Jonathan Tiernan-Locke written to by UCI, asked to explain blood values

[thehog]

Wiggins had a contract to ride with Garmin. He broke it. Vaughters has said he was not happy about it but Sky threatened to sue using a British legal precedent and he did not have the resources to fight it. Sky strong-armed other teams as well.

Correct. They planned to use Bosman restraint of trade.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosman_ruling

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Correct. They planned to use Bosman restraint of trade.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosman_ruling

How would the Bosman ruling have applied to Wiggins? "Bosman" stopped sports teams being able to charge a transfer fee on team members who are now out of contract.

Cycling hasn't traditionally involved transfer fees as such and Wiggins wasn't out of contract so the applicability of "Bosman" is not obvious.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Wiggins had a contract to ride with Garmin. He broke it. Vaughters has said he was not happy about it but Sky threatened to sue using a British legal precedent and he did not have the resources to fight it. Sky strong-armed other teams as well.

Which precedent was that and how would it have been applied?

If Sky could sue Garmin, why did they choose to pay £2m to buy out Wiggo's contract instead?

There was no buyout clause in Wiggo's Garmin contract, so jv could simply hold out for as much as he could get, or force Wiggo to ride (if selected) in 2010. He held all the aces and needless to say, he took the money and saved £300k on Wiggo's 2010 salary.

 

[BroDeal]

Which precedent was that and how would it have been applied?

If Sky could sue Garmin, why did they choose to pay £2m to buy out Wiggo's contract instead?

There was no buyout clause in Wiggo's Garmin contract, so jv could simply hold out for as much as he could get, or force Wiggo to ride (if selected) in 2010. He held all the aces and needless to say, he took the money and saved £300k on Wiggo's 2010 salary.

Think a little and pay attention.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vau...ity-of-legal-action-led-to-wiggins-settlement

 

[bobbins]

Mostly true but BW was doing his own thing also in the 09 season, it was only when he came back to BC prior to joining Sky that they were brought fully up to speed on his training and preparation

Selective reading is selective. Try again. Garmin did not train him before the 2009 TdF.

Barely announced the team, yes, had meetings with ASO as a team, yes. British Cycling == Team Sky. Coached by (current) BC coach yes. Same coach slipped straight into head coach at Sky yes.

Whether it was Sky pedantically or not, matters not to my point: Garmin did not train or coach Wiggins, and according to him, did not help him to 4th at the Tour. To then say Garmin were upset that Sky poached Wiggins, despite paying Garmin millions of pounds to do so, seems disingenuous. Someone as genius as Vaughters must have surely seen the writing on the wall...

 

[Morbius]

Think a little and pay attention.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaug...ins-settlement

I read that the other way round. Vaughters could have sued Sky and Wiggins, but he chose to take compensation instead going through a long legal battle.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Think a little and pay attention.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vau...ity-of-legal-action-led-to-wiggins-settlement

That article talks about legal action that Garmin might have taken. You were talking about Sky threatening to sue Garmin, to persuade then to let Wiggo.

All Garmin could have done would be to take out a court order compelling Wiggo to fulfill his contract or an injunction to stop him riding for Sky in 2010. And would you want to be paying an unmotivated Wiggins to ride for you?

 

[SundayRider]

Back to JTL...has a date been set for the hearing? Or will this case drag on and on?

 

[veganrob]

I think it will drag on and on until it is forgotten.

That is what Sky hopes anyway.

 

[Franklin]

Selective reading is selective. Try again. Garmin did not train him before the 2009 TdF.

"Wiggo did Frick All with Garmin before the TdF".

the I looked at where he raced and did see he did indeed race quite a bit for Garmin. You meant Training, but that was not clear from the contest.

Not as much a problem with reading as rather unclear writing

Barely announced the team, yes, had meetings with ASO as a team, yes. British Cycling == Team Sky. Coached by (current) BC coach yes. Same coach slipped straight into head coach at Sky yes.

That's all hindsight. At that moment it was not clear how the chips would fall either with the team and with BW. Unless you are now saying everyone knew BW would be a TdF star before his 4th spot on the TdF

Perhaps some pragmatism, luck and happenstance was involved? BW being Brittish, having a coach at his side of the pond was convenient, he knew the coach from BC, etc.? Then the TdF was a crazy mess of tactical stand-off which suited BW amazing new skills.

I like my conspiracies as everyone, but DB masterminding a 4th spot on a BW who could not climb an Ant-Hill and thus sending his best trainer his way is quite a terrifying foresight of said DB. I think in this case the choice for the trainer was as much logical outcome of current situation for BW as a result of the upcoming Sky Pro-Team


But you made a good point:

Whether it was Sky pedantically or not, matters not to my point: Garmin did not train or coach Wiggins, and according to him, did not help him to 4th at the Tour. To then say Garmin were upset that Sky poached Wiggins, despite paying Garmin millions of pounds to do so, seems disingenuous. Someone as genius as Vaughters must have surely seen the writing on the wall...

