• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Offical Wout Van Aert isn't a new Zdenek Stybar

Page 18 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this essentially boil down to whether or not Van Aert's contract with Vérandas Willems–Crelan automatically became a contract with Roompot-Crelan/Charles after the merger with Roompot? It appears the judge ruled that it didn't…
Also interesting to note that when teams merge there are often riders left hanging, even though they technically had a contract (as seen most recently with Harry Tanfield), forcing them to scramble for a new team, sometimes quite late. However, in this case the team obviously wanted to keep Van Aert, but he didn't want to stay with what was essentially a new team.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this essentially boil down to whether or not Van Aert's contract with Vérandas Willems–Crelan automatically became a contract with Roompot-Crelan/Charles after the merger with Roompot? It appears the judge ruled that it didn't…
Also interesting to note that when teams merge there are often riders left hanging, even though they technically had a contract (as seen most recently with Harry Tanfield), forcing them to scramble for a new team, sometimes quite late. However, in this case the team obviously wanted to keep Van Aert, but he didn't want to stay with what was essentially a new team.
It has nothing to do with that. Though van Aert didn't want to be part of the merged team, and this was probably where a lot of the problems started, the reason why he breached his contract was due to what Nuyens asked Albert to do. This is what van Aert is arguing made any further cooperation between them impossible and why he breached his contract.
 
It has nothing to do with that. Though van Aert didn't want to be part of the merged team, and this was probably where a lot of the problems started, the reason why he breached his contract was due to what Nuyens asked Albert to do. This is what van Aert is arguing made any further cooperation between them impossible and why he breached his contract.
So, while he was apprehensive about the merger, he was willing to make it work, but then Nuyens asked Albert to lie in court?
 
So, while he was apprehensive about the merger, he was willing to make it work, but then Nuyens asked Albert to lie in court?
Like i explained on the previous page, the way the story chronologically unfolded, the way i understand it, is that Nuyens didn't ask Albert to lie NOW in court. He asked Albert to put in writing fabrications regarding van Aert, to hold over van Aert's head. Why exactly i do not know. Did Nuyens fear van Aert would try to leave the team, or try to sabotage the merger... i can only make assumptions. But the fact is that Albert didn't do what Nuyens told him, and instead told van Aert what Nuyens asked him to do, which THEN gave van Aert actual cause to terminate the contract. So it's very possible, that Nuyens's move to try to keep van Aert in check, was just what van Aert needed to be able to breach his contract, which was exactly what Nuyens was trying to avoid.

Had Nuyens not tried to force things, chances are that van Aert would not have had enough of a case to breach his contract, and would either still be riding for the merged team, or would indeed be paying up.
 
Please tell me how Albert having issues with van Aert would be in the interest of Nuyens in this case? Having disagreements with van Aert, would make it even MORE unlikely for Albert to lie in court in favor of van Aert, would it not?
That quoted statement consisted of 2 parts:

1: "In the event of a breach of contract, the bar is always very high. You must have conclusive proof that the other party has made a very serious mistake." => It is up to WvA to come up with a strong case for being in the right to breach the contract.

2: "In this case there was only the testimony of Niels Albert, which is debatable. Albert says he never had any problems with Van Aert, while he often said the opposite within the team. We have four witnesses. Only the judge found that is irrelevant. Hence: an unbalanced judgment, " => WvA put forth only Albert's testimony. So by showing that Albert is not a credible witness (i.e. by providing evidence that some of his statements do not reflect reality), his testimony loses much of its value.

That much is theory, where the truth is, I honestly do not know.
 
That quoted statement consisted of 2 parts:

1: "In the event of a breach of contract, the bar is always very high. You must have conclusive proof that the other party has made a very serious mistake." => It is up to WvA to come up with a strong case for being in the right to breach the contract.

2: "In this case there was only the testimony of Niels Albert, which is debatable. Albert says he never had any problems with Van Aert, while he often said the opposite within the team. We have four witnesses. Only the judge found that is irrelevant. Hence: an unbalanced judgment, " => WvA put forth only Albert's testimony. So by showing that Albert is not a credible witness (i.e. by providing evidence that some of his statements do not reflect reality), his testimony loses much of its value.

That much is theory, where the truth is, I honestly do not know.
Van Aert did provide evidence in the form of Albert.
And like i said, smearing Albert is the only thing Nuyens has left. It's in no way any indication of the credibillity (or lack thereof) of Albert, but rather the logical last resort for Nuyens.
 
What I don't understand is this; how could it in any way have benefitted the team to force Van Aert to stay if he was just going to be unhappy about it? Even without the telling Albert to fabricate a story bit, Van Aert simply telling team management that he really wasn't sure about this - essentially - new team should have been enough.
 
