• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Jumbo - QuickStep merger

Page 35 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
3) Imagine a Tour de France where Remco shows up for Ineos, Roglic shows up for Bora, Jonas for Soudal-Visma-Amazon and Pogacar for UAE. Throw in a few ITTs and some medium mountain stages and we have ourselves a bike race.
Kinda reminds me of how 2015 was hyped because of Froome vs Contador vs Nibali vs Quintana. And it wasn't anywhere near as great as many hoped for, because the truth is that even if you take the 4 best riders of the generation and put them in one race, they'll rarely all four be on around equal level.
 
About the QS license:

Heulot, CEO of Lotto Dstny contacted the UCI. According the him the UCI said the license won't be on the market as long as there are 15 or more WT teams. The only possible way to take over the license is to take over the company that owns the QS license (which is Decolef, aka Bakala, Lefevere & Bessel Kok), but when you do that you have to take over all the contracts, which basically not a single ProConti team can do.
Here^^

Without Evenepoel and Soudal, how much is that license worth?
 
Wouldn't Evenepoel be still under contract if the previous paying agent was simply taken over?

So yes, Soudal would probably be gone, but there would still be a WT license and Evenepoel under contract for 3 years at probably a reasonable price.
Can someone please clarify what their understanding is? I've heard that basically, everyone on Soudal including Remco would be free to go because Visma-Soudal- Amazon will be under the Visma paying agent. The quoted posts implies otherwise.

But you can only have one paying agent, either the Visma one or the Soudal one and the other team would basically be out of contract. That is what I've heard. Is that wrong? It's a super important question.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Sandisfan
I'm thrown by frequent references to 'paying agents'. Are these a third entity, separate from the sponsor and the licence holding company, or just a different way of referring to the latter?

We know that, for example, Movistar the telecommunications company has nothing substantive to do with the cycling operations of Abarca Sports (to take an example not involved in this fiasco and where the sports company name is relatively well recognised), and that Enric Mass and his colleagues are employees of Abarca, as were those who had Reynolds, Banesto, Illes Balears or Caisse d'Epargne across their chests: is 'paying agent' another way of referring to Abarca, or are they somehow obliged to involve a third party?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: noob and Sandisfan
I don't see any reason why Evenepoel would have beef with Plugge. He's also the overall manager, he's not the DS, he doesn't make the tactical calls, he doesn't set the training schedules, etcetc.

The only guy on Jumbo he's had beef with is Van Aert. But mostly I think he just doesn't wanna share team leadership on a team.
That's what I thought but I read an article today that said Remco does not like Plugge which I thought was odd.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Sandisfan
I'm thrown by frequent references to 'paying agents'. Are these a third entity, separate from the sponsor and the licence holding company, or just a different way of referring to the latter?

We know that, for example, Movistar the telecommunications company has nothing substantive to do with the cycling operations of Abarca Sports (to take an example not involved in this fiasco and where the sports company name is relatively well recognised), and that Enric Mass and his colleagues are employees of Abarca, as were those who had Reynolds, Banesto, Illes Balears or Caisse d'Epargne across their chests: is 'paying agent' another way of referring to Abarca, or are they somehow obliged to involve a third level of involvement?



2.15.054 A sponsor, the paying agent or any other member of the team accepted by the licencecommission may simultaneously be the holder of the UCI WorldTour licence.

page 201 here https://assets.ctfassets.net/761l7g...2d47f4d559d90d2089d128ae/2-ROA-20220401-E.pdf

Edit: but

2.15.057 The licence must be operated exclusively and directly by a paying agent.The licence holder may himself act as paying agent.If the holder entrusts the operation of the licence to a third party acting as paying agent,the holder is held jointly and severally liable for all the paying agent's obligations relatingto the UCI WorldTour.
 
Soudal-Quick Step could fire all of its staff on Monday.
Remco Evenepoel would then have the field to sign to Ineos Grenadiers.

"There is every reason to believe that this thorny dossier, which has been making a lot of talk since Wielerflits revealed its contours a week ago, could move forward this week. If the staff are actually fired, Remco Evenepoel will have the opportunity to join the formation of his choice: probably the British Ineos Grenadiers team, where a contract is already waiting for him."


PS: Just noticed i'ts already been posted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xo 1 and Sandisfan
Can someone please clarify what their understanding is? I've heard that basically, everyone on Soudal including Remco would be free to go because Visma-Soudal- Amazon will be under the Visma paying agent. The quoted posts implies otherwise.

But you can only have one paying agent, either the Visma one or the Soudal one and the other team would basically be out of contract. That is what I've heard. Is that wrong? It's a super important question.
My understanding (assuming that the paying agent and the license holding company are the same thing, see above) is that if it were a merger, the merged entity has the liabilities and assets of both: it will have 50-odd riders under contract, which is probably allowable but highly inefficient as only 30 can be registered. The Visma paying agent will not continue to exist any more than will the QS one: they will both be subsumed into a new joint entity. Therefore all TJV and SOQ riders would be committed to that team unless they are released from contract. If it really is a merger, they don't have to let Evenepoel, or anyone else, go unless they choose to.

