That's odd cos CF blocks so many on twitter.Froome: 1,5 million followers on twitter
Bernal: 225.000
Peter Sagan 927.000
Alaphilippe 76.000
Geraint Thomas 460.000
Not that I would make that my reasoning, but obviously that can be the reasoning.
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
That's odd cos CF blocks so many on twitter.Froome: 1,5 million followers on twitter
Bernal: 225.000
Peter Sagan 927.000
Alaphilippe 76.000
Geraint Thomas 460.000
Not that I would make that my reasoning, but obviously that can be the reasoning.
That's odd cos CF blocks so many on twitter.
You could use 15 million Euros to buy a lot of really good talent, and still have plenty left over for marketing. Also, ISU may have dug themselves into a hole, now that it appears Froome is staying with Ineos this year. If ISU really offered him 5 million a year for three years (and I understand this is just a rumor, it hasn't been confirmed), it would hard to back down from that offer if they try to sign him for next year. But unless Froome wins the TDF this year (or comes close, as in 2018), no one is going to consider his market value anywhere close to that. In the absence of a really strong, still-in-his-prime Tour, Froome will be getting offers for much less next year. ISU, you'd think, would have second thoughts about how much to offer Froome, but he might consider that bad faith, and just rule them out.
Even if Froome were to win the TDF this year, it might not help his value that much. He'll still be a year older next year, and if he's a five-time winner at that point, his only motivation will be for no. 6. But how much longer would he try for that?
It's not even that though. It's more that you're paying top dollar for people who will never be any better than they are right now. This is something that Ineos demonstrably haven't done, and has been one of their biggest strengths and part of why they've established a dynasty and not other super-budget teams. Sure, Ineos has more money than anybody else, but look at other big budget start-up or influx-of-cash teams who've done what Israel Start-up Nation are doing, and where they are now.Gotta love Sylvan Adams, a UCI World Masters Track Cycling Champion himself, for building a world-class velodrome in Israel. And if he now wants to pay the TopDawg many millions over three years I commend him for trying to drag cycling out of the bargain basement of professional sports. Of course the fans of the low budget teams that never compensate their riders properly will try to find fault.
It feels very much like they're paying the kind of money that you should be paying to a star of today who will hopefully be a star of the future, to a man who is a star of yesterday who will hopefully still be a star today.
In giving out those kind of fat contracts, you have to judge people not on what they have achieved but on what they will achieve with you. That's why Chris Horner couldn't find a team willing to pay him what he wanted for 2014. And what you expect out of that will be different for different teams of course. Some teams make a tradition of these kind of cut-price flyers on older riders or riders with some injury history or other issues - Movistar with Betancur, Rujano, Gadret or Moreau, or Dimension Data with the old HTC group of Renshaw, Cav and Eisel, for example - but these are typically because those riders are experienced enough to not need much looking after or coaching, and they come at a cheaper price because they're in the twilight of their careers or at a "prove yourself worth it" period. A €5m a year deal is quite demonstrably not that. That's top dollar for somebody you expect peak performance from, not a 34-hyear-old coming off a major injury. That's the kind of contract that becomes a millstone if Froome returns at anything other than the level he had in 2017-18. If he comes and is a top level GC contender but not the man that's winning Grand Tours, it's still a risky contract because you could have a couple of people who can achieve at a comparable level to that, and have room for improvement, for less. It's the kind of contract that wouldn't happen if there was a salary cap - not because nobody is worth that money. Not even because Froome himself isn't worth that money, or wouldn't still be worth it if he signed at that level 2-3 years ago. But it's the kind of contract you see hockey players sign in their prime that guarantee them huge money until they're 38-39, and then they end up getting LTI-Retired, or they wind up having to give up assets to get the player off their books. You know, like how Toronto traded a prospect AND their own first round draft pick in exchange for little more than a sixth rounder, for somebody to take Patrick Marleau's contract off their hands, because they were paying him a colossal contract he'd signed a few years before when he justified it.
It feels very much like they're paying the kind of money that you should be paying to a star of today who will hopefully be a star of the future, to a man who is a star of yesterday who will hopefully still be a star today.
Exactly. This is the kind of money you pay Pogacar or Evenpoel. Roglic, Enric Mas, and a few others who are shown signs of real potential. Not aging stars. The only time you pay an aging star that kind of money is typically a rider who's been with your team for a long time and is still able to help the team in multiple ways. Even thing you still need to be careful because you still have to pay support riders.
Of course Valverde would be forced into this...
