A year ago in issue 27 of
The Voice I wrote about the way certain promoters were cost cutting by delaying
payment to riders for as long as possible and in some cases never, with the resulting
bad publicity for the sport and I suggested possible ways that the BSPA/SCB
could improve matters.
Reading reports of the Hans
Andersen affair in July 2008 it was clear that if the BSPA/SCB had read my
article they believed that my ideas were unworkable, unnecessary or they are
still thinking of their own ways that will ensure that promoters honour in
letter and spirit their legal contracts with riders. Now that the dust has
settled maybe it’s time to sit back and examine how the various parties involved
have come out of the affair.
The Peterborough promoter
was seen by many people has being the villain of the affair being the evil
promoter who hadn’t paid his riders in accordance with the terms of their legal
contact. Of course it didn’t help that he had “form” following his mid season
closure of Oxford in 2007, leaving behind unhappy riders, unhappy stadium
owners and unhappy fans, and by his own admission the Peterborough riders had
been very understanding in 2007, speedway speak for not being paid on time.
Bearing in mind his problems
in 2007 at both Oxford and Peterborough many people were surprised that he
decided to, or indeed was allowed to, carry on at the Showground in 2008 and
questioned if things would improve after all what had changed in his business
plan from 2007 to 2008 or was he hoping in the words of Mr Micawber “that
something would turn up”. By July it was clear that nothing had turned up, that
Peterborough would lose their no.1 and the name of Peterborough Speedway and
indeed the whole of speedway would be dragged through the mud.
Another question that needs
answering regards the money that Hans was owed from 2007. In the Peterborough
Evening Telegraph of 17th July 2008 Mr Horton was reported as saying “ the
money from last season is a sponsorship through a company that went into
liquidation but again I have told Hans he will get it as soon as possible” How
can Mr Horton made his promise because how can he know when this money will be
paid unless he is the accountant dealing with the liquidation or he is in some
way connected with the company that owes the money or he is planning to pay the
money from his own resources as a token of goodwill to Hans?
He is in the unusual
position, some may say the unwise position, of having a foot in both camps
being both the Panthers co promoter and the personal manager of Hans.
Wearing his co promoters hat
he would want to keep the Panthers no 1 although he must have know that in 2007
the financial position was such that payments to riders had been delayed but
putting on his hat as personal manager to Hans did he consider advising him if
it was the wisest move to stay with a club that had not kept to the terms of
their legal contract or would the best move be to go to another club which may
pay less but on time. Also in his role
of personal manager did he consider seeking legal advise if they could revise
the contract to include a clause stating that any payment dates were missed
than the contract was null and void and Hans could try to get fixed up with an
another team without being subject to a riding ban by the BSPA/SCB? One is
bound to ask if Mick could give Hans the best service when he was also his
co-promoter the words conflict of interest spring to mind?
Bearing in mind the
chequered history of various Peterborough promotions over the years, I still
remember the day when I went to the Showground to see the Exeter Falcons and
the meeting was delayed until the Panther riders had received outstanding wages
from that weeks gate receipts, and in particular the well published problems
suffered by Mr Horton in 2007 at both Oxford and Peterborough didn’t one or
either of them consider taking actions to ensure that the Peterborough riders
were paid in accordance with their contracts and the Speedway
Regulations/Promoters Guide and that they knew for certain that this was the
case by speaking to them weekly if necessary. For example couldn’t they ensure
that for away meetings the home promoter paid the monies earned by the Panther
riders to the BSPA/SCB for them to forward onto the riders?
Another important question
is were the BSPA/SCB receiving the weekly captains report from Peterborough
matches and if so were these reports accurately reporting the situation regarding
payments. If the answer is yes when were the authorities going to act or is it
normal to wait until a rider or riders refuses to ride and then ban him or
them?
