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

[Wallace and Gromit]

Walrus and Grouper was and still is. He cannot wrap his head around threatening legal action to obtain something.

Classy re-stating of my name. I see your trip to see the "Master of quick and and ready repartee" has really paid off.

But anyway, Sky weren't threatening legal action, as there's nothing they could do via the courts to get Wiggo out of his contract. (Or can you provide a link to a specific reference? Every link I've found simply highlights that Sky bought Wiggo (and Swifty) out of his contract and there were various degrees of indignation expressed by the morally outraged.)

If Garmin had wanted to compel Wiggo to fulfil his contract then some legal work would have been required, but as Sky wouldn't have had a leg to stand on, it wouldn't have been very much on the grand scale of things.

 

[gooner]

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.

Wrong on all accounts. Bosman only affects out of contract.

Bayern wanted Lewandowski and were willing to pay a hefty transfer fee and increase in wages. He had a year left in contract and it didn't matter if Dortmund got offered 100m or not, the power was with Dortmund as he is still in contract. Arsenal could have easily told City and United to take a hike over Nasri and Van Persie and forced them to stay even though they were getting offered more money at those respective clubs. Munich did this with Ballack under huge interest from Europe's big clubs. Bosman only affects the clubs if they aren't willing to let the player go on a free and maybe forced to sell with a year left on contract. Nevertheless that is up to each individual club in how to deal with it.

A development fee or nominal fee arises if they player has come through the academy and leaves when he is out of contract. It goes to an FA tribunal to decide and Daniel Sturridge leaving Man City to Chelsea is the best example.

 

[BroDeal]

I understand this perfectly well.

Evidently you don't or you would not be disagreeing that JV knows what happened and has clearly stated his reasons for letting Wiggins go.

I do have to apologize to the regular Sky loons. Apparently there is only one of you who thinks JV does not know his own reasons for doing what he did.

 

[andy1234]

So what you are saying is that there was no way Wiggins could have broken his contract if JV did not agree and Sky's legal threats were baseless and would not have cost Garmin any money or effort to defend against.

I'm not sure what JV has to complain about.
The contract did its job.
Wiggins (Sky) were forced to compensate Garmin heavily,, in order to break his contract.

Sky would have been within their rights to challenge the contract, though compensating Garmin was the only likely outcome, and Garmin would have been within their rights to defend the contract.

The end result is the same, legal involvement or not.

Its business.

Contrary to the typical fabricated nonsense of the Hog, the actions of both parties, still have ****** all to do with the Bosman ruling.

 

[BroDeal]

But anyway, Sky weren't threatening legal action.

Uh-huh. That is why JV said the legal costs, time, and effort would be too great to keep Wiggins.

Keep at it, though. Maybe if you keep saying so, the truth will change, the world will become flat, and Wiggins will stop being an untrustworthy chancer whose word is worth less than a streetwalker's.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I'm not sure what JV has to complain about.
The contract did its job.
Wiggins (Sky) were forced to compensate Garmin heavily,, in order to break his contract.

Sky would have been within their rights to challenge the contract, though compensating Garmin was the only likely outcome, and Garmin would have been within their rights to defend the contract.

The end result is the same, legal involvement or not.

Its business.

Contrary to the typical fabricated nonsense of the Hog, the actions of both parties, still have ****** all to do with the Bosman ruling.

I think the issue was less about the actual material matter of the buying out of the contract (as you say, Sky compensated Garmin heavily to do so) and more about the fact that football-style "tapping up" is simply not the done thing in cycling, or wasn't, and Sky coming in talking about their superior ethics while waving the cash around and encouraging riders to break contracts rubbed a few people up the wrong way.

 

[martinvickers]

So what you are saying is that there was no way Wiggins could have broken his contract if JV did not agree and Sky's legal threats were baseless and would not have cost Garmin any money or effort to defend against.

If that was what I was saying, it's what I would have said. I didn't. I made a much simpler point. Bosman has no application to this case. Which it doesn't.

And let's be clear here. Any action would be have been between primarily between Wiggins and Garmin, not Sky and Garmin - Gaarmin seeking to enforce contract AGAINST WIGGINS - he being, after all, the person with whom the contract was.

If Sky/Wiggins had taken a Bosman case against Garmin,they would have lost, and since it would probably be under England and Wales rules as they are both from there, costs follow the cause - so Sky/Wiggins would have been liable for all Garmin's costs as well as any damages for inducement to break a contract.

