Teams & Riders Derek Gee is the new G

[CyclistAbi]

Why are we even assuming money was a factor here, considering on how much Froome gets paid? Was it ever said from any side involved that the question of money was an issue here?

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

[content deleted] Of course you can be underpaid even if the contract you signed at the time might have reflected the conditions at the time. Hundreds of examples can be found in the music industry. The idea that you as an individual can be the held hostage because you did your job better than what was expected of you and better than your colleagues is asinine.

In that case Gee undervalued himself. If he believed that he would be better than the salary he was negotiating was offering he (or those acting on is behalf) should have included bonuses, or release clauses if someone offered more. Or he should have committed himself for a shorter time, if he believed that he would be worth more than he was at that time.

Of course, if he has a case for constructive dismissal, as he seems to suggest, that's a different thing, but the idea that the signatory to a contract should not be bound by that contract simply because he thinks better of it is just licensed irresponsibility.

 

[Berniece]

You can only be held hostage to the promises you freely made and that you asked the state to enforce for you. It's one of the most profound privileges our civilisation offers us.

Who says this decision was freely made?

 

[Red Rick]

Who says this decision was freely made?

Occam's razor does.

Assuming otherwise is absurd.

 

[Netserk]

Who says this decision was freely made?

His contract extension in 2023? I see no reason not to think so, and I'm sure he would have announced it to the world by now if he was compelled to sign that contract against his will.

 

[kingjr]

To be clear, I don't think he's particularly in the wrong for leaving. I'd be looking to leave too.

I just disagree with heroizing people for taking actions that are most likely rooted in self-interest first and foremost. Even if there may be consequences, it is still a self-interested gamble.

The fact that it took him this long to leave makes me think he got a big offer after 2 GT top 10s and there's no way he was on the biggest contract just after the 2023 Giro.

Everything everybody does is rooted in self-interest. It's just that people have different interests.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

In that case Gee undervalued himself. If he believed that he would be better than the salary he was negotiating was offering he (or those acting on is behalf) should have included bonuses, or release clauses if someone offered more. Or he should have committed himself for a shorter time, if he believed that he would be worth more than he was at that time.

Of course, if he has a case for constructive dismissal, as he seems to suggest, that's a different thing, but the idea that the signatory to a contract should not be bound by that contract simply because he thinks better of it is just licensed irresponsibility.

Whether he undervalued himself or not is irrelevant to the discussion. Being underpaid is subjective. It is not an objectively quantifiable term like "minimum wage" for instance. So maybe you are confused there as it can mean different things in different contexts. I already gave the example of the music industry, where it has been a strategy by record labels for decades, to look for teenagers who would throw themselves at the first opportunity of signing a record deal. As soon as one of them breaks through, you can be sure they are underpaid relative to the value/worth they generate. You can not see into the future when signing a contract. I also don't know when Gee signed his latest contract, and whether this was before or after the intention of turning him into a GC rider. If it was before that, then clearly any of the arguments made against my case by your or Netserk go straight out the window.

Regardless if you as an employer want to argue you are looking for 30 million euros, you can NOT make that argument unless that is reflected in the contract you signed with your employee. Which brings us back to "underpaid" being a relative term. Relative to the claim, relative to other riders, relative to the work, worth, value he offered to the team...

 

[Netserk]

Whether he undervalued himself or not is irrelevant to the discussion. Being underpaid is subjective. It is not an objectively quantifiable term like "minimum wage" for instance. So maybe you are confused there as it can mean different things in different contexts. I already gave the example of the music industry, where it has been a strategy by record labels for decades, to look for teenagers who would throw themselves at the first opportunity of signing a record deal. As soon as one of them breaks through, you can be sure they are underpaid relative to the value/worth they generate. You can not see into the future when signing a contract. I also don't know when Gee signed his latest contract, and whether this was before or after the intention of turning him into a GC rider. If it was before that, then clearly any of the arguments made against my case by your or Netserk go straight out the window.

Regardless if you as an employer want to argue you are looking for 30 million euros, you can NOT make that argument unless that is reflected in the contract you signed with your employee. Which brings us back to "underpaid" being a relative term. Relative to the claim, relative to other riders, relative to the work, worth, value he offered to the team...

