 1,065]

Cradley have announced Basford & Chessell as assets. How does that work?

[teaboy279 1,038]

Think Basford was already an asset of another club, although not 100 percent.

I ve see suggestions that the asset rule only applies to "new" assets. If that is the case then perhaps this new rule applies to fresh unsigned talent.

Certainly not seen any club statements from the stand alone clubs complaining about assets being stripped.

I know as a kent supporter that it was pretty significant signing assets such as Ayres, Baseby, and Shanes. So would imagine some sort of outcry from clubs.

Is there any official source where we can access information about changes like this?

[Islander15 1,065]

Think Basford was already an asset of another club, although not 100 percent.

I ve see suggestions that the asset rule only applies to "new" assets. If that is the case then perhaps this new rule applies to fresh unsigned talent.

Certainly not seen any club statements from the stand alone clubs complaining about assets being stripped.

I know as a kent supporter that it was pretty significant signing assets such as Ayres, Baseby, and Shanes. So would imagine some sort of outcry from clubs.

Is there any official source where we can access information about changes like this?

That maybe the case. I took the wording of new to just mean that they can't make any signings because the rider would then become new to the club! But yeah, if you already have assets then you can keep them.

[teaboy279 1,038]

This seems to be Speedways biggest problem, the guys that fund the sport ie the fans are often left guessing rules and regulations.

[guitar_art 247]

That maybe the case. I took the wording of new to just mean that they can't make any signings because the rider would then become new to the club! But yeah, if you already have assets then you can keep them.

Can you really?

 

As far as I am aware Zach W became a Birmingham asset last year after completing the required number of meetings. In other words we already had that asset before the (unannounced) rule changes this year.