IF a non-bosman case was taken, various eu and domestic laws would have applied. None of them Bosman.

not least because, quite often, cycling contracts are not employment contracts, but contracts for services, with riders treated as self-employed contractors. Hence living in Andorra and Monaco. And a different set of laws (they are 'workers' fo eu purposes, but not 'employees')

What it would have cost Garmin is effort and time.

And finally, in all honesty, since when did you start accepting everything JV says as Gospel?

 

[andy1234]

I think the issue was less about the actual material matter of the buying out of the contract (as you say, Sky compensated Garmin heavily to do so) and more about the fact that football-style "tapping up" is simply not the done thing in cycling, or wasn't, and Sky coming in talking about their superior ethics while waving the cash around and encouraging riders to break contracts rubbed a few people up the wrong way.

Honestly, back room deals like this have always been a part of pro cycling.
Its just higher profile, and better publicised than it ever was.

In the old days, it would have been sorted with a carrier bag full of cash, and a few favours at races.

Thats not to say, there wasnt someone being rubbed up the wrong way back then too.

 

[Race Radio]

Not so fast.

You might want to follow your own advice. Be cool man. Lighten up. The troll beat you up.

 

[BroDeal]

If that was what I was saying, it's what I would have said. I didn't. I made a much simpler point. Bosman has no application to this case. Which it doesn't.

I don't know anything about Bosman. JV was clear about his reasoning and the implications it would have for the sport if rich teams were allowed to run roughshod over poor teams. Walrus does not want to accept that JV knows why he made his own decision.

Finally, when will you stop defending Sky's reprehensible behavior?

 

[BroDeal]

Anyway, despite JV's protests, he got the best end of the deal by a country mile - being paid £2m for not having the 2010 version of Wiggo on his roster!

Luckily JV had a prototype Garmin 1345XT with GPS, power, heart rate, and built-in crystal ball.

 

[martinvickers]

I don't know anything about Bosman. JV was clear about his reasoning and the implications it would have for the sport if rich teams were allowed to run roughshod over poor teams. Walrus does not want to accept that JV knows why he made his own decision.

Finally, when will you stop defending Sky's reprehensible behavior?

Damn straight you don't know about Bosman. Which rather raises the question why you rushed to defend Hog's incorrect understanding of it.

As for defending Sky's behaviour in relation to this. Exactly where have I done that? I qualified a point of law. Nothing more. I made no comment on Sky's 'behaviour', reprehensible or otherwise.

So how about you stop making up strawmen, and just accept you got one wrong.

 

[thehog]

Damn straight you don't know about Bosman. Which rather raises the question why you rushed to defend Hog's incorrect understanding of it.

As for defending Sky's behaviour in relation to this. Exactly where have I done that? I qualified a point of law. Nothing more. I made no comment on Sky's 'behaviour', reprehensible or otherwise.

So how about you stop making up strawmen, and just accept you got one wrong.

Martin. Stop. This is not a matter of right and wrong. It's clear the effects of the Bosman ruling on the market. Worker and Employer was established from the ruling.

Allow the discussion to flow instead of trying to be he big man on campus.

There are countless essays and articles on the impact of the ruling on the sports industry.


http://essay.utwente.nl/57990/1/scriptie_D_Schmidt.pdf

6.2 Player salaries after Bosman

Directly after the Bosman ruling the player wages started to rise, not only as a reaction to the increased money that was available due to more income for the clubs. Before the Bosman case a third of the expenses a club had to carry were due to the player wages. Since players had a better position for new deals after the Bosman case, the clubs reacted by paying the players more money. A good example is the English Premier League, as the rise in wages can be demonstrated absolutely as well as relatively. In the season 1999-2000 the players earned 319% of the season 1995-96. This meant that 63% of all club expenses were directly paid to the players. In Italy the number was even higher, as 65% of all expenses for clubs were for the salary of players. (Ehrke, Witte: 2002

 

[BroDeal]

Damn straight you don't know about Bosman. Which rather raises the question why you rushed to defend Hog's incorrect understanding of it.

I just said that thehog was the one giving a reasoned opinion. All Andy was giving was, "No, no, no." thehog's argument sounded reasonable. It also included ways the ruling changed the market that go beyond the specifics of the ruling, something you guys have not addressed. Beyond that, from what we have seen, Skyborgs would deny smoking is harmful if they thought it would excuse Sky, so I have to trust in thehog, just like you should trust Samuel Adams (Always a good choice!).

As for defending Sky's behavior in relation to this. Exactly where have I done that? I qualified a point of law. Nothing more. I made no comment on Sky's 'behavior', reprehensible or otherwise.

Don't try to deflect. I never wrote anything about you defending Sky in this specific case. It was a comment on your general position on Sky. Nice attempt to construct a strawman, but it won't work.

