Teams & Riders Cian Uijtdebroeks - From the wetlands to the top of cycling

[Logic-is-your-friend]

He was on his first contract, but from the response you ignored previously: "He told me, that Bora wanted to sign him until at least 2025 as soon as possible".

When was this "earlier" where they should have offered him what exactly? And what could they do if he refused to sign any new contract?

He's been at Bora for 2 of 3 years. Auto Eder = Bora. They knew his numbers. Red Rick's comment was specifically about him being low wage. When you know you have potential gold in your hands, you don't haggle or don't come crying.

 

[Netserk]

He was on his first contract with the pro team, covering the years 2022-2024. They wanted to give him an extension "as soon as possible". He didn't want to sign a new contract.

What did they do wrong?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Well, let's hope it's because he was told to conserve energy, so as to be 100% in on the climbs in support of Vingegaard. Otherwise that's really bad, but I think the previous statment is the more likely explanation.

If that's the case then he's better at it than Gesink, Van Baarle, Valter, Kruijswijk, and Tulett, so kudos? Even "super domestique" Chris Froome wasted more energy.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

He was on his first contract with the pro team, covering the years 2022-2024. They wanted to give him an extension "as soon as possible". He didn't want to sign a new contract.

What did they do wrong?

I just told you in the previous post. They had him on the team before they signed his pro contract, they knew what/who they were signing. Either you treat him like gold, pay him accordingly, making it unlikely for him to leave, or get paid for it in case he does. Or you don't treat him like gold and you get peanuts when he leaves.

 

[Netserk]

So you are blaming Bora for not paying him enough on his neo-pro contract, which apparently was good enough for him to ink a 3-year deal. Even as they after that were eager to offer him an extension (at a higher wage), the ship had sailed and they are to be blamed for him breaking the contract he signed?

What do you think a reasonable wage is for a neo-pro contract?

 

[Lexman]

real disappointing performance today

 

[Devil's Elbow]

You do you buddy. You do you. If you think that is the only form of slavery, let us know when you hit puberty.

New commission set to tackle rising human slavery in Europe - and beyond

Headed up by former British prime minister Theresa May, the Global Commission for Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking seeks to eradicate the ever-increasing issue by 2030.

www.euronews.com

Devil's Elbow: "i don't see the issue, as long as no whips are used for physical labour!"

I know you're trying to bait a reaction out of me by insulting me personally, but I don't particularly care about that when you're equating the real and deeply grave suffering of modern slaves with Uijtdebroeks being unhappy about a well-paying, fixed-term contract in the same post. Not okay is an understatement, to say the least.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

So you are blaming Bora for not paying him enough on his neo-pro contract, which apparently was good enough for him to ink a 3-year deal. Even as they after that were eager to offer him an extension (at a higher wage), the ship had sailed and they are to be blamed for him breaking the contract he signed?

What do you think a reasonable wage is for a neo-pro contract?

Where am i blaming them of anything? I'm simply saying you get what you pay for. They knew his numbers before they signed his pro contract, they knew they were signing the biggest talent to come out of the juniors since Evenepoel. They knew he was already pushing numbers at Auto Eder significantly better than WT pro riders. They are free to give a rider like that a cheapskate contract, that is within their right. No problem. And it is within Uijtdebroek's right to break the contract as long as he either deals with the consequences that are laid out for such cases, or if all parties come to an agreement. End of story.

 

[Netserk]

Riders can break the rules, and that's fine as long as they deal with the consequences of that.

Groenewegen broke the rules for sprinting in Pologne, but he dealt with the consequences of his actions, as per the rules, and that was within his rights. End of story.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

I know you're trying to bait a reaction out of me by insulting me personally, but I don't particularly care about that when you're equating the real and deeply grave suffering of modern slaves with Uijtdebroeks being unhappy about a well-paying, fixed-term contract in the same post. Not okay is an understatement, to say the least.

I'm baiting you? Because you think what you posted was not infinitely more offensive? LMAO
But you are completely correct. What you did is totally not okay. Everybody is free to break a labour contract in case requirements are met. This is what was being discussed. Denying somebody that freedom ... You guessed it. Regardless of how privileged that person may or may not be, according to Devil's Elbow.

 

[Netserk]

I'm baiting you? Because you think what you posted was not infinitely more offensive? LMAO
But you are completely correct. What you did is totally not okay. Everybody is free to break a labour contract in case requirements are met. This is what was being discussed. Denying somebody that freedom ... You guessed it. Regardless of how privileged that person may or may not be, according to Devil's Elbow.

No one denies him that freedom. We deny him the right to race any UCI races in 2024 after unilaterally terminating his contract with Bora.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

No one denies him that freedom. We deny him the right to race any UCI races in 2024 after unilaterally terminating his contract with Bora.

You are not denying him anything because he is in fact racing UCI races for Visma. I can only repeat that just like in common law, exceptions can be made, deals can be made, settlements can be reached. Which is what happened.

Riders can break the rules, and that's fine as long as they deal with the consequences of that.

Groenewegen broke the rules for sprinting in Pologne, but he dealt with the consequences of his actions, as per the rules, and that was within his rights. End of story.

Ok, sure. Not wanting to work for an employer is the same as toying with the lives of other people. Yeah, i totally get that. Maybe Devil's Elbow can come up with some snazzy MS paint skills.