But it increasingly seems that it is not a merger at all: it is simply the winding up of SOQ, with one of its sponsors, and possibly no other asset at all, transferring to TJV. If any rider from SOQ goes to TJV, that is simply a redundant rider getting picked up by Plugge, not part of any merger or takeover.
 
Last edited:
Can someone please clarify what their understanding is? I've heard that basically, everyone on Soudal including Remco would be free to go because Visma-Soudal- Amazon will be under the Visma paying agent. The quoted posts implies otherwise.

But you can only have one paying agent, either the Visma one or the Soudal one and the other team would basically be out of contract. That is what I've heard. Is that wrong? It's a super important question.

What I meant was in relation to another party coming in and taking over the Soudal-less remains of (S)QS, not the Jumbo merger.

Edit: and just to add

2.15.123 In no case may a rider move to another team before the expiry of the term with his current paying agent as stipulated in the contract - even if that contract does not run its full term- unless he has prior authorisation from the president of the Professional Cycling Council.
In the case of a merger between UCI WorldTeams or between a UCI WorldTeam and a UCI ProTeam, the present provision shall apply to riders of the merged entity who have changed paying agent.

I am no lawyer and I am not pretending to be one, but I understand that in case of a merger, contracts with the other entity have to be respected.
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
Reactions: noob
Who thought GC Kuss would set all of this in motion.

Doubt Kuss has any influence on this.

Merger talks should have been going even before that. They don't put all of this ahead in less than two weeks.

About Roglic, he wants to leave to have a shot at the Tour. And for that he either stayed with Jumbo and would hope dual leadership would exist and a proper race situation would unfold that would leave him in the prime position or he needed to leave the team as soon as possible, because at his age each season would become more difficult to be at his prime in july.
 
2.15.123 In no case may a rider move to another team before the expiry of the term with his current paying agent as stipulated in the contract - even if that contract does not run its full term- unless he has prior authorisation from the president of the Professional Cycling Council.
In the case of a merger between UCI WorldTeams or between a UCI WorldTeam and a UCI ProTeam, the present provision shall apply to riders of the merged entity who have changed paying agent.
I am also not a lawyer, but I cannot see how there can have been a merger (rather than a takeover) and still have a pre-existing paying agent. (I am assuming here that the paying agent is not an individual, and that references to 'himself' in the rule kindly quoted above is due to translation from French) So everyone will have changed paying agent. If it is a merger, both prior parties cease to exist. If that's not the case, please explain how.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noob
What I meant was in relation to another party coming in and taking over the Soudal-less remains of (S)QS, not the Jumbo merger.

Edit: and just to add

2.15.123 In no case may a rider move to another team before the expiry of the term with his current paying agent as stipulated in the contract - even if that contract does not run its full term- unless he has prior authorisation from the president of the Professional Cycling Council.
In the case of a merger between UCI WorldTeams or between a UCI WorldTeam and a UCI ProTeam, the present provision shall apply to riders of the merged entity who have changed paying agent.

I am no lawyer and I am not pretending to be one, but I understand that in case of a merger, contracts with the other entity have to be respected.
Interesting. So Jumbo essentially would have 50 riders and double support staff

Regardless, as others have said, it's looking less like a merger and more of a folding/ bolting sponsor. The moment I heard the Roglic to Bora rumors, I didn't understand why Ineos wouldn't just outbid the German squad for the best GC rider on the planet to hit free agency in a while. Now, based on today's reports across various media outlets, it sounds like Ineos is getting Remco.

I just feel bad for the support staff. If the reports are correct, Patrick is really doing a bunch of people dirty but I suppose that's the corporate world.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: noob and Sandisfan
Indeed, this doesn't look like a regular merger anymore.
But if it is only Soudal replacing Jumbo, Soudal still has to honour it's contract with Lefevere's team. They should still bring up whatever money they agreed to.

I don't see how Soudal gets to just switch teams, break their contract and fck over an entire WT-team.
One would think that they could only do that if they were given a release/ buyout.
 
Who thought GC Kuss would set all of this in motion.
I think Kuss was a more a result of this, not the thing that started it. Clearly Jumbo was desperate for a sponsor and internal conflict was not good for business. Imagine being Plugge during the Vuelta, lol. Crazy times.

BTW, can we just point out how bad that Vuelta looks just a few weeks later. Roglic wasn't better than Kuss then? Come on.
 
  • Sad
  • Like
Reactions: acm and noob
What I find fascinating is one of the central, prevailing assumptions that appears to be driving, or a least turbocharging, this whole affair, specifically the unproven notion that Remco is obvious TdF champion material and only needs the right team and organizational support to realize this.

While Plugge clearly has a budget shortfall arriving in 2025 (!), the rush to close the deal immediately clearly revolves in large part around Remco's demands and Don Patrick's desire to cash out at the top (ie to parcel out "his" superstar). Rogla's departure always made sense, even before this clusterf%$&.

