Teams & Riders Derek Gee is the new G

[Moose McKnuckles]

Free my boi Gee, let the man cook at Ineos!
(also wry smile at having to dance around the big elephant in the room regarding his wanting to leave...)

 

[jono]

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

Money seems to be his sole motivation here, so if he comes out behind his advisors have done him dirty. As to goodwill, I've seen very few being harshly critical.

I do agree it is disappointing for him (and for me, a fan) that he will not be riding the Vuelta this year.

 

[search]

Gee signed this five-year deal after his breakthrough-Giro, so while it may not be GC-money, it's probably not a bad contract.

His original contract was until the end of 2025, so IPT is not only losing their best rider, but also paid 2 1/2 years for nothing. They could have just kept him at minimum wage, or whatever it was.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

Gee signed this five-year deal after his breakthrough-Giro, so while it may not be GC-money, it's probably not a bad contract.

His original contract was until the end of 2025, so IPT is not only losing their best rider, but also paid 2 1/2 years for nothing. They could have just kept him at minimum wage, or whatever it was.

Then he would possibly have wanted to leave back then already and then they would have lost out on his later and greater results. Or they would have had to renegotiate last year and then have had to pay him more for 2025 and beyond which it sound like they weren't/aren't interested in.

 

[search]

Then he would possibly have wanted to leave back then already and then they would have lost out on his later and greater results. Or they would have had to renegotiate last year and then have had to pay him more for 2025 and beyond which it sound like they weren't/aren't interested in.

yeah, maybe. But one renegotiation should normally be enough. Gee benefitted from an improved deal already, and you just can't have it all.

 

[Brullnux]

Money seems to be his sole motivation here, so if he comes out behind his advisors have done him dirty. As to goodwill, I've seen very few being harshly critical.

I do agree it is disappointing for him (and for me, a fan) that he will not be riding the Vuelta this year.

I don't think it's money, I think it's sporting. I have little doubt IPT can give him GC leader money, but at Ineos he is much more likely to take the next step. He's also a proper Brailsford rider, which helps.

 

[Brullnux]

yeah, maybe. But one renegotiation should normally be enough. Gee benefitted from an improved deal already, and you just can't have it all.

It's not for money, it's obviously to benefit from a better set up and a better team.

 

[proffate]

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)

Did someone do the latter two line items?

You don't even have to speculate about Gee's humanitarianism. There is enough backlash against IPT in the cycling community that Gee could just want to avoid the smoke, even if he could care less about the reason for the backlash.

But I'm still guessing it's more of a sporting and money thing. Maybe riders signing long contracts should build in escape clauses and performance based rewards. This is better for both parties because we see how often riders sign a fat contract and rest on their laurels, plus it's never a good situation when you're holding a rider against their will. Both sides need to want to be in partnership for things to work well.

 

[tobydawq]

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.

During the Giro, The Cycling Podcast had an interview with Del Toro's agent and he had the audacity to claim that there was zero risk in signing a long contract. I don't quite remember the arguments but he seemed very convinced that he was right and that riders would be able to get out of them if necessary. How that would work, I don't know, maybe it was just agent talk.

 

[aruipksni]

It's not for money, it's obviously to benefit from a better set up and a better team.

 

[proffate]

Rider careers are short, they have to milk what they can out of the system.

However every dollar that Ineos spends buying out Gee's contract, or going to lawyers, is a dollar not in Gee's pocket. So I still think he should have planned ahead and agreed on termination terms ahead of time. A pre nup.

 

[Brullnux]

Gee is trying to leave a team whose best climbing domestique is Marco Frigo and which is generally not a particularly impressive set-up. Ineos have had their struggles, but they're still the fifth best team in cycling. I really don't think that he'll be making much more at Ineos than what IPT could pay him if he renegotiated, but he is at a much better team

 

[saunaking]

Froome.

didn't Ivan Sosa also hit the 5 year lottery with Ineos

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Ineos dumping a past-his-prime Froome on IPT and then taking a prime Gee from them.
10/10 finesse moves, no notes.

 

[QueenStagiaire]

didn't Ivan Sosa also hit the 5 year lottery with Ineos

Considering he rode there for three years and it being doubtful that Movistar would buy him out, I don‘t think so.

 

[YavorD]

Ineos dumping a past-his-prime Froome on IPT and then taking a prime Gee from them.
10/10 finesse moves, no notes.

