Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread

[YavorD]

You get the job, good.

You perform way above what you are being paid, you ask for a raise.

Pretty simple.

Does it work the other way around (as with my Bernal example) then? You perform way below you're paid, team asks to pay you less.

Are Lotto obliged to pay him more than his legit contract says and is Bernal supposed to take a pay-cut and receive 1mil instead of 2,7?

 

[Gratemans]

You get the job, good.

You perform way above what you are being paid, you ask for a raise.

Pretty simple.

And if you underperform, you get a salary cut I assume?

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

You get the job, good.

You perform way above what you are being paid, you ask for a raise.

Pretty simple.

There is no formula for result=salary. A rider is worth a penny more than the second highest figure that a team is willing to pay him, and the numbers in the negotiations are based on each party's guesses as to what that amount might be. If another team is willing to offer him more, they can respect the contract he has and enter into talks to arrange a transfer by the established channels.

If he thinks that they ought to be willing to pay him more, then of course he can ask for a raise, but there is no obligation on the team to give him that, and if they do agree to renegotiate the contract (they don't have to), the rider must expect a quid-pro-quo to be asked: longer time commitment, increased PR responsibilities, tapering off of salary is level not maintained, whatever it might be. And that is the context of the change in salary.

And that is what happened in April (was it April? I believe I erroneously said July previously) Van Gils now seems to have wanted the change in salary without the context in which it was agreed. He does not, however, want to be held to what he agreed, and I don't see where you have tried to present that as a just or justifiable position.

 

[Salvarani]

And if you underperform, you get a salary cut I assume?

Not really how it works though.

It is different stakes for the employer and the employee.

 

[Samamba]

Not really how it works though.

It is different stakes for the employer and the employee.

The employer in this case earns more than any single one of his bosses. This isn't a normal employee, and it isn't a normal power relation between employee and employer at all. In any case the team loses. The timing also matters in this case.

No one is arguing the legal stuff, everyone knows it's legal that Van Gils can break his contract like this. Doesn't mean people need to think it's normal, fair or good for the sport.

 

[Salvarani]

There is no formula for result=salary. A rider is worth what a team is willing to pay him, and the numbers in the negotiations are based on each party's guesses as to what that amount might be. If another team is willing to offer him more, they can respect the contract he has and enter into talks to arrange a transfer by the established channels.

If he thinks that they ought to be willing to pay him more, then of course he can ask for a raise, but there is no obligation on the team to give him that, and if they do agree to renegotiate the contract (they don't have to), the rider must expect a quid-pro-quo to be asked: longer time commitment, increased PR responsibilities, tapering off of salary is level not maintained, whatever it might be. And that is the context of the change in salary.

And that is what happened in April (was it April? I believe I erroneously said July previously) Van Gils now seems to have wanted the change in salary without the context in which it was agreed. He does not, however, want to be held to what he agreed, and I don't see where you have tried to present that as a just or justifiable position.

They have no obligation, but he can also choose to seek ways to terminate the contract. Whats the problem?

Stop saying this is what I mean or what I have said, when I have done no such things. Just tedious.

 

[Salvarani]

The employer in this case earns more than any single one of his bosses. This isn't a normal employee, and it isn't a normal power relation between employee and employer at all. In any case the team loses. The timing also matters in this case.

Things changes. The power dynamic. Who has leverage at any given point.

Employer has a lot more to uphold towards an individual in most instances. And if someone is injured, sick or not in form it falls on the employer to try to help them or support them. Thats just how that works. Say what you will about it, but it is just facts.

 

[ingsve]

I don't think I've seen in posted in all the Van Gils discussions but Odd Christian Eiking has found himself a new team in Unibet Tietema Rockets for next season.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

They have no obligation, but he can also choose to seek ways to terminate the contract. Whats the problem?

The personal element of the problem is that he has clearly been disingenuous in making a contract that he expects the team to keep, without the intention of keeping it himself.

The sporting element of the problem is many-fold:
*if a rider's ties to the team that develop them are not a matter that has a value for that team, then rider development becomes less invested in, and young riders will not be offered the security of a long contract;
*teams will increasingly look for ways to get out of contracts with riders who have not met the level that was hoped for;
*teams cannot plan for the future if they cannot know whether the riders that are key to their programme will remain;
*the concentration of the best riders (in the absence of a salary cap) in a small numbers of teams whose budgets are not constrained by the value of cycling publicity increases, thus diminishing sporting integrity and, in the longer term, appeal to the public.

The debating element of the problem is that you have still not explained what you mean by a team securing a rider's services, when you (unless I have very much misunderstood your stance) support that having no security at all.

 

[RedheadDane]

Just Pedersen to Hagens Bermans.

Hagens Berman Axeon

The Axeon Cycling Team is a UCI Pro Continental cycling team based in the United States. It was founded in 2009.

www.axeoncycling.com

 

[Samu Cuenca]

Marta Cavalli to DSM has also finally been confirmed today. 3 years seems like a bit of a gamble from both parties at the moment, but according to this tuttobiciweb interview, she is at least in a better place physically and mentally than she was earlier this year. It also includes this picture of what I assume is her very scary looking cat.

 

[Salvarani]

The personal element of the problem is that he has clearly been disingenuous in making a contract that he expects the team to keep, without the intention of keeping it himself.

The sporting element of the problem is many-fold:
*if a rider's ties to the team that develop them are not a matter that has a value for that team, then rider development becomes less invested in, and young riders will not be offered the security of a long contract;
*teams will increasingly look for ways to get out of contracts with riders who have not met the level that was hoped for;
*teams cannot plan for the future if they cannot know whether the riders that are key to their programme will remain;
*the concentration of the best riders (in the absence of a salary cap) in a small numbers of teams whose budgets are not constrained by the value of cycling publicity increases, thus diminishing sporting integrity and, in the longer term, appeal to the public.