When Hans announced that he
wouldn’t ride for the Panthers until he was paid the thousands of pounds he was
owned by the Peterborough promotion he was banned by the BSPA for 14 days and
the Panthers were allowed to use guests/rider replacement for him. The speedway
press announced that the ban was due to Hans “withholding his services”. The BSPA
no doubt believed that the ban was allowed due to rule 18.1.2.G, which allows a
team a facility when a rider is “in dispute with his club provided that the
circumstances have been accepted by the Management Committee who will also
determine the period of the riders inactivity”
Most people would ask how a
rider could be punished because he was refusing to ride, risking serious injury
or death, not being sure if his employer would pay him in accordance their
legal binding contract and how it was fair to stop him earning his living
elsewhere. Am I the only person that thinks it would have been fairer for all
parties to allow Peterborough to use rider replacement for a limited period if
the BSPA were worried that the Panthers would fold and end the Elite League
unless they received some help to cover for the absence of Hans and allow him
to go to another team and try to recover some of his lost earnings. Did the
actions of the Management Committee set a good example to other promoters
especially as in the Elite League guests can have an average 10% higher than
the missing rider so making the team stronger? Being businessmen would
promoters think it acceptable if in their non speedway business world they
signed a contract to provide a service and half way through following missed
payments the other party said that they wished to renegotiate the contract for
less money and if they refused be told that they couldn’t work anywhere else
for a number of weeks some how I don’t think so then why do the management
committee think its ok for riders to have to do this.
Hans Andersen
Many people will believe
that he has been the innocent party in the whole sad affair but is that 100%
true or was in responsible for some of the problems by what he did or didn’t
do.
When he signed to ride for
the Panthers in 2008 he already knew what problems they had suffered
financially in 2007 and he was in fact still owned money from a sponsorship
deal.
Did he discuss with Mr
Horton how these problems wouldn’t be repeated in the future and was he
convinced that the problems had been solved and any promises made would be
kept?
Did he discuss with his
personal manager if signing for the Panther in 2008 was a good idea and how if
he signed for them he could ensure that either payment problems didn’t occur
again or if they did how he could stop them building up and was there a way if
problems arose he could tear up his contract and move to another team without
losing more money by being banned after all isn’t that why you employ a
personal manager? Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing and we would all
make different decisions with the benefit of it but what is not subject to
hindsight was that Hans was the Panthers team captain one of whose duties in
addition to tossing for gate position at the start of the meeting and behalf
heat 15 is to sign the captains report before each meeting, confirming that all
the teams riders have been paid in accordance with the speedway regulations. So
one of the most important questions of the whole affair is did Hans complete
the form in a true and accurate manner for forwarding to the BSPA/SCB. The
importance of the form being completed accurately was explained to me in
September 2007 by a senior member of the Speedway Riders Association (SRA) “the
payment rule is still in the rule book regarding riders payment i.e. 7 days for
home meetings and 14 days for away meets. The Team Captain still has to sign a
form stating that all riders have been paid up to date. This is where problems
have arisen as not all captains know if their team mates have been paid but are
signing the forms. We as an association have notified al our members that it is
imperative that all money owned need to be put on the form.
We are hoping to speak with
the Management Committee at our next meeting about how rider payments can be
made via the BSPA or another means so that the BSPA are aware of all riders
payments and when they are made. Therefore stopping things getting out of hand
with the riders losing out when a club folds,
At present all the blame is
placed on the riders for not detailing money owned on the form”
So did Hans sign the form
accurately, if not why not if not for himself for his team mates, and if he did
and they were received by the BSPA why didn’t they act, behind the scenes, once
they knew about the problem to avoid the riders loses mounting and to prevent
the sports reputation being damaged, after all it is not one of their roles?
In conclusion no one
involved in this sad affair comes out blame free but in light of the events at
Oxford and Peterborough in 2007 and 2008 and rumours of other teams wanting
their riders to be “understanding” is it not about time that the BSPA sat down
with the SRA and agreed how the regulations regarding riders payments could be
revised to fairer to the riders. After all at present the easy way out for cash
strapped promoters is to avoid paying their riders for as long as possible and
the BSPA appear to be unable or unwilling to do any thing about it.