It depends on how much money they throw to buy him, and how much money they give him IF he signs with them.

I don't think Adams will let him go easily, so I'm not sure a simple pay out the contract will do, so probably north of 3 mil (assuming he earns ~800k) + say 1,5m for 3 years, it would probably reach something like 8-9 mil .
Throwing 8-9 mil for a rider like Gee over 3 years seems a bit too much, IMO.

 

[jono]

Throwing 8-9 mil for a rider like Gee over 3 years seems a bit too much, IMO.

Who are some other riders costing teams 2-3 mil per year, so we can compare?

I agree that it's tough to justify spending much on almost any GC rider when all stage races are won by UAE and Visma.

 

[Netserk]

It depends on how much money they throw to buy him, and how much money they give him IF he signs with them.

I don't think Adams will let him go easily, so I'm not sure a simple pay out the contract will do, so probably north of 3 mil (assuming he earns ~800k) + say 1,5m for 3 years, it would probably reach something like 8-9 mil .
Throwing 8-9 mil for a rider like Gee over 3 years seems a bit too much, IMO.

Gee should easily be worth 9M in total for a 3y contract. Ineos won't get a better GC rider for less money than that.

And 3M is way too little compensation. If they truly have the final say, Israel should never agree to that.

 

[postmanhat]

It could explain why INEOS allegedly have put other transfers on hold. Braislford must have come across this thread and been inspired by its title.

Pretty much a direct replacement for Thomas as well. Likeable bloke, who only turns up about four times a year.

 

[Copperberg]

Gee should easily be worth 9M in total for a 3y contract. Ineos won't get a better GC rider for less money than that.

And 3M is way too little compensation. If they truly have the final say, Israel should never agree to that.

If IPT has got the final say and they say No. Will Gee retire or just cruise for 3 years?? You need strong motivation to go out and perform at your best level day after day, both in races and in training. I sure hope they can work out a good solution for all parts.

 

[pastronef]

Pretty much a direct replacement for Thomas as well. Likeable bloke, who only turns up about four times a year.

well, he has 40 race days (would have been 61 with the Vuelta)

just won the Canadian champs, won Gran Camino, 4th in Tirreno, 3rd in Tour of The Alps, 4th at the Giro. steady

 

[postmanhat]

well, he has 40 race days (would have been 61 with the Vuelta)

just won the Canadian champs, won Gran Camino, 4th in Tirreno, 3rd in Tour of The Alps, 4th at the Giro. steady

Half of that is some, understandable, point-chasing for IPT in smaller races. Seems like a not dissimilar rider to Thomas, and will probably be given the same sort of Calendar. 5-6 WT stage races, not expected to perform in all of them, and no one-dayers.

 

[jono]

Half of that is some, understandable, point-chasing for IPT in smaller races. Seems like a not dissimilar rider to Thomas, and will probably be given the same sort of Calendar. 5-6 WT stage races, not expected to perform in all of them, and no one-dayers.

No one dayers? The guy once led the race into the Forest of Arenberg. I assume nothing bad happened immediately thereafter.

 

[hayneplane]

Did someone do the latter two line items?

You don't even have to speculate about Gee's humanitarianism. There is enough backlash against IPT in the cycling community that Gee could just want to avoid the smoke, even if he could care less about the reason for the backlash.

But I'm still guessing it's more of a sporting and money thing. Maybe riders signing long contracts should build in escape clauses and performance based rewards. This is better for both parties because we see how often riders sign a fat contract and rest on their laurels, plus it's never a good situation when you're holding a rider against their will. Both sides need to want to be in partnership for things to work well.

Having a raise be triggered by a top 5 Grand Tour GC or monument podium would feel like a fair clause for both rider and team management.

 

[HashRouge]

During the Giro, The Cycling Podcast had an interview with Del Toro's agent and he had the audacity to claim that there was zero risk in signing a long contract. I don't quite remember the arguments but he seemed very convinced that he was right and that riders would be able to get out of them if necessary. How that would work, I don't know, maybe it was just agent talk.

I'm sure I heard a podcast where they were saying that the huge buyout clauses on rider contracts are basically meaningless from a legal standpoint, and that they're really just a bargaining tool. So if Ayuso really wanted out of his contract, the buyout clause wouldn't necessarily stop him. I think it might have been an Escape Collective episode. But I'm not sure what their basis for saying it was, or whether there is any truth to it.