The debating element of the problem is that you have still not explained what you mean by a team securing a rider's services, when you (unless I have very much misunderstood your stance) support that having no security at all.

Strongly disagree. You fail to realize that the personal element is very complex and that things change.

Dont care about any of these points since thats a totally different discussion now.

The "debate" went out the window when you make false assumptions and claim I said things I didnt. I been checked out from this conversation since then, as been said. No point answering or having a conversation with anyone who does that and when the questions arent relevant to anything I have actually said.

It has also been noted the employer and employee has different responsibilities/stakes that they have to uphold. Especially in regards to sickness, injuries or someone underperforming. Thats just the way it is, which again is a different topic than a singular case like Van Gils.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

Not really how it works though.

If riders who start overperforming their contract should immediately receive salary increases while underperformers don't receive decreases, then every single team will, on aggregate, be overpaying their riders. That isn't sustainable at all.

 

[RedheadDane]

It also includes this picture of what I assume is her very scary looking cat.

You misspelled 'cute'!

 

[Roku]

Amador retires, terminating earlier than expected his contract with EF, thus opening a spot for us to calibrate how many riders can still extend with the team. They have four roster spots, so there's probably room for Shaw (plus Chaves and Cepeda who are a lock).

 

[Salvarani]

If riders who start overperforming their contract should immediately receive salary increases while underperformers don't receive decreases, then every single team will, on aggregate, be overpaying their riders. That isn't sustainable at all.

Have not said they should increase immediately.

But if they want to continue working with them, it is probably a good idea to be proactive about it and keep everybody happy/motivated to continue working with each other. Saying "no, you have contract. Stop complaining" is probably not they way to deal with a person. Especially one who has shown above average talent and performed well. You risk losing them to a team or someone who can offer them more. Rider might still want to stay at his current team, if they can reach an agreement, or he will try to leave if they cannot. Especially if there is a fallout between manager and employee. Happens at every company. Not just in sport.

We are only talking about a single rider or a rider who has made better results than the average cyclist.

This isnt a general discussion. Never have I said, at least, that there should be automatic increases for a rider who performs well. An underachiever who doesnt live up to their paygrade, will probably have to lower their demands. The employer usually has to first support or help them if they are underachieving. They have to investigate and make up a plan together. They have different responsibility towards the individual in these matters. There are laws about this sort of stuff. If they are sick or injured, you usually get paid less anyway. Thats just how that works.

Teams can seek to terminate contracts with riders as well, if they have grounds (bad behavior, not showing up or other reasons you can think of), or reach a settlement of some kind. It goes both ways you know.

As far as I know, Van Gils is just seeking ways to terminate it and looking at his options. Nothing wrong with that, if he doenst want to be at the team and isnt happy about it. Maybe he was happy 8 months ago, but things change. Thats just life. He now knows he is worth way more, but the team doesnt see it that way or cant/wont change the terms. They have a disagreement. It happens.

He ends up staying he will just have to deal with it, but likely the team doesnt want that for morale in the team and will come to an agreement in the end if they cant move past it going into next season. Usually what happens when people cant agree with each other.

 

[RedheadDane]

Carboni to Team Rockets?

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[Roku]

Rumours from the twilight zone: Alexis Gueran and Harrison Wood close to joining Sabgal.

Carboni to Team Rockets?

If he is in that photo, yeah, he is joining them as well. Volpi (Ukyo Team Manager) said the three italians on their 2024 roster had signed for a professional team for 2025, so that would make sense.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Strongly disagree. You fail to realize that the personal element is very complex and that things change.

Firstly, do not presume to tell me what I do or do not realise.
How is it more complicated than "I want more money and I don't want to be held to commitments I made when I didn't think I would be able to get it"?

It has also been noted the employer and employee has different responsibilities/stakes that they have to uphold. Especially in regards to sickness, injuries or someone underperforming. Thats just the way it is, which again is a different topic than a singular case like Van Gils.

And in the face of that difference, how do you propose that teams can have security in their plans?
Do you believe that this fragility of contracts is good for the sport?

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Whats the problem?

If you ask such a question, perhaps you would address the answers given to it rather than simply placing a laughing emoji.

 

[Salvarani]

If you ask such a question, perhaps you would address the answers given to it rather than simply placing a laughing emoji.

Lol, stop assuming and put words in my mouth like you did. Im not having this conversation anymore after you doing such things. Said it through multiple posts now. Maybe get the message.

 

[Salvarani]

Firstly, do not presume to tell me what I do or do not realise.
How is it more complicated than "I want more money and I don't want to be held to commitments I made when I didn't think I would be able to get it"?


And in the face of that difference, how do you propose that teams can have security in their plans?
Do you believe that this fragility of contracts is good for the sport?

And I was just never talking about these things. Different topic. Have it with someone who is interested in talking about it.

I was only talking about Van Gils and from his perspective, why he may want more money and why he may be seeking alternatives to get out of his current contract... where cases like this happens all the time when a person fallouts with their management/employer.

 

[Potomac]

OK, ladies, handbags at dawn.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Lol, stop assuming and put words in my mouth like you did. Im not having this conversation anymore after you doing such things. Said it through multiple posts now. Maybe get the message.

Please explain how a direct quote constitutes putting words into your mouth.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

I was only talking about Van Gils and from his perspective, why he may want more money and why he may be seeking alternatives to get out of his current contract... where cases like this happens all the time when a person fallouts with their management/employer.

And do you believe that this perspective of his is :
a) greedy ?
b) irresponsible given the commitment he had made?
c) bad for the sport if it undermines team security? (a concept that you introduced to the discussion)