 

[martinvickers]

Martin. Stop. This is not a matter of right and wrong.

Allow the discussion to flow instead of trying to be he big man on campus.

You're right. It's not a matter of right or wrong, Hog.

It's a matter of what the law is.

And there is no value in a discussion flowing from an erroneous premise.

As for big man on campus. Campus is for students. I'm long past that

 

[thehog]

You're right. It's not a matter of right or wrong, Hog.

It's a matter of what the law is.

And there is no value in a discussion flowing from an erroneous premise.

As for big man on campus. Campus is for students. I'm long past that

good man. Bosman is not law.

Now go back and read my first post rather than inserting yourself mid-conversation. See what I wrote.

But all good.

However you should elaborate on the actual events of the Garmin v Wiggins contract dispute with Sky making its offer. Your input would be valuable.

What is your take?

 

[nevada]

Maybe JV took Millars advice ?

 

[andy1234]

good man. Bosman is not law.

Now go back and read my first post rather than inserting yourself mid-conversation. See what I wrote.

You wrote:

Correct. They planned to use Bosman restraint of trade.

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

Your Google based knowledge of the world, screwed you, yet again.
They didn't plan, and couldn't use, "Bosman restraint of trade"
Listen to people who know better.

Now if you want to help yourself out, Google "Webster ruling".....

 

[martinvickers]

good man. Bosman is not law.

Now go back and read my first post rather than inserting yourself mid-conversation. See what I wrote.

But all good.

However you should elaborate on the actual events of the Garmin v Wiggins contract dispute with Sky making its offer. Your input would be valuable.

What is your take?

ahem...yes, it is, Hog. It's case law. Not stare decisis as eu law doesn't work like that, but case law, all the same.

It's ok. We all make mistakes , especially outside our area of expertise (my constant misspelling of peloton, for example shows my very poor french)- this, however, isn't outside my area of expertise.

Let it go.

Now, as for the facts of the wiggo 'transfer'. I'm not sure exactly what JV claimed, but I doubt JV was,or is, an expert on european freedom of workers. Being honest is not the same as being correct.

From the outside it seems, to me, that Sky basically approached getting Wiggins with the methods and tactics of a petrodollar football club - a PSG, a Chelsea or Man City. Identified what to them was a star name, and threw the chequebook at him, while letting him agitate internally. At some stage the combination of money offered, and getting rid of a troublesome cyclist tips the cost-benefit analysis in favour of letting go, and that's what JV did. There's little doubt that Wiggins was and is overpaid, and JV got a very good deal in the end for one year of contract lost.

Perhaps Wiggo threatened some court action - threatening action, and having to actually win that action are two rather different things - Carter Ruck made a business out of that distinction, and they are far from alone. Bike teams are not bottomless pits of money, or for that matter time. Comes a point where Garmin are happier to just get rid, than waste time and upfront costs of a court case, even one they are likely to win and eventually recoup costs from. Why waste the energy on a rider who, for all his (then) 4th in the 09 tour, was very far from a sure thing.

Not pleasant, but hardly rocket science either.

 

[martinvickers]

You wrote:


Your Google based knowledge of the world, screwed you, yet again.
They didn't plan, and couldn't use, "Bosman restraint of trade"
Listen to people who know better.

Now if you want to help yourself out, Google "Webster ruling".....

He may want to consider another, non-eu case, Matuzalem.

 

[BroDeal]

Now, as for the facts of the wiggo 'transfer'. I'm not sure exactly what JV claimed, but I doubt JV was,or is, an expert on european freedom of workers. Being honest is not the same as being correct.

Vaughters does not have to be an expert. He pays experts to look at the situation. He and his experts have access to the contract in question, something that no one here has. JV's actual knowledge of the situation and advice he was given by experts trumps anything here.

From the outside it seems, to me, that Sky basically approached getting Wiggins with the methods and tactics of a petrodollar football club - a PSG, a Chelsea or Man City. Identified what to them was a star name, and threw the chequebook at him, while letting him agitate internally. At some stage the combination of money offered, and getting rid of a troublesome cyclist tips the cost-benefit analysis in favour of letting go, and that's what JV did. There's little doubt that Wiggins was and is overpaid, and JV got a very good deal in the end for one year of contract lost.

Perhaps Wiggo threatened some court action - threatening action, and having to actually win that action are two rather different things - Carter Ruck made a business out of that distinction, and they are far from alone. Bike teams are not bottomless pits of money, or for that matter time. Comes a point where Garmin are happier to just get rid, than waste time and upfront costs of a court case, even one they are likely to win and eventually recoup costs from. Why waste the energy on a rider who, for all his (then) 4th in the 09 tour, was very far from a sure thing.