 

[Netserk]

Ok, sure. Not wanting to work for an employer is the same as toying with the lives of other people. Yeah, i totally get that. Maybe Devil's Elbow can come up with some snazzy MS paint skills.

Which is it? You can break the rules and you just have to deal with the consequences that bring and then it's end of story, or you can (and should) be blamed for breaking the rules?

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Which is it? You can break the rules and you just have to deal with the consequences that bring and then it's end of story, or you can (and should) be blamed for breaking the rules?

Labour laws enable you to break a contract for the reasons i stated before, because people should ultimately be free to chose their own destiny and change their minds. And while Tom Cruise is not around to prevent you of committing future crimes, and you may be able to commit manslaughter, the law does not seek to enable you in that regard. I know, it's hard to grasp the difference. You also seem to mistake UCI for a court of law. Uijtdebroeks/Visma reached an agreement with UCI considering UCI rules on one hand, and with Bora considering labour law on the other. Bora is legally (regardless of what UCI decides) entitled to a pay-out, and considering they closed the case, i assume they also reached an agreement. And while Groenewegen may have been cleared by the UCI, i know Jakobsen was still considering legal action against him. So maybe you didn't pick the best comparison. But A for effort.

 

[Hugh Januss]

What do you think a reasonable wage is for a neo-pro contract?

Perhaps what both parties agreed to?

 

[Netserk]

Labour laws enable you to break a contract for the reasons i stated before, because people should ultimately be free to chose their own destiny and change their minds. And while Tom Cruise is not around to prevent you of committing future crimes, and you may be able to commit manslaughter, the law does not seek to enable you in that regard. I know, it's hard to grasp the difference. You also seem to mistake UCI for a court of law. Uijtdebroeks/Visma reached an agreement with UCI considering UCI rules on one hand, and with Bora considering labour law on the other. Bora is legally (regardless of what UCI decides) entitled to a pay-out, and considering they closed the case, i assume they also reached an agreement. And while Groenewegen may have been cleared by the UCI, i know Jakobsen was still considering legal action against him. So maybe you didn't pick the best comparison. But A for effort.

When he terminated his contract in the beginning of December, even if that was allowed by Belgian labour laws, he didn't have the right to race for another team in 2024. His contract with Jumbo was against the rules of the UCI, and only a settlement after the fact has cleared him to race now.

I have only made this about UCI rules, not labour laws and not criminal code. Either you think it's end of story when you deal with the UCI rules or you don't. Uijtdebroeks violated the rules of the sport when he signed his contract with Visma, and he is rightfully broadly held in contempt for that.

 

[Netserk]

Perhaps what both parties agreed to?

That's the reasonable position.

 

[ManicJack]

Haven't we had this p*ssing contest already? 🙄

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

When he terminated his contract in the beginning of December, even if that was allowed by Belgian labour laws, he didn't have the right to race for another team in 2024. His contract with Jumbo was against the rules of the UCI, and only a settlement after the fact has cleared him to race now.

I have only made this about UCI rules, not labour laws and not criminal code. Either you think it's end of story when you deal with the UCI rules or you don't. Uijtdebroeks violated the rules of the sport when he signed his contract with Visma, and he is rightfully broadly held in contempt for that.

It's the UCI who is at fault. And had they denied him to race until the matter was settled, i would have had no issue with that. I think it was clear that i was always talking from the perspective of labour law.

 

[Netserk]

And I am always talking about how he is to blame for breaking the rules of the sport.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

That's the reasonable position.

The beauty about how this works is, that the wage that was agreed upon, is the equivalent of the buy-out. So if they feel they got "scammed" out of a big pay-out, they should have paid him more. It's that simple. See, so if you pay peanuts, don't come complaining if the employee walks and buys out his contract for peanuts. Conversely, in case they 'd have given him a 2M contract for the next 5 years, then Uijtdebroeks would have needed to pay 10M and he shouldn't come crying then either. Because that is what the contract was worth, what both agreed to. So you always get what you agreed to, what you considered the value of the contract.

You can't pay small time wages and expect big time pay-outs. You can't expect big time wages and expect small time buy-out.

 

[Netserk]

The beauty about how this works is, that the wage that was agreed upon, is the equivalent of the buy-out.

That's not how the UCI rules work.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

That's not how the UCI rules work.

What does UCI have to do with how much an employer pays his employees? You asked what fair wages for a neo pro would be. Someone else responded "what both agreed to", which seemed fair to you. That was what i was responding to. Why are you dragging UCI into this? UCI should apply their rules regardless of what someone gets paid.

 

[Netserk]

What does UCI have to do with how much an employer pays his employees? You asked what fair wages for a neo pro would be. Someone else responded "what both agreed to", which seemed fair to you. That was what i was responding to. Why are you dragging UCI into this? UCI should apply their rules regardless of what someone gets paid.

The UCI have to do with which buy-outs are recognised as freeing the rider of his obligations with his team and allowing him to sign and race elsewhere.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

The UCI have to do with which buy-outs are recognised as freeing the rider of his obligations with his team and allowing him to sign and race elsewhere.

UCI is not above the law, so when somebody buys out his contract as per actual LAW, UCI will have no choice but recognise the buy out. Conversely, it's not up to UCI to decide a team has to go along with a buy-out, when the team can demand more as per labour law.