Teams & Riders Derek Gee is the new G

[hayneplane]

#freegee

 

[Izzyeviel]

when did he sign his contract?

 

[LongtimeLurker]

Derek is finding out what happens when you try play games and act innocent and the victim

 

[Netserk]

when did he sign his contract?

After the 2023 Giro.

In June 2023, Derek Gee signed a five-year contract extension with Israel–Premier Tech, extending his contract to the end of 2028.

 

[Rob5091]

If Gee gets lucky, it'll be one of the teams with big bucks that sign him. Adams will want some compensation.

 

[Bolder]

Derek is finding out what happens when you try play games and act innocent and the victim

Yeah, political and moral stands aside he needed to consult with a contract lawyer first. Or maybe he did and this will be settled behind the scenes.

 

[proffate]

when did he sign his contract?

1947

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

If they are asking 30 million, what was he earning and how long was he under contract still? Which laws would apply here? Canadian? Israeli? Suisse? The number he quotes is in Euro. None of these countries use Euro as currency.

In any case, can't be hard to prove that number is completely idiotic, which would only prove the team is acting in bad faith.

 

[Netserk]

If they are asking 30 million, what was he earning and how long was he under contract still? Which laws would apply here? Canadian? Israeli? Suisse? The number he quotes is in Euro. None of these countries use Euro as currency.

In any case, can't be hard to prove that number is completely idiotic, which would only prove the team is acting in bad faith.

The less he was earning, the more the contract as an asset was worth to the team.

The opposite case easily shows that. Froome's contract with the team was a liability and not an asset, as soon as it was clear that his labour was worth far less than his salary (and that should have been clear back when his contract was signed, but obviously wasn't for them).

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

The less he was earning, the more the contract as an asset was worth to the team.

The opposite case easily shows that. Froome's contract with the team was a liability and not an asset, as soon as it was clear that his labour was worth far less than his salary (and that should have been clear back when his contract was signed, but obviously wasn't for them).

So your argument in court would be "Your honor, since we have been severely underpaying him, his worth to the team should be considered to be in excess of the budget we save by underpaying him." Something tells me that is not going to go as you might expect in front of a labour court.

 

[Netserk]

So your argument in court would be "Your honor, since we have been severely underpaying him, his worth to the team should be considered to be in excess of the budget we save by underpaying him." Something tells me that is not going to go as you might expect in front of a labour court.

They are not underpaying him. The two parties voluntarily agreed to a binding contract at the fair market price at the point it was signed. They took a bet on him, just like they took a bet on Froome. It can go well for the team and it can go wrong.

Do you think the contract with Froome would be worth more to the team if his salary was even higher?

 

[Netserk]

It sure seems like a mistake to have signed Froome on such a contract. And it sure seems like a mistake by Gee to have extended on such terms for so long. That's freedom, you get to make mistakes and own them.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

They are not underpaying him. The two parties voluntarily agreed to a binding contract at the fair market price at the point it was signed. They took a bet on him, just like they took a bet on Froome. It can go well for the team and it can go wrong.

Do you think the contract with Froome would be worth more to the team if his salary was even higher?

Then by definition they are underpaying him or your whole argument falls flat. "The less he was earning, the more the contract as an asset was worth to the team." If you then want to argue he is due 30 million his contract should reflect that value. Hence he is underpaid.

Froome is overpaid. It's not rocket science. Labor law is there to protect the workers, the employees first and foremost. If a company wants to throw away their money, that is their business.