Okay (yeah right, you were), but a guy who has won 4 Tours can't get a decent salary...
Of course Froome should get a decent salary. But the suggestion of €5m for 3 years when we have such a small sample size of him post-injury and at an age you would expect him to be declining is a serious, serious gamble, especially if they were to buy out the contract with Ineos as well. It's throwing the money at somebody that could only be expected to produce diminishing returns - and that's not a slight on Froome either, it's just that he is now at the age where you would expect some regression in his level physically, as well as also tying so much of the budget up in him will reduce the budget to give him the support he needs. If it was a front loaded contract where he earned big the first year and then diminishing salaries for the later years with options to increase to balance if performances justify (this kind of front- or back-loading of contracts does happen, it's a frequent thing in hockey where the cap hit of a contract doesn't match up with what the actual financial hit of the contract is (this can ease the issue when it comes to contract buyouts and LTI-retirement) that might make a bit more sense. Kind of a reverse version of that zero-money contract that Frank Vandenbroucke went on to prove himself.Okay (yeah right, you were), but a guy who has won 4 Tours can't get a decent salary...
Yes i have. In his social media, looks like is working very hard to returning to his best shape. Let s se if he can, i have no doubts that he wants to prove wrong every people that no more believes in him.He looks super skinny. I know it's impossible to tell from Zwift, etc., but does anyone have any feeling at all for whether or not he's actually shown signs of returning to form?
He looks super skinny.
is he even eating at this point??...
View: https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/1275079665950945281
Your point works for Froome, who was a complete outlier to the point where his breakthrough Vuelta was a surprise to the team since he was only there after Lars Petter Nordhaug got sick - and they were so unsure about him that they had him domestiquing for Wiggins on La Manzaneda despite him being in the red jersey, leading to tiimelosses that ultimately cost him that Vuelta (at least until nearly 8 years later). Less so for Thomas, who was a talented junior who has been nurtured by Brailsford through the track program since before there was a Sky, the weird thing with him is his transition from a completely different type of rider to being a bona fide Grand Tour GC rider at 29, and then again to Tour winner at 32, same as happened to Wiggins before him (and who fits the same bill).Of course Ineos also have this recipe to make anyone who rides for them as a leader a favourite for winning the Tour. That's not because they accumulated the most promising riders. They made Froome and Thomas Tour-winners. So, whatever they have been doing, they have been doing something "right". So why should they themselves doubt that they are able to repeat this with other riders than Froome? They must think the secret is in their team, not in Froome. It's not like they attracted the most promising Junior and won the Tour with him, like if DQS won with Evenepoel.
I think that the fact Ineos are willing to move on from him is potentially a sign of it in some way, to be totally honest. Tinkoff/Saxo stuck with Contador long past it being clear he was declining, BMC with Evans, Movistar with Valverde. I guess you could say it's like Sastre being ousted from CSC/Saxo when the Schlecks were the clear heirs apparent, because with Carapaz and Bernal there's an obvious succession plan at Ineos, but the fact there's been talk of him walking mid-contract, rather than just not being renewed, sets the spidey sense a-tingling.
I don't think that Froome is going to hunt stages or ride support. Definitely not. With his record and reputation he's not going anywhere if he isn't leading, and rightly so. But it might be a sign that Ineos do not believe in him as a sole leader at their kind of level anymore and that should a too-many-chiefs-not-enough-Indians situation develop there, then despite being the most decorated, by being the oldest and the one with the most adverse history, he's also the most expendable. Kind of the reverse of Movistar letting Landa and Quintana walk but keeping Valverde, but then I don't think Brailsford and co. stand on sentimentality so much as Unzué is sometimes guilty of.
Your point works for Froome, who was a complete outlier to the point where his breakthrough Vuelta was a surprise to the team since he was only there after Lars Petter Nordhaug got sick - and they were so unsure about him that they had him domestiquing for Wiggins on La Manzaneda despite him being in the red jersey, leading to tiimelosses that ultimately cost him that Vuelta (at least until nearly 8 years later). Less so for Thomas, who was a talented junior who has been nurtured by Brailsford through the track program since before there was a Sky, the weird thing with him is his transition from a completely different type of rider to being a bona fide Grand Tour GC rider at 29, and then again to Tour winner at 32, same as happened to Wiggins before him (and who fits the same bill).
But what is Egan Bernal if not Sky/Ineos getting their hands on the most promising espoirs?
According to them it's also not 100% sure that Ineos will bring him to the Tour and not the Giro or the Vuelta.