Kelly: Transfer fees - Do you agree?

[on3m@n@rmy]

In the following CN article, Irishman Sean Kelly has called for the UCI to implement a transfer fee to compensate smaller squads when riders are signed by larger teams.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kelly-calls-for-uci-to-introduce-transfer-fees-in-cycling

The question is, should squads be compensated, possibly creating a situation where a rider cannot transfer, thereby restricting the rider's right to a desired career path? Or should the existing system remain in place?

1) Any team (Pro-Tour or smaller) should be compensated.
2) Only non-Pro-Tour teams should be compensated.
3) No team should be compensated.
4) Other.
5) Undecided.

 

[NickBVK]

I don't mind the idea but I think it should be moderated relevant to a teams status (ProTeam, ProConti, Conti etc.)

i.e If no valid contract for the coming season it should be a free transfer but this then of course opens up the problem of teams throwing huge money at a rider mid-contract to buy it out and then some.

If a ProTeam wants to buy a rider on a Continental team, I believe they should receive some $$$$ as they can reinvest it back into the team and cycling as a whole benefits.

 

[TERMINATOR]

I don't mind the idea but I think it should be moderated relevant to a teams status (ProTeam, ProConti, Conti etc.)

i.e If no valid contract for the coming season it should be a free transfer but this then of course opens up the problem of teams throwing huge money at a rider mid-contract to buy it out and then some.

If a ProTeam wants to buy a rider on a Continental team, I believe they should receive some $$$$ as they can reinvest it back into the team and cycling as a whole benefits.

Guess what - conti teams already do receive buyout money for the remainder on the contract when a rider breaks his contract. Kelly and these conti teams pay their riders peanuts. What Kelly wants is to be able to make more money off Pro Teams.

The problem I have with Kelly's logic is if rider X was worth all this money, then how come Kelly wasn't paying him that? Sounds to me like Kelly wants it both ways...pay the riders peanuts, but when a Pro Tour team comes along and is willing to pay more, he wants more money than he told the rider he was worth when he negotiated the contract.

Kelly will never get his way because the Pro Tour teams and the UCI make the rules..conti teams are steerage-class passengers on this boat. And it ain't no Love Boat.

 

[ozerulz]

>>The problem I have with Kelly's logic is if rider X was worth all this money, then how come Kelly wasn't paying him that? Sounds to me like Kelly wants it both ways...pay the riders peanuts, but when a Pro Tour team comes along and is willing to pay more, he wants more money than he told the rider he was worth when he negotiated the contract.

Kelly will never get his way because the Pro Tour teams and the UCI make the rules..conti teams are steerage-class passengers on this boat. And it ain't no Love Boat.<<

Kelly pays his riders peanuts cuz that's about all he's got to offer. Transfer fees would allow the lower teams to actually pay their riders decent wages.

 

[hfer07]

>>The problem I have with Kelly's logic is if rider X was worth all this money, then how come Kelly wasn't paying him that? Sounds to me like Kelly wants it both ways...pay the riders peanuts, but when a Pro Tour team comes along and is willing to pay more, he wants more money than he told the rider he was worth when he negotiated the contract.

Kelly will never get his way because the Pro Tour teams and the UCI make the rules..conti teams are steerage-class passengers on this boat. And it ain't no Love Boat.<<

Kelly pays his riders peanuts cuz that's about all he's got to offer. Transfer fees would allow the lower teams to actually pay their riders decent wages.

100% Agreed
Kelly's proposal is simply laughable-it will never even be considered-neither by the UCI, nor by the Pro Teams-and nonetheless the riders themselves. Cycling needs indeed some serious regulations as far as contracts fulfillment, but considering the salaries paid in comparison to other sports, is nothing-so I have some affinity with the riders on why they're always looking for a better contract/cheque as they make progress & get the results to attract them- instead of being stuck in a team where the owner is the only one cashing in.

 

[simo1733]

I think its happening already if u take Wiggins as an example.If he is talking about getting a transfer fee for a rider at the end of their contract, this will never happen in europe because it has been outlawed since the Bosman ruling.