What I don't understand is this; how could it in any way have benefitted the team to force Van Aert to stay if he was just going to be unhappy about it? Even without the telling Albert to fabricate a story bit, Van Aert simply telling team management that he really wasn't sure about this - essentially - new team should have been enough.
I don't know the details or the financial status of the team, but let's say the team was having financial issues and needed money, but couldn't find a sponsor... a merger might have been the only option left.
 
I don't know the details or the financial status of the team, but let's say the team was having financial issues and needed money, but couldn't find a sponsor... a merger might have been the only option left.
Okay, admitted it wasn't totally clear from my post, but I meant the new team, the team created from the merger between Verandas and Roompot. How would they have benefitted from forcing Van Aert to stay?
And something else I don't understand; quite often when two teams merge there are riders who - despite having a contract with either team - have their contracts terminated. Why is that okay, but a rider terminating his contract because of a merger isn't?
 
Okay, admitted it wasn't totally clear from my post, but I meant the new team, the team created from the merger between Verandas and Roompot. How would they have benefitted from forcing Van Aert to stay?
And something else I don't understand; quite often when two teams merge there are riders who - despite having a contract with either team - have their contracts terminated. Why is that okay, but a rider terminating his contract because of a merger isn't?
The issue is which company behind a team remains the company behind the new team. Team “mergers” aren’t actually mergers in a legal sense. Contracts with the continuing company are still valid and cancelling them does create legal problems for the team. Contracts with the other company - which is ceasing to exist - cease to exist (its actually more complicated than this and liabilities can still exist but from the point of view of a fan it doesn’t really matter).

As for the WVA contract, his team were unusually keen to enforce it simply because he was the main commercial asset of the team and the main thing they had to offer sponsors.
 
And that's a real problem ain't it? Maybe don't use guy as commercial asset if he isn't actually, ya know, in on the idea.
It’s a bit difficult to avoid that when a team exists essentially as a vehicle for one rider and its survival depends on its continued status as his employer.

You can contrast it with the Bora/Bennett situation where the team were playing hard ball to keep a very valuable rider but ultimately let him go because he’s not so important to them that holding on to him was worth a year of internal warfare in the squad. There are teams that simply wouldn’t survive without a particular marquee rider and for them the calculation is different. No WVA, no team.

Ultimately though that kind of ruthlessness doesn’t really work. If your team is a vehicle for a particular rider you have to keep him happy as long as you can and in the meantime try to develop into a team with something else to offer sponsors, because you won’t be able to hold on to a disgruntled star in the long run.
 
Indeed. It was basically a one-man team at the moment they were intending to merge. Merlier had already left, and he wasn't exactly lighting up the peloton at that time anyway. They were basically handling van Aert as if he were merchandise. The team was van Aert, so "selling" the team was essentially like selling van Aert as a commodity. From an emotional point of view, i completely understand van Aert. He had no say in what his future was going to look like, and was being used as handpuppet, while he was the only reason the team existed to begin with. The other team wasn't the team that was forcing van Aert, maybe they didn't even know about what was going on. They were more than likely just happy to be merging and getting van Aert in the process.

Imagine working for a company, signing an interesting contract (seemingly), turning into the driving force behind the company... just to see all your friends and coworkers get fired, until it's just you that's left, and then the company (with just you in it) gets sold to a company you don't want to work for given the circumstances.

In other news, earlier this week, he and some teammates went on a 77km recon ride for Paris Roubaix.
 
Guess this all just shows the danger of having a team that's build entirely around one rider... and I guess from a short-term perspective it all made sense, from a long-term perspective… mneeot so much.
Also, can't help but wonder how much the Aqua Blue Claimed Merger Disaster played a role. They literally used the "We're getting Van Aert!" thing in that false announcement thing.
 
Tonight on Belgian national TV, Wout is the guest in "Het Huis". It's a show where someone gets to stay in a house for two days, together with the host/journalist. Basically, it's a 2 day interview compressed into 1 hour. He is picked up at home, blindfolded, so he doesn't know where they're going... but even blindfolded, he perfectly knows where they're going. Wout doesn't seem to be a good subject to kidnap.

View: https://twitter.com/een/status/1201803451174412289
 
Jul 5, 2018
51
12
710
Wow! Thats massive! I'm surprised he's been able to get back to riding so quickly now i've seen that
I assume that is an incision from surgery and not the actual size of the original wound, but that is in a terrible location for riding while healing. No wonder he was off the bike for so long.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts