Teams & Riders Derek Gee is the new G

[Samamba]

Yes, such a system. I don’t see a problem with it, and would even help smaller teams generate money

"I don't see a problem with it"? LOL, you think that matters? The EU Law does. That's the point. It doesn't hold in court, if someone wants to break his contract and another team wants to pick him up after that the UCI won't be able to do anything about it. Labour law in countries and EU law still matter for most teams, and other teams can ignore it.

 

[Brullnux]

Yes, such a system. I don’t see a problem with it, and would even help smaller teams generate money

It would just further enhance the stupid levels of inequality among teams we have now. Do you really want all good riders to be in the top four teams? In an individual sport?

 

[Ilmaestro99]

I like the fact that he wants to leave this team (for obvious reasons I won't go into), but signing such a contract in the first place was just ridiculous. Always the riders that sign a 5 years contract when new to the sport that end up trying to get out 2 years later. Maybe their agents needs to advised them better

 

[Brullnux]

"I don't see a problem with it"? LOL, you think that matters? The EU Law does. That's the point. It doesn't hold in court, if someone wants to break his contract and another team wants to pick him up after that the UCI won't be able to do anything about it. Labour law in countries and EU law still matter for most teams, and other teams can ignore it.

The Diarra case still allowed for compensation to be paid for breach of contract, it just restricted what can be included in it.

 

[Netserk]

Just allow a transfer system

All parties are allowed to reach a voluntary agreement as it is today.

The problem is that some would like all gains from trade to be captured by only some of the parties, and to use force to destroy the assets of others.

 

[Berniece]

"I don't see a problem with it"? LOL, you think that matters? The EU Law does. That's the point. It doesn't hold in court, if someone wants to break his contract and another team wants to pick him up after that the UCI won't be able to do anything about it. Labour law in countries and EU law still matter for most teams, and other teams can ignore it.

Has anything changed in football since that court ruling? I agree with UCI that all 3 parties should agree, but creating the possibility to actually buy a rider would be better to help overcome the team budget inequality.

It would just further enhance the stupid levels of inequality among teams we have now. Do you really want all good riders to be in the top four teams? In an individual sport?

It would generate more money for smaller teams who can reinvest it in their team. Instead of waiting and eventually losing the rider anyway when there contract is up.

 

[aruipksni]

that's where the stand by in the 2026 comes from, they're fine, no slovenian masseur saga is bothering them. go Dave!

those famous marginal gains in action ...

 

[aruipksni]

Has anything changed in football since that court ruling? I agree with UCI that all 3 parties should agree, but creating the possibility to actually buy a rider would be better to help overcome the team budget inequality.


It would generate more money for smaller teams who can reinvest it in their team. Instead of waiting and eventually losing the rider anyway when there contract is up.

yes, but gee is basically in his prime now, he would have turn 32 when finishing his contract. he could probably still could move to Cofidis , but he wouldn't be a prime merchandise then.

 

[Netserk]

Has anything changed in football since that court ruling? I agree with UCI that all 3 parties should agree, but creating the possibility to actually buy a rider would be better to help overcome the team budget inequality.


It would generate more money for smaller teams who can reinvest it in their team. Instead of waiting and eventually losing the rider anyway when there contract is up.

It is already possible. All parties just have to agree.

If Israel would rather keep the current valid contract in force than receiving, say, 10€M in compensation, then Ineos and Gee will have to offer more than that. If they don't want to, then there's no trade that will benefit all parties, and no transfer will happen.

 

[Samamba]

The Diarra case still allowed for compensation to be paid for breach of contract, it just restricted what can be included in it.

Because a compensation is always needed according to every countries law... The Diarra case just mean FIFA can't block a player from signing with another team after breaking his contract, which they have been doing to keep the transfer system in place.

Has anything changed in football since that court ruling? I agree with UCI that all 3 parties should agree, but creating the possibility to actually buy a rider would be better to help overcome the team budget inequality.

Not yet really cause it's for almost every team beneficial that it stands, but teams have to listen to players quicker cause they can leave if they want (easier in some countries than others). It's too early too tell what the consequences really are, but the point is that the UCI won't copy it with that ruling.

Also don't really understand you, technically a transfer system is literally in place. You can pay another team to get someone out of his contract if they agree (and even if they don't agree indirectly due to certain countries laws). It just isn't named a transfer system. What do you think Charlotte Kool just did?

The problem is that laws in different countries (and definitely within EU and outside of it) are completely different and it's beneficial to some teams compared to others. It's not just in the case of breaking contracts, also with signing freelancers instead of regular employees (who are more expensive). For example Belgian riders are more expensive because of that (they even are employees of Belgian cycling, not of their own team, it's a weird construction, this is also why they can use the law of '78 so easily). French teams need to pay riders more etc. The inbalance was already big and it's only getting bigger when you let these kind of contract breaking just happen.

 

[YavorD]

Has anything changed in football since that court ruling? I agree with UCI that all 3 parties should agree, but creating the possibility to actually buy a rider would be better to help overcome the team budget inequality.

Not necessarily. When teams can buy whichever rider they want whenever they want you don't overcome the budget inequality.
You make it worse. You would effectively create 2 different divisions (even within the WT) with top 5 or 6 teams, farming as many good riders as they want, splitting all the good riders within themselves and another division of "feeder" teams, whose primary goal would not be getting the best results, but developing a tallents for the likes of UAE to snap.
That way we may end up in situations where 40 teams get 20-25 out of 30 top 10s over the GT's. I don't see the positives, for us as spectators, of such a system.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

I like the fact that he wants to leave this team (for obvious reasons I won't go into),

I wondered how long this discussion would continue until I needed to do this.
Puts on Moderator hat:

• OK to opine that the political issues that surround this team might be a factor in his wish to leave (although that is pure speculation until he says something on the matter)
• Absolutely not OK to try to discuss the rights and wrongs of the Middle Eastern political/humanitarian situation here (plenty of other places on the net to do that)
• Utterly unnecessary to reveal your opinions on the Middle Eastern political/humanitarian situation here (let people consider you on your cycling-based input)

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

I think a fair price for Israel would be a compensation in the range of 4-8 million euros. And maybe that's on the low side for the best Canadian rider on a team with a Canadian sponsor. They could plausibly ask for €12M.

In Belgium, and I thought in many EU countries, but I could be wrong, is that the buy-out equals the remainder of the contract. So if he earned 1M yearly, and he had 3 years still to go on his contact, the buy-out would be 3M.
I think that is a good way to gauge the worth of a rider to a team. If Israel wanted more, they should have offered him a better deal to reflect how much they rate him.

Hope you will find it in your heart to forgive him though. (Sorry, I had to).

 

[Netserk]

In Belgium, and I thought in many EU countries, but I could be wrong, is that the buy-out equals the remainder of the contract. So if he earned 1M yearly, and he had 3 years still to go on his contact, the buy-out would be 3M.
I think that is a good way to gauge the worth of a rider to a team. If Israel wanted more, they should have offered him a better deal to reflect how much they rate him.

Hope you will find it in your heart to forgive him though. (Sorry, I had to).

An asset is worth its fair market value. If a trade doesn't benefit all parties, then it is not fair to coerce one of the parties against all prior agreements.

How valuable is the contract with Gee (as it was agreed to voluntarily by all parties) to Premier Tech? How much compensation would it take for them to be better off without Gee under contract?

 

[Pinot's goat]

It's a shame he couldn't wait until the final day of La Vuelta to do this but is a good move if he wants to try and win a Giro or Vuelta.

 

[saunaking]

Paying Remco money to get another Arensman would be a hilariously Ineos thing to do. Is Gee any better than this guy except maybe consistency?

 

[Pinot's goat]

Paying Remco money to get another Arensman would be a hilariously Ineos thing to do. Is Gee any better than this guy except maybe consistency?

Gee only started training for GC just over a year ago so potential is higher.

 

[HashRouge]

These five year contracts probably seem like a great idea at the time, but they definitely aren't very rider friendly. I feel like three years should be the maximum any agent recommends, particularly for younger riders.

I'm struggling a bit with Gee's situation, because it must be really frustrating to be tied into a contract that you desperately want out of, but equally, surely contracts have to be meaningful otherwise what is the point? Gee also wasn't that young when he signed his contract extension, so he ought to have been aware of the potential pitfalls of signing such a long contract.

It's the riders who sign five year contracts when they're very young (looking at UAE here) that I feel bad for, as they really are dependent on the advice they get from their agents/ family/ friends. I know people love to criticise Ayuso, but I really don't think he should have been allowed to sign that massive contract when he was 19 . It's a shame that the CPA doesn't offer advice on this, as I feel like for a lot of very young cyclists there is nowhere for them to get neutral information/ advice.

 

[Pozzovivo]

Gee only started training for GC just over a year ago so potential is higher.

Gee's potential is not higher than Arensman. It is the opposite by a considerable margin imo.

 

[jono]

An asset is worth its fair market value. If a trade doesn't benefit all parties, then it is not fair to coerce one of the parties against all prior agreements.

How valuable is the contract with Gee (as it was agreed to voluntarily by all parties) to Premier Tech? How much compensation would it take for them to be better off without Gee under contract?

A model where buyout cost is determined by current fair market value but rider compensation is not is starkly anti-labour.

 

[jono]

Would Derek Gee be eligible to ride in the world championships if his professional contract status is in limbo?

 

[Netserk]

A model where buyout cost is determined by current fair market value but rider compensation is not is starkly anti-labour.

Rider compensation is in expectation the fair market value at the time the contract is signed.

Sometimes, the team committed to a rider friendly deal as with Froome. Sometimes, the rider committed to a team friendly deal as with Gee. That's part of dealing with uncertainty.

 

[Netserk]

These five year contracts probably seem like a great idea at the time, but they definitely aren't very rider friendly.

Froome.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Laughable. When will riders learn not to sign these super long contracts? Now it will cost him money, goodwill and a Vuelta.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

Would Derek Gee be eligible to ride in the world championships if his professional contract status is in limbo?

Rohan Dennis winning the 2019 TT Worlds while being in the middle of a messy breakup with Bahrain suggests yes.