Riders are no longer considered assets of clubs

[bigdave]

According to Dick Barrie's column in this weeks Speedway Star, the system of riders being considered assets of clubs has been quietly scrapped.

So clubs will no longer receive transfer fees or loan fees for riders who go off to ride elsewhere.

Riders are now considered self-employed.

Given that some clubs will have spent a lot of time and money building an asset base and therefore could suffer a significant loss of income, I'm surprised that this decision hasn't been more widely publicised and debated in the speedway press.

Clearly this benefits new clubs or clubs who have never built or maintained an asset base.

Also, I think it discourages clubs from taking a chance on investing in an up and coming rider, knowing that the following season, that rider could move elsewhere with no return for the investment the club has made.

So I do wonder what the rationale is for scrapping this system?

[gjcone44]

you could be a apprentice for 4 years for a company then move somewhere else when qualified. its not illegal. unless you sign a contract.

[Rich]

5 hours ago, bigdave said:

According to Dick Barrie's column in this weeks Speedway Star, the system of riders being considered assets of clubs has been quietly scrapped.

So clubs will no longer receive transfer fees or loan fees for riders who go off to ride elsewhere.

Riders are now considered self-employed.

Given that some clubs will have spent a lot of time and money building an asset base and therefore could suffer a significant loss of income, I'm surprised that this decision hasn't been more widely publicised and debated in the speedway press.

Clearly this benefits new clubs or clubs who have never built or maintained an asset base.

Also, I think it discourages clubs from taking a chance on investing in an up and coming rider, knowing that the following season, that rider could move elsewhere with no return for the investment the club has made.

So I do wonder what the rationale is for scrapping this system?

Riders have always been self-employed, that's how they are/have been so easily dropped from teams.

[lewy]

Imo a good thing, should encourage or make it easier for new clubs to get started or former clubs to comeback and not have to pay loan fees to the sports fat cats. 

 

[szkocjasid]

I agree with it, I'm pretty sure they asset system would never hold up in court if it was challenged.

But feel there should be some reward for NL/NT teams who bring on riders, who then go elsewhere.

[Grand Central]

Speedway enters the 21st Century.

25 years behind the rest of society.

That sounds about right.

 

[eric i]

Less likely teams will gamble on a young aussie kid if they know that after a year they will leave to a higher paying club.

I suppose riders will start signing muliti year contracts and be loaned out like football.

[bigdave]

On 5/3/2025 at 9:30 AM, lewy said:

Imo a good thing, should encourage or make it easier for new clubs to get started or former clubs to comeback and not have to pay loan fees to the sports fat cats. 

 

Interesting comment from a Poole Pirates fan

[M.D]

So, does this mean that the rider asset bond new/old clubs have to pay to the BSPL when entering a league is no longer applicable?

Because its a lot of money to pay up front.

[Roger Jacobs]

11 hours ago, eric i said:

<snip>

I suppose riders will start signing muliti year contracts and be loaned out like football.

If they aren’t assets, why would they sign multi-year contracts?

In football, clubs still pay loan fees, and conditions can also also be  applied.

[eric i]

1 hour ago, Roger Jacobs said:

If they aren’t assets, why would they sign multi-year contracts?

In football, clubs still pay loan fees, and conditions can also also be  applied.

If no club is willing to sign them on a 1 year contract i.e a young untried Aussie. 

[FromBendThree]

2 hours ago, M.D said:

So, does this mean that the rider asset bond new/old clubs have to pay to the BSPL when entering a league is no longer applicable?

Because its a lot of money to pay up front.

Good point. As is often the case, this news has dribbled out in a column in the Star. Fair play to Dick for his scoop. Thanks for uncovering this secret. However, surely such a huge change was worthy of a BSPL statement.

[Lefty]

4 minutes ago, FromBendThree said:

Good point. As is often the case, this news has dribbled out in a column in the Star. Fair play to Dick for his scoop. Thanks for uncovering this secret. However, surely such a huge change was worthy of a BSPL statement.

Perhaps BSPL should be LBSP to cover there lack of transparency (again!)

[RS50]

22 hours ago, szkocjasid said:

I agree with it, I'm pretty sure they asset system would never hold up in court if it was challenged.

But feel there should be some reward for NL/NT teams who bring on riders, who then go elsewhere.

I believe it was decided, some years ago, that NL team's, could not have rider assets.

 

[FromBendThree]

34 minutes ago, RS50 said:

I believe it was decided, some years ago, that NL team's, could not have rider assets.

 

Feel sure you are right. Didn’t Eastbourne fall foul of this in their NL days?

[Vince]

About time too, if you want a rider as a club asset then you should pay him a basic salary and sick pay when he is injured.

Crazy system that worked against so many young British riders for years.

Only surprising thing was that it never got challenged in court where it would not have stood a chance (or maybe there was a challenge threatened and that's why it disappeared?)

[M.D]

1 hour ago, FromBendThree said:

Feel sure you are right. Didn’t Eastbourne fall foul of this in their NL days?

Eastbourne transfered assets to Jon Cook at Lakeside including Micael Mikkelsen, when that went wrong the BSPL took the assets.

When Eastbourne under Ian Jordan went pop, The BSPL took the assets again including Tom Brennan and sold him to Glasgow. 

Under Ian Jordan, the club had money and assets tied up with the BSPL, unfortunately this money was swallowed up with fines for closing mid season so no money was payed out to other debts including rider wages.

Edited yesterday at 05:18 PM by M.D

[ouch]

Obviously as a Belle Vue fan I think it’s a bad thing. Just looking at the current lineup, why should we bother bringing on riders like Dan, Jaimon & Norick only to see them move on with no compensation. However my opinion changed when thinking of all the other riders we’ve brought on that weren’t assets like Brady, Max, Tom etc. We get the short to mid term benefit with these riders but then get to see them flourish and provide a better over all league. We can’t race ourselves after all. 

Our business model is one I wholeheartedly agree with and would like to see adopted more widely. To see riders sign on 3,4.5 and 7.5 averages become GP stars we can all enjoy in our domestic league is fantastic and something we should all aspire to. 

The current issue of lack of riders in our league hasn’t happened accidentally. Too many clubs just cherry pick riders without any active involvement on rider development and whilst this may pay dividends for the odd season the effect on the entire league can be seen to be negative. Once again the bigger picture is just lost on British speedway. 

[marko]

Rider assets went with doubling up, if a rider rides in prem and champ, who really owns his British league contract?

[bigdave]

22 hours ago, M.D said:

So, does this mean that the rider asset bond new/old clubs have to pay to the BSPL when entering a league is no longer applicable?

Because its a lot of money to pay up front.

I thought the bond was there to ensure that if clubs closed unexpectedly with debts, the bond would be used to help settle those debts?