Kelly: Transfer fees - Do you agree?

[Zinoviev Letter]

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).

Who's he good friends with? Cavendish?

 

[Mambo95]

Who's he good friends with? Cavendish?

Yeah, they go way back. When he came to mainland UK to race as a kid, he'd stay at Brammeier's house.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Yeah, they go way back. When he came to mainland UK to race as a kid, he'd stay at Brammeier's house.

Makes sense. I would certainly suspect that if Cavendish wants particular junior helpers, he probably gets them.

 

[The Gnome]

I agree with Kelly. It can only be a good thing and I would think help bring up more new talent.

 

[BroDeal]

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...

Longer contracts are risky because the team does not know how the rider will perform. This is especially true for small low level teams that hire young and new pros. If a team signs such a rider for a long contract then they may be on the hook for years, paying for dead weight. This is why an option after about two years would be better for the team than a longer contract.

A transfer fee would make it more difficult for riders to move up from a small, low level team to a larger one because it could significantly increase the price the larger team would have to pay. Youngsters that have good results on a small team will not have a problem because their proven potential will make it worth paying extra. Youngsters who have have less proof of potential will face a situation where a top team would rather hire a neo pro for a cheaper price than pay the transfer fee plus the regular salary of an existing pro.

I don't see why this stuff cannot be covered by refular contracts. Once a rider is free of his contract then he should be able to gi where he wants without his destination team being shaken down for transfer fees.

 

[lightclimber]

Transfer fees should be paid... to teams of all levels...

Tim Roe and Taylor Phinney learned a lot at Trek-Livestrong... who also invested a lot in them too... they raced all over the world ($$$$) for that team, now they jumped ship to BMC. I don't blame them, I just think it would benefit youth development programs if they were paid when their riders transferred to one of the larger/continential/pro teams. It would help youth cycling and give development teams a good return on investment.

 

[ultimobici]

Problem I can see, especially at the Continental level of the sport, is that sponsorship for the team as a whole is not always that long a deal. Highroad have been stalling on renegotiating Cavendish's contract for the simple reason that they only have one year left of the HTC money. Think how much more precarious it may be at the An Post level. Somewhat difficult to sign a new rider to a 4 year contract when the team only has a sponsor for 2 years.

 

[Archibald]

Longer contracts are risky because the team does not know how the rider will perform. This is especially true for small low level teams that hire young and new pros. If a team signs such a rider for a long contract then they may be on the hook for years, paying for dead weight. This is why an option after about two years would be better for the team than a longer contract.

A transfer fee would make it more difficult for riders to move up from a small, low level team to a larger one because it could significantly increase the price the larger team would have to pay. Youngsters that have good results on a small team will not have a problem because their proven potential will make it worth paying extra. Youngsters who have have less proof of potential will face a situation where a top team would rather hire a neo pro for a cheaper price than pay the transfer fee plus the regular salary of an existing pro.

I don't see why this stuff cannot be covered by refular contracts. Once a rider is free of his contract then he should be able to gi where he wants without his destination team being shaken down for transfer fees.

a junior on a 5 year contract won't be paid much and as he progresses will be locked into the lower wage amount, making him cheap. even if he ends up as a makeweight he's still cheap.
besides, add in non-performance clauses, opt out clauses, review in 3 years clause, etc... make it what you will - i'm sure the lawyers will love it!

its not a transfer fee this way, but a buy out cost to the pro team, so they'd be targeting a "proven" pro rather than a neo-pro. It depends on what the DS/Owner wants...

absolutely no problem with your last paragraph

 

[clipperton]

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...

this sort of setup sounds good though it does rely on there being a contract requiring "breaking" or the (unlikely) agreement of the pt squads.