 

[BroDeal]

The problem I have with Kelly's logic is if rider X was worth all this money, then how come Kelly wasn't paying him that? Sounds to me like Kelly wants it both ways...pay the riders peanuts, but when a Pro Tour team comes along and is willing to pay more, he wants more money than he told the rider he was worth when he negotiated the contract.

You fail. Riders are not static assets. Their values change over time depending on how they perform. For every neo-pro who makes good, there are twenty who don't.

What Kelly should be doing is putting optional extensions with buyout provisions into his riders' contracts.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

I'm more for letting a rider go where they want for their career. Contract buyouts = okay, other team compensation = no.

 

[Gotland]

I think smaller teams should get a transfer fee. But only when a team in higher division recuit a U23 rider. I think that would help youth development. The fee's can not be to high then they would get opposit effect.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Given that the UCI's ranking system is based upon the points value of each rider, some form of compensation is essential for teams trying to develop steadily, with long-term ambitions in the sport.
Otherwise, come each August, we will have the wealthy teams simply poaching those riders that enable them access to the world tour.
Worse still when new teams show up, with cash to splash.

 

[Archibald]

What Kelly should be doing is putting optional extensions with buyout provisions into his riders' contracts.

actually, he should sign them up for longer contracts - therefore higher buyout costs/payments. Also, sign up the rider well before his contract is due - just like football. They do everything they can to keep a player on contract so that they can get a transfer fee(contract buyout) from any suitor, otherwise they walk for free when their contract is up.
Pretty simple really, just maybe not for Kelly...

 

[janraaskalt]

I think smaller teams should get a transfer fee. But only when a team in higher division recuit a U23 rider. I think that would help youth development. The fee's can not be to high then they would get opposit effect.

I totally agree. The name is wrong; it shouldn't be named transfer fee, but development fee. It currently exists in football (soccer) and it is one of the very few things cycling should adopt from football.

 

[irishpeloton]

I think I'm right in saying that the development fee that's used in football also trickles down to the player's previous teams.

For instance, I remember hearing that when Damien Duff moved from Blackburn to Chelsea for £17m, his local Dublin team that 'developed' him, Lourdes Celtic, got a pile of money. Similarly, when Robbie Keane moved from Leeds to Spurs, Crumlin United got money, and when Richard Dunne moved from Everton to City, Templeogue United got money etc. etc.

I know in Templeogue United's case this allowed them to build a full size floodlit astroturf pitch, and build a brand new clubhouse.

The idea of a development fee in cycling is definitely something worth considering.

 

[Mister Crud]

Imagine a small team, with the chance to make big bucks if they bring on an unknown rider.
What is the one guaranteed way to 'bring on' an unknown, and thus get big transfer fees?

 

[irishpeloton]

Good point.

A transfer system would place a whole new financial layer on top of the sport. And since financial reward is a major reason for doping, this new financial layer may encourage doping.

But the fight against doping, I think, should be considered mutually exclusive to any reforms made in how riders are transferred. The utmost effort into catching cheaters should carry on regardless.

The transfer system should be reformed as necessary, and the anti-doping system needs to continue to advance itself constantly regardless of how the structure of the sport is organised.

This is another major reason why the UCI should be distanced from the anti-doping arm of the sport.

 

[Roland Rat]

The concept of a development fee in football is understandable, as the clubs take young kids and spend a lot of money on developing them into professional footballers. What exactly do pro cycling teams do specifically to develop young riders? And who would receive that money? The sponsor? In football, you have stable clubs who have invested long term, not sponsor-based teams that jump in and out of cycling. Sounds like money for old rope to me.


Edit:

Having said that, one benefit to transfer fees might be that sponsors spend more money on u23 squads to save on transfer fees in the future, like Rabobank etc do now. But then you need a committed, long-term sponsor in the first place.

 

[Anonymous]

I have put compensation for non pro-tour teams, but I think it should apply to under 23 riders only. POssibly with built in football style extra amounts for wins during the first 2 years as a pro etc. Anything that helps smaller teams develop young riders rather than relying on washed up former top riders. The amounts would have to be reasonable though to stop top teams taking on any young riders.