Okay, put like that this works for me, your initial post went over my head

 

[thehog]

How would the Bosman ruling have applied to Wiggins? "Bosman" stopped sports teams being able to charge a transfer fee on team members who are now out of contract.

Cycling hasn't traditionally involved transfer fees as such and Wiggins wasn't out of contract so the applicability of "Bosman" is not obvious.

Because of "Bosman" whereby a sportsperson could walk away for free at the end of their contract it created a fee based transfer system pre-end of contract. The fee paid for the development a EU team had spent developing and training a a sports person. It also ensured that EU member states could not hold on to a sports person if an alternate country was offering a fair and reasonable fee for transfers and that the player was to be paid higher it's its alternate club/team - restraint of trade.

In short Garmin couldn't hold on to Wiggins per the contract just because they held his contract. If another team from a EU member state was offering a fair and resonable transfer fee and paying the sportsperson more money because they are now worth more (Tour 4th) then he had to be released.

Garmin's only option was to pay Wiggins the same if not more of what Sky was offering.

That's how the transfer market works thanks to Bosman and any EU sportsperson can break contract if they are worth more during the course of their contract. All that needs to be covered is the development / transfer fee.

 

[Franklin]

All that needs to be covered is the development / transfer fee.

I'm sure there is signature money for the athlete, but afaik there is no tranfer fee between teams, so if the Bosman arrest applies I'm not seeing much cash going to Garmin. Or does it mean BW had to pay a fee to Garmin (which ofc his new team would cover).

Genuinly curious how this works outside of Soccer (never looked into it tbh).

 

[andy1234]

Because of "Bosman" whereby a sportsperson could walk away for free at the end of their contract it created a fee based transfer system pre-end of contract. The fee paid for the development a EU team had spent developing and training a a sports person. It also ensured that EU member states could not hold on to a sports person if an alternate country was offering a fair and reasonable fee for transfers and that the player was to be paid higher it's its alternate club/team - restraint of trade.

In short Garmin couldn't hold on to Wiggins per the contract just because they held his contract. If another team from a EU member state was offering a fair and resonable transfer fee and paying the sportsperson more money because they are now worth more (Tour 4th) then he had to be released.

Garmin's only option was to pay Wiggins the same if not more of what Sky was offering.

That's how the transfer market works thanks to Bosman and any EU sportsperson can break contract if they are worth more during the course of their contract. All that needs to be covered is the development / transfer fee.

Another hilarious Hog interpretation.

Of course a player's contract still applies, even if a team offers more money.

The Bosman ruling has nothing to do with players in contract. It only comes into effect, when a player is out of contract. Aside from ending the maximum foreign player rule, the ruling meant a club can't restrict movement of a player, out of contract, by imposing a fabricated transfer fee.

A "development" fee can only be applied to an out of contract player, if it was previously written into their contract, otherwise the player can walk, and the new club has no liability to the old club.

Garmin could have held on to Wiggins, regardless of what Sky were offering, unless a clause had been written into his existing contract.

Wiggins situation has feck all to do with Bosman.....

 

[thehog]

I'm sure there is signature money for the athlete, but afaik there is no tranfer fee between teams, so if the Bosman arrest applies I'm not seeing much cash going to Garmin. Or does it mean BW had to pay a fee to Garmin (which ofc his new team would cover).

Genuinly curious how this works outside of Soccer (never looked into it tbh).

The new team (Sky) is required to pay the former team (Garmin) a fee for their training and development of the athlete. Which makes sense.

As long as the new team (Sky) are paying a higher salary to the rider the old team is compelled to release the individual from contract so the athlete is not inhibited from further their career - restraint of trade.

Bosman applies because pre-Bosman clubs would hold onto players indefinitely. Even to the end of contract and after. What the Bosman ruling did was effectively create the European players transfer market. Clubs knowing that a athletes value would be "zero" within six months at the end of contract knew they had to recover their fees and at times make profit on players they've developed.

It became more complex with the loans systems whereby transfer fees would go to 2 or more climbs as a player has been loaned to a smaller club to get consistent playing experience.

In short the ruling meant you cannot force a contract on an individual to stay at a team when another is offering more money and would further that athletes career.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

.."Bosman"...created a fee based transfer system pre-end of contract.

Transfer fees existed pre Bosman, though, just as buying out contractual obligations has always been an option. The main impact of Bosman was that it stopped clubs demanding a transfer fee for player that were out of contract, as by requesting a prohibitively large fee they would dissuade other potential employers, thus stopping the player from being signed by a new club.

I think transfer fees can only be levied on out of contract players where the player is young and has come through the club's youth system as recompense for the club's development work. Neither of these apply to Wiggo and Garmin, though.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

What the Bosman ruling did was effectively create the European players transfer market.