But what if Wonder Boy cannot deliver? Neutral observers could be forgiven for sincere doubts after this Vuelta.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: noob and Rackham
What I find fascinating is one of the central, prevailing assumptions that appears to be driving, or a least turbocharging, this whole affair, specifically the unproven notion that Remco is obvious TdF champion material and only needs the right team and organizational support to realize this.

While Plugge clearly has a budget shortfall arriving in 2025 (!), the rush to close the deal immediately clearly revolves in large part around Remco's demands and Don Patrick's desire to cash out at the top (ie to parcel out "his" superstar). Rogla's departure always made sense, even before this clusterf%$&.

But what if Wonder Boy cannot deliver? Neutral observers could be forgiven for sincere doubts after this Vuelta.
I don't know, there seems to be two prevailing theories about what's happening. 1) Plugge, Visma, etc wanted to beat Ineos to Remco and the key parts of Soudal-Quickstep or 2) That Plugge despite literally leading a team that won all 3 Grand Tours in a single season couldn't find a sponsor beyond next year and had financial issues even for next year so therefore this whole thing was simply because apparently Soudal was the one sponsor on planet earth willing to work with the most dominant team in cycling and Quickstep is just being disbanded.

The latter theory seems to be what the internet thinks is happening. Go figure. I think we want to make this about Remco and Patrick and they're part of the story but I think the bigger story is why nobody wants to work with Plugge and the guys in Holland. Except, maybe Amazon and Apple want to work with him. So nobody knows anything,lol.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: noob
1) I feel bad for the the staff on Quickstep. Hopefully they land on their feet. Hopefully on a more stable, stronger team.

2) It's looking more likely Remco won't come with Soudal which is super interesting. Do we really believe the news stories that Remco dislikes Plugge? Of course, I was just thinking that Remco and Van Aert haven't always seen eye to eye.

3) Imagine a Tour de France where Remco shows up for Ineos, Roglic shows up for Bora, Jonas for Soudal-Visma-Amazon and Pogacar for UAE. Throw in a few ITTs and some medium mountain stages and we have ourselves a bike race.

But I really hope the Quickstep support staff find a home.
Best post of the week and has Remco as a non factor in dream TDF scenario
 
  • Haha
Reactions: pman
If it were a merger, yes.

But it seems now that the merger talk was a bit of a smoke screen, and that the only asset from SOQ that Plugge's team need, and can secure, is Soudal's sponsorship money.
So either
A) Lefevre/Bakala decided they had had enough of their project, and wrap the team up, leaving Soudal free to transfer their name to another team; or
B) Plugge's team persuaded Soudal that they will get much better brand exposure with them, and they found a way of releasing them from their agreement with Bakala's set-up. Lefevre then decides that another late in the year search for a sponsor is the last thing he needs at 67, so he decides to have a garage sale instead.

Bakala either buys himself a seat on the board at the company behind Jumbo-Visma-Soudal-Amazon, or walks away from the sport: not clear which at this stage.

There would be no need for SQ to close, if it was just a question of Soudal ending its sponsorship, so of course it is a merger (if it comes off) and I am pretty sure Evenepoel will be part of it, because otherwise there would be no need for JV to initiate the merger in the first place.

Also as far as I know there is no where in the EU you can just close down a business, which has assests, and then just refuse to pay out the existing contracts.

You can fire people of course, but you need to abide by contracts made.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: noob
There would be no need for SQ to close, if it was just a question of Soudal ending its sponsorship, so of course it is a merger (if it comes off) and I am pretty sure Evenepoel will be part of it, because otherwise there would be no need for JV to initiate the merger in the first place.

Also as far as I know there is no where in the EU you can just close down a business, which has assests, and then just refuse to pay out the existing contracts.

You can fire people of course, but you need to abide by contracts made.
Interesting- things are very different outside the EU
 
What I meant was in relation to another party coming in and taking over the Soudal-less remains of (S)QS, not the Jumbo merger.

Edit: and just to add

2.15.123 In no case may a rider move to another team before the expiry of the term with his current paying agent as stipulated in the contract - even if that contract does not run its full term- unless he has prior authorisation from the president of the Professional Cycling Council.
In the case of a merger between UCI WorldTeams or between a UCI WorldTeam and a UCI ProTeam, the present provision shall apply to riders of the merged entity who have changed paying agent.

I am no lawyer and I am not pretending to be one, but I understand that in case of a merger, contracts with the other entity have to be respected.
Remco has no obligation to race for xxxx-Visma. He is free to sign with any team, and it looks like he may have done so. This is from a new article posted on Cycling Up To Date, based on an article in l"Equipe:

"As soon as the merger is completed and finalized, Plugge's team will take the upper hand and all contracts of the Lefevere team will be annulled. There is already a contract for Evenepoel with INEOS. The deal between him and the British team will be completed within five minutes."​

 
  • Wow
Reactions: noob