Not pleasant, but hardly rocket science either.

Gosh. In more words, this sounds suspiciously close to what JV said about the situation (minus his concerns for the effect on the sport).

It also supports my assertion that Brailsfraud and Wiggins are unprincipled jerks. Their word is worth nothing; they will do anything to get what they want; and they think rules, standards, and ethics that apply to others do not apply to them. They are the exact sort of people who would not have a problem breaking doping rules.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Martin. Stop. This is not a matter of right and wrong. It's clear the effects of the Bosman ruling on the market. Worker and Employer was established from the ruling.

Allow the discussion to flow instead of trying to be he big man on campus.

There are countless essays and articles on the impact of the ruling on the sports industry.


http://essay.utwente.nl/57990/1/scriptie_D_Schmidt.pdf

Hog,

I don't think anyone is disputing that Bosman had an impact on footballers' wages. All other things equal, if a club was signing an out of contract player they could spend the entire budget for that player on his wages (and agent fees) instead of having to shell out on a transfer fee. In addition, once a top player gets within 18 months of the end of their contract, the clubs will shift heaven and earth to get the player to sign a contract extension, so they can get a transfer fee if/when the player has his head turned.

What is less obvious is whether this would apply to cycling. Have transfer fees been the norm in cycling and if so, did Bosman affect them? (i.e. were teams able to charge transfer fees on out of contract riders?)

Re the proportion of clubs' revenue that goes on player wages, it is the player wages that is the "balancing item". The part of the cost base that relates to items other than player wages is relatively fixed, or at least, increases in line with general inflation. If a club suddenly increases its revenue by 50% due to increased TV related revenue, then the vast majority of this extra revenue simply gets sucked into player wages. (The groundsman and tealady etc. won't be so lucky, as groundsmen and tealadies are easily replaced.)

Thus, more TV revenue (and the depth of pockets of key benefactors e.g. Roman Abramovic) is the primary cause of more money being spent on players (wages and transfer fees). Bosman in itself hasn't created more money. If it had, then governments would be looking for their own "Bosman" that would magically create money for them. Bosman primarily affects how the pie is divided up.

Similarly, for Wiggo, by a country mile, the decisive factor was that Sky was willing and able to offer £2m to secure a year of Wiggo's services. Which other cycling team has ever been able to do this? £2m would secure half a dozen very good domestiques for a year or a superdomestique for 2 years. As such, other teams just wouldn't be willing spend that much just to be allowed to spend even more on wages for a rider who, as Martin observes, was not a proven deliverer of the goods on the road.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Perhaps Wiggo threatened some court action...

Out of interest, do you think Wiggo would actually have taken court action? I know he can be a bit daft, but shelling out on legal fees for a case you a nigh on certain to lose is a big step.

Similarly, would Sky actually have taken any action? News International's lawyers are quite good, one would imagine, and would presumably not want to go into bat if they were bound to lose. (Unless there was some ambiguity in Wiggo's contract due to poor drafting by Garmin's legal eagles previously.) The fact that Sky paid £2m for Wiggo suggests they weren't that very confident at all that legal action would be successful. (Or just very bad negotiators!)

 

[simoni]

Any contract can be broken if all parties agree to the terms of it being broken. I suspect that would be what the legal advice was required for. i.e. JV realising he's lost his rider and wanting to negotiate the best possible deal for him. Under euro law he could have dug his heels in but he'd have been left with a useless asset in Wiggins, who didn't want to be there.

It works the other way too. Rabo paying off LL Sanchez for example.

Bosman - that came about because, pre 1995, in football clubs were able to charge a transfer fee for their players even when they were out of contract. Bosman came along and said "hang on, I've fulfilled my contract, you don't own me now, you don't pay me, so I should be able to move where I want". There's various measures in place to compensate clubs for the development of young players (up to 24 I think it is) but once a contract is up, the player can move.

Transfer fees still come about to compensate clubs for releasing players in contract. Basically, they agree to waive the contract because they're satisfied with the compensation they're offered. And, again, its common for unwanted players to be paid up ahead of the end of their contract.

What Sky and Wiggins did is arguably morally iffy (you'd expect someone to see out a contract) but very very common in european sport to the point where, in Britain, no-one turned a hair. What people object to is nobheads like Carlos Tevez claiming that its "slavery" to be held to a |£120k/week contract!

 

[Daniel Benson]

please keep this thread on topic. Nothing will be deleted but if you want to discuss the bosman rule, start another thread please.

Dan