Bosman was 1995. The earliest recorded "record transfer fee" in Europe was £100 back in 1893!

 

[thehog]

Bosman was 1995. The earliest recorded "record transfer fee" in Europe was £100 back in 1893!

Why of course. Contracts have existed since rocks and stones.

Have you ever heard of precedent? Point being the player or the athlete could now enforce the movement to a new club prior to the end or a contract.

Read page 8 re: Bosman restraint of trade:

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=slej

Let's not argue here.

Under EU law Garmin couldn't just hold onto Wiggins just because they had a contract. As long as Garmin were compensated by Sky they had to release him from contract as Wiggins was due to "further his career".

Prior to Bosman transfer fees were the realm of clubs only. It had nothing to do with the player wanting to be released from team to further their career. Post Bosman the balance of power shifted to the player.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Why of course. Contracts have existed since rocks and stones.

Have you ever heard of precedent? Point being the player or the athlete could now enforce the movement to a new club prior to the end or a contract.

Read page 8 re: Bosman restraint of trade:

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=slej

Let's not argue here.

Under EU law Garmin couldn't just hold onto Wiggins just because they had a contract. As long as Garmin were compensated by Sky they had to release him from contract as Wiggins was due to "further his career".

You said Bosman created transfer fees in European football. Now you say "of course" when I highlight that transfer fees have been around for 100 years pre Bosman. So which is it? Did Bosman create transfer fees or not? Hint: the answer is "not".

 

[andy1234]

The new team (Sky) is required to pay the former team (Garmin) a fee for their training and development of the athlete. Which makes sense.

No, Sky are required to do nothing of the sort, unless Wiggin's Garmin contract, said so. Wiggins is however, bound by his contract, regardless of the fee offered by Sky. If Garmin permitted Wiggins to leave, it had nothing to do with Bosman.

As long as the new team (Sky) are paying a higher salary to the rider the old team is compelled to release the individual from contract so the athlete is not inhibited from further their career - restraint of trade.

Nonsense.

Bosman applies because pre-Bosman clubs would hold onto players indefinitely. Even to the end of contract and after. What the Bosman ruling did was effectively create the European players transfer market. Clubs knowing that a athletes value would be "zero" within six months at the end of contract knew they had to recover their fees and at times make profit on players they've developed.

It didn't create it, it simply changed it.

In short the ruling meant you cannot force a contract on an individual to stay at a team when another is offering more money and would further that athletes career.

Err, yes you can.
Why the **** would anyone bother with a contract?

 

[thehog]

You said Bosman created transfer fees in European football. Now you say "of course" when I highlight that transfer fees have been around for 100 years pre Bosman. So which is it? Did Bosman create transfer fees or not? Hint: the answer is "not".

Internet forums a discussion tool. It's not me vs you. Let's just keep things civil.

Read the link and see the effect of the Bosman ruling. Bosman is not law. Restraint of trade is law. The Bosman ruling was based on restraint of trade.

It's a actually a fascinating subject. Worth reading the entire document.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Post Bosman the balance of power shifted to the player.

Well that is true, though removing the right of sports teams to retain a player's registration but not pay them does not seem an unreasonable development.

But the fact remains that Wiggo wasn't employed by Garmin in 2010 only because JV accepted the £2m offered by Sky to release Wiggo from his contract. If JV hadn't taken the money then Wiggo would not have been able to ride for anyone else in 2010, irrespective of what Sky and Wiggo did.

 

[andy1234]

Internet forums a discussion tool. It's not me vs you. Let's just keep things civil.

Read the link and see the effect of the Bosman ruling. Bosman is not law. Restraint of trade is law. The Bosman ruling was based on restraint of trade.

It's a actually a fascinating subject. Worth reading the entire document.

Agreed the subject is well worth a read.
You should try it.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Let's just keep things civil.

OK. Please clarify whether you think the Bosman ruling brought about the introduction of transfer fees to European or whether transfer fees predate Bosman by over 100 years?

You have previously claimed the former whilst subsequently agreeing with my assertion of the latter. As the two situations are mutually exclusive, it's hard to understand what you actually think!

 

[thehog]

No, Sky are required to do nothing of the sort, unless Wiggin's Garmin contract, said so. Wiggins is however, bound by his contract, regardless of the fee offered by Sky. If Garmin permitted Wiggins to leave, it had nothing to do with Bosman.

Nonsense.


It didn't create it, it simply changed it.


Err, yes you can.
Why the **** would anyone bother with a contract?

Modern sporting contract already have 'restraint of trade' clauses built in.

Contracts are vey important. Ensures everyone is compensated if a player moves on.

If Wiggins hadn't got 4th at the Tour Garmin would be we'll within their right to hold on to him.

In this case Wiggins would apply "restraint of trade" not Sky.

Separate player and club.

 

[the sceptic]

What does this have to do with JTLs doping?