The investments the team was willing to spend on him becoming a GC rider was affected by his contract status. That too was one of the benefits for Gee with the contract he signed.

If such investments nullify his contract, a team would obviously not be as willing to invest in long-shots.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Whether he undervalued himself or not is irrelevant to the discussion. Being underpaid is subjective. It is not an objectively quantifiable term like "minimum wage" for instance. So maybe you are confused there as it can mean different things in different contexts. I already gave the example of the music industry, where it has been a strategy by record labels for decades, to look for teenagers who would throw themselves at the first opportunity of signing a record deal. As soon as one of them breaks through, you can be sure they are underpaid relative to the value/worth they generate. You can not see into the future when signing a contract. I also don't know when Gee signed his latest contract, and whether this was before or after the intention of turning him into a GC rider. If it was before that, then clearly any of the arguments made against my case by your or Netserk go straight out the window.

Regardless if you as an employer want to argue you are looking for 30 million euros, you can NOT make that argument unless that is reflected in the contract you signed with your employee. Which brings us back to "underpaid" being a relative term. Relative to the claim, relative to other riders, relative to the work, worth, value he offered to the team...

It's much simpler than that: if anyone, musician, sportsman, or bus driver, wants the benefits of a contract, he has to accept the obligations of said contract. If there are commitments in the contract he is not willing to be bound by, he shouldn't sign it.

Unreasonable behaviour by the employer is grounds for a contract to be unilaterally put aside: I would think all legislations have some sort of equivalent to what I know of as 'constructive dismissal'.
But regret is not sufficient grounds.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

It's much simpler than that: if anyone, musician, sportsman, or bus driver, wants the benefits of a contract, he has to accept the obligations of said contract. If there are commitments in the contract he is not willing to be bound by, he shouldn't sign it.

Unreasonable behaviour by the employer is grounds for a contract to be unilaterally put aside: I would think all legislations have some sort of equivalent to what I know of as 'constructive dismissal'.
But regret is not sufficient grounds.

This was not my argument. I never said he should be able to break his contract without consequence, i said that the 30 million claim should be sent straight to the garbage bin by any normal labor court.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

I agree that the amount of 30m is laughable: opening gambit?

 

[Netserk]

He should have negotiated a price if he wanted the market rate. I think there's a good case for punitive damages to apply as his behaviour damages the sport more broadly and not just team Israel.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

He should have negotiated a price if he wanted the market rate. I think there's a good case for punitive damages to apply as his behaviour damages the sport more broadly and not just team Israel.

You honestly think that is even remotely in the cards? If it were, then why has no other team ever tried that before? I mean, they all could use 30m, i'm sure. Because it's not like Gee is the first rider to leave before his contract is up. So are all those other teams and their layers morons for leaving cash on the table?

Here is what will happen if they pursue that ridiculous claim. It will get tossed. No other rider will sign a contract at that team again without having a truckload of clauses in the contract stipulating the conditions in which they are allowed to leave under a crapload of conditions. And this is the best case scenario for them. Now imagine some drunkass judge rules in favor of their asinine claim and Gee is ruled to pay up. He does not have that money, it will ruin him financially. And no other self-respecting rider is going to sign a contract for that team, regardless of any release clause.

 

[Netserk]

You honestly think that is even remotely in the cards? If it were, then why has no other team ever tried that before? I mean, they all could use 30m, i'm sure. Because it's not like Gee is the first rider to leave before his contract is up. So are all those other teams and their layers morons for leaving cash on the table?

Here is what will happen if they pursue that ridiculous claim. It will get tossed. No other rider will sign a contract at that team again without having a truckload of clauses in the contract stipulating the conditions in which they are allowed to leave under a crapload of conditions. And this is the best case scenario for them. Now imagine some drunkass judge rules in favor of their asinine claim and Gee is ruled to pay up. He does not have that money, it will ruin him financially. And no other self-respecting rider is going to sign a contract for that team, regardless of any release clause.

I don't see why it would faze riders who would agree to terms that they would follow in case they want out. Just put an explicit fee in the contract.

 

[aphronesis]

It would seem that the rebranding would alleviate some of this anyway. Maybe though ethical clauses could catch on for Bahrain, UAE, etc.