Teams & Riders Derek Gee is the new G

[Devil's Elbow]

I think the best case scenario for the UCI is convincing IPT and Gee's future team to agree a compensation fee and move on. Avoid any ECJ intervention and work out what rules they want to impose on mid-contract moves.

The team is Israeli, the rider is Canadian and the governing body is Swiss, so unless the paying agent is EU-based I doubt it will be an EU court deciding here. Having said that, unless somehow Netserk is familiar with the legal system of any of the three above countries he is talking out of his ***.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

The team is Israeli, the rider is Canadian and the governing body is Swiss, so unless the paying agent is EU-based I doubt it will be an EU court deciding here.

This was my initial question. It is interesting though that the claim is made in Euro. None of those countries use the Euro.

 

[CyclistAbi]

The thing is we are talking about multiple (possible future) decisions and (legal) proceedings in front of different jurisdictions here. This first one in front of UCI arbitral board for sure doesn't include everything being discussed in the past few days. It will mostly come down to a decision if Derek had a "just cause" to terminate his contract, or not. If yes, Derek can then freely sign for a new team, at least in the terms of what concerns UCI, otherwise he still has a valid contract with IPT, at least in the terms of what concerns UCI. For either side it can after end there, or further (legal) proceedings or actions to be taken.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

I think the best case scenario for the UCI is ... and work out what rules they want to impose on mid-contract moves.

They did that just over a year ago:

Spoiler: Lengthy legalese tract

2.15.123a Should a UCI WorldTeam wish to engage a rider under contract with a UCI-registered
team such that the new contract would enter into force prior to the end date of the rider’s
current contract, the UCI WorldTeam shall inform the rider’s current team of such intention
before entering into discussions related to the envisaged contract with the rider. In this
situation, prior to entering into a binding contract (according to applicable law) with the
rider, the UCI WorldTeam shall enter into a transfer agreement with the rider and his
current team.
In case a UCI WorldTeam enters into a contract with a rider already contracted by
another UCI-registered team and the termination by the rider of his previous contract is
found to be unlawful by the competent authority, the following consequences shall apply:
a. The rider and the UCI WorldTeam shall be jointly and severally liable for
the payment of compensation to the rider’s previous team for an amount
corresponding to the residual remuneration under the contract with the
previous team. The amount shall not be less than six months’ salary. The
amount shall be reduced by the amount paid by the rider or the UCI
WorldTeam to the rider’s previous team according to the decision of the
competent authority, if any, and by the additional amount paid onto the bank
guarantee under article 2.15.121, if any;
b. The UCI WorldTeam shall be subject to a fine corresponding to three
months’ salary of the rider with the UCI WorldTeam;
c. The UCI WorldTeam shall be subject to a ban from registering new riders
for a period of 12 months;
d. The rider shall be subject to a period of suspension of three months;
e. The rider’s agent involved shall be subject to a fine corresponding to one
month salary of the rider with the UCI WorldTeam and a suspension of one
month.
Any consequence under let. c) and d) of this article shall apply from the UCI being
informed of the first enforceable decision holding that the contract was unlawfully
terminated by the rider. In case such information is notified to the UCI between 1 August
and 31 December, the ban on registering riders under let c) shall apply from 1 January
of the following year. The effective period of suspensions under let d) shall be set by the
UCI in accordance with article 12.3.020.
Monetary fines and compensation under let. a), b) and e) of this article shall apply when
such decision has become final.
During a registration ban pursuant to let. c) above, the UCI WorldTeam shall:
• not be entitled to register riders who are out of contract as set out in
article 2.15.120b;
• be entitled to register riders from its development team with the same
paying agent up to the minimum number of riders required by article 2.15.110,
on condition that the riders were already registered with the development team
before notification of the registration ban;
• be entitled to register neo-professional riders up to the minimum number
of riders required by article 2.15.110 if it does not have a development team
with the same paying agent.
Any sanctions on the UCI WorldTeam – let. a), b) and c) – shall not be applied in case
the UCI WorldTeam can establish that it had no means of knowing that the rider had
entered into an agreement and obtained a written and contemporary written confirmation
from the rider or the rider’s agent stating that the rider had never entered into an
agreement, in any form, with another team for the relevant period.
(article introduced on 17.06.24)
2.15.123b UCI WorldTeams are not restricted from entering into discussions with riders on a
potential agreement which would enter into force after expiry of the rider’s current
contract.
2.15.123c Riders and their agents are responsible for informing the UCI WorldTeam wishing to
enter into discussions on a potential contract about the rider’s contractual status and, in
particular, whether an agreement, in any form, has been entered into in the meantime
with another team.
Any incorrect or misleading information provided by a rider or their agent to the UCI
WorldTeam on whether the rider is bound by another contract, in any form, for the
relevant period shall be sanctioned with a fine corresponding to two months’ salary and
a suspension of three months for the rider and a fine corresponding to three months’
salary of the rider and a suspension of two months for the agent.
In case an infringement to this article is committed in the context of an agreement entered
into with a new UCI WorldTeam which also constitutes a breach of article 2.15.123a, the
sanctions laid down in article 2.15.123a and 2.15.123c shall apply cumulatively. In
addition, the rider’s agent shall be jointly and severally liable for the compensation due
to the rider’s previous team pursuant to article 2.15.123a let. a).
(article introduced on 17.06.24)

