Teams & Riders Derek Gee is the new G

Page 12 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jono
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).
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heston and jono
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: search
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jono
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.
No. What a rider is worth depends on supply and demand at the time they sign the contract. If voluntary parties agree to a set of terms, that's the fair market price. The value of the asset can later appreciate or depreciate, but that doesn't make the rider underpaid nor overpaid.

Was there any other team that offered Gee more money for a 5 year contract back in 2023?

I assume that part of the value for Gee was assurance that he got the chance to live as a pro. And insurance that if things went sideways he had a more or less guaranteed income for several years.

Had he only signed for two years, and then performed similarly, he could obviously sell his labour for more today. But he bundled several contract years, so you have to judge them as a bundle at the time of sale.
 
Last edited:
Foremost UCI arbitral board must now acknowledge there was no wrongdoing and for Derek to be able to freely sign for any team he wants going into 2026 season. Ultimately young man must work and provide for his family so this is now a top priority.

As for other stuff and any other possible legal procedures. I doubt that the team itself would sue Derek, mostly due to bad publicity involved by doing that and associating your brand, Premier Tech, with such things is in general a big no no. So ultimately Adams can try to sue Derek directly and that i guess is that. Personally i am a bit doubtful in successful outcome of such attempt considering the circumstances involved.
 
Foremost UCI arbitral board must now acknowledge there was no wrongdoing and for Derek to be able to freely sign for any team he wants going into 2026 season. Ultimately young man must work and provide for his family so this is now a top priority.

As for other stuff and any other possible legal procedures. I doubt that the team itself would sue Derek, mostly due to bad publicity involved by doing that and associating your brand, Premier Tech, with such things is in general a big no no. So ultimately Adams can try to sue Derek directly and that i guess is that. Personally i am a bit doubtful in successful outcome of such attempt considering the circumstances involved.
If it's an unlawful termination of a valid contract according to the rules of the UCI, the most just response is for the rider to be banned from the sport for the duration of the contract.
 
If it's an unlawful termination of a valid contract according to the rules of the UCI, the most just response is for the rider to be banned from the sport for the duration of the contract.

If UCI would take such position then Derek will need to sue them and prove them wrong. Misconduct, unsafe work environment, political views ... IMHO he would be successful in doing that but the only potential problem i see here is he might not be able to sign for a new team in the 2026 season. And we can't have that. Ultimately i expect for UCI to side with Derek on this one and as for any potential lawsuits in terms of damages i don't believe Premier Tech will have any of that, they will pull a plug on this as they can't afford such bad image and publicity as a company. In the end they simply don't want to be associated with any of this and 30 millions is peanuts for them so this surely wasn't spoken in their behalf. Anyway, the important thing here is for getting Derek back on his bike ASAP and to go into 2026 season riding for a new team. The rest will eventually sort itself out.