 

[auscyclefan94]

No way it should be introduced. Riders should be allowed to go where ever they want but if they break their contract then they have to pay the money that they owe their team.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

I would actually like to see a compensation system for young riders. Not involving huge money, but something for Conti teams if they find a good young rider, give him his chance and help him develop. I would not be in favour of a full scale transfer fee system at all, and in any case it would not be legal in this post-Bosman era.

More generally, I can see why Kelly is complaining. He runs a small operation, but one with some ambition. To constantly lose your best riders without any compensation must be very irritating, particularly when, as in the case of Brammeier, you are also losing the national champion of the country your sponsors are from. It's to Kelly's credit that he doesn't whine about the rider taking the opportunity offered to him either - I suppose he was a pro too long himself to forget that riders have to take whatever chances they get.

There's a broader point to be made about the structure of competitive cycling, mentioned by someone else earlier in the thread. Most teams are mostly named for sponsors and are basically transient affairs. Consequently, teams very rarely gain the kind of passionate and prolonged support which teams in other sports gain. Fundamentally nobody in the world gives a flying **** if one bank gets more publicity than another bank. Football fans don't switch teams if a favoured player makes a move, but cycling fans either don't care about the team in the first place or will switch their vague sympathies to wherever their favourite cyclists are riding. I would much prefer to see pro cycling organised more along the lines of football or basketball or rugby in that regard. But it will never happen as long as teams are named for sponsors, change names with sponsors and go in and out of business every few years.

 

[Archibald]

I think I'm right in saying that the development fee that's used in football also trickles down to the player's previous teams.

For instance, I remember hearing that when Damien Duff moved from Blackburn to Chelsea for £17m, his local Dublin team that 'developed' him, Lourdes Celtic, got a pile of money. Similarly, when Robbie Keane moved from Leeds to Spurs, Crumlin United got money, and when Richard Dunne moved from Everton to City, Templeogue United got money etc. etc.

I know in Templeogue United's case this allowed them to build a full size floodlit astroturf pitch, and build a brand new clubhouse.

The idea of a development fee in cycling is definitely something worth considering.

unfortunately, not workable in cycling as there's no contract between teams when a transfer takes place. The "future transfer fee" is built into a transfer in football whereby a certain percentage of the next transfer fee goes to the previous club.

It can also include money for 'x' amount of first team appearances and the like... All used as methods of altering the actual transfer fee itself - ie; transfer of a total of £2m, OR transfer fee of £1.5m + an extra £1m for 40 first team appearances.

Perhaps they (cycling) could work it so that if junior wins a pro-level race that 10% of the winning pot goes to his former team?
All sorts of deals could be done IF there was a deal in place to start with...

 

[Tuarts]

Compensation for Continental teams and/or Espoirs.

 

[canyonball]

If you take football as an example, transfer fees have only undermined the idea of "contract". If you sign up for two years, you are making a commitement. When there's money in the equation, that commitment is close to zero.

I'm happy with the way things are right now. If the two parts come to an agreement, rider "buys out" is contract and is free to go, a tool which has been used quite a few times, considering the general theme in others sports.

I would agree with a compensation given to a team for riders U23, for obvious reasons, though I don't think it's feasible

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

On an unrelated note, but also stemming from the Kelly interview:

Congratulation to Matt Brammeier on getting a shot at the big leagues. He's a decent young pro and should make a useful addition to HTC as a workhorse and as part of the train.

It also shows the value of a national champions jersey, even from a relatively small country.

 

[Mambo95]

On an unrelated note, but also stemming from the Kelly interview:

Congratulation to Matt Brammeier on getting a shot at the big leagues. He's a decent young pro and should make a useful addition to HTC as a workhorse and as part of the train.

It also shows the value of a national champions jersey, even from a relatively small country.

I think it might have as much to do with who he is very good friends with as the Irish jersey (although, that's worthwhile too).

 

[Race Radio]

actually, he should sign them up for longer contracts - therefore higher buyout costs/payments. Also, sign up the rider well before his contract is due - just like football. They do everything they can to keep a player on contract so that they can get a transfer fee(contract buyout) from any suitor, otherwise they walk for free when their contract is up.
Pretty simple really, just maybe not for Kelly...

Exactly. For this to work Neo-Pro Contracts would have to be 3-4 years at least. They are 2 years now. The reason why Football works is many of the young players have 7 year contracts.