 

[Brullnux]

The team is Israeli, the rider is Canadian and the governing body is Swiss, so unless the paying agent is EU-based I doubt it will be an EU court deciding here. Having said that, unless somehow Netserk is familiar with the legal system of any of the three above countries he is talking out of his ***.

It will depend what the contract itself says. It's common in commercial contracts to say that it is under the law and jurisdiction of a country that seemingly has no relevance, often England or an EU country. I agree in this case it is unlikely as it will be on IPT's standard terms, but I have no idea what law they wanted to govern those terms.

This was my initial question. It is interesting though that the claim is made in Euro. None of those countries use the Euro.

I think that is probably because the currency de rigeur in cycling is the Euro. You can claim under foreign currencies in most courts.

 

[Brullnux]

The team is Israeli, the rider is Canadian and the governing body is Swiss, so unless the paying agent is EU-based I doubt it will be an EU court deciding here. Having said that, unless somehow Netserk is familiar with the legal system of any of the three above countries he is talking out of his ***.

Oh I see, this was re the ECJ – I get your point. Though I can imagine that Swiss employment and competition laws borrows lot from EU law, and so any UCI decision will have to be in line with EU law (the ECJ has already threatened action against the UCI for competition issues).

 

[CyclistAbi]

Specific in this case is UCI (arbitrary board) won't try to convince the usual three parties involved (the rider, old team, new team) to reach an agreement. This time it will come down to a decision if Derek had just cause to terminate his contract with IPT, or not.

If Derek has sound and strong evidence of things like employer misconduct, harassment, unsafe work environment, (extreme) political views ... then UCI will take that evidence and rule contract termination is valid, otherwise the contract still stands. Both parties can after agree with the outcome or take further (legal) actions. One could go as far as ECJ too.

But lets not get carried away, the important thing here is to get Derek back on the bike ASAP. He need to provide for his family. The rest will sort itself out over time.

 

[Penninepeddler]

The team is Israeli, the rider is Canadian and the governing body is Swiss, so unless the paying agent is EU-based I doubt it will be an EU court deciding here. Having said that, unless somehow Netserk is familiar with the legal system of any of the three above countries he is talking out of his ***.

It could depend where Gee signs next and whether the UCI place sanctions against him etc. As well as how his contract etc is laid out... as he resides in Spain and works mainly in the EU and will be paying taxes in Spain etc and therefore likely considered an EU based worker... complex and frankly hard to know without knowing details we cant possibly know.

But if he signs with an EU based team? It would be the Diarra route...

if Ineos? Not sure. Maybe it would be EU effectively as sure Ineos are basically operating out of Deinze for all intents and purposes and likely contracts signed with an EU branch of Ineos.

Also, IPT probably have a similar set-up with logistics hubs in Spain, Belgium etc and staff on local contracts... depends but a lot of teams do I believe.

But even if ends up in UK Supreme Court, while no longer obliged to follow ECJ - still does in many cases, and may well in the case of "competition law" as UK competition law is very similar to EU even after Brexit, as a lot of the competition law in EU was created in UK beforehand and then shaped by UK's time in EU as well

In the Diarra case:

Loko are Russian
FIFA is Swiss

his new team were Belgian...

It went to CAS first, then to Belgian court (where Diarra resided and his new club was that he was not allowed to join) and then to ECJ.

If the UCI ruled unfavourably against Gee and banned him etc, or upheld a big, big amount of compensation from Gee to IPT? If it was an EU team he signed with or he is a EU worker? He almost certainly wins the case given precedence. If it is Ineos and UK based Ineos contract? Less certain BUT most likely UK competition law will not fall too far away from ECJ's ruling.

and the result going off the Diarra case would be not very good for the UCI.

Especially given that most of competition law in cycling is within the EU and under the ECJ's remit (11/18 pro teams and basically 90% of transfers between at least one EU based team, and almost certain most of the other 7 will have guys on "EU" contracts)...

FIFA ended up having to basically adopt the Bosman ruling despite it being an EU ruling...

It is all very interesting from a legal basis.