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

[Devil's Elbow]

And of course it happened after he signed with a new manager, the Carera brothers.

When a rider signs with a new manager shortly after signing a new contract, the idea to go ***ing around with said contract originates with the rider, not the manager.

 

[Mayomaniac]

When a rider signs with a new manager shortly after signing a new contract, the idea to go ***ing around with said contract originates with the rider, not the manager.

Yes, but by getting a percentage of his salary there is also an incentive for the new manager to start this kind of things.
Anyway, doing this after signing a new contract (for good money) is rather scummy behaviour on the rider's behalf.

 

[Eddy Evenepoel]

so why should a quality rider like Van Gils be yoked to a troubled team that's not even on the WT in his prime earning years?

Maybe something he should've thought about before signing the contract?
As long as the team is paying him the money they agreed upon he should have no reason to feel he doesn't have to fulfill the contract HE signed.

 

[Mayomaniac]

Maybe something he should've thought about before signing the contract?
As long as the team is paying him the money they agreed upon he should have no reason to feel he doesn't have to fulfill the contract HE signed.

In hinsight he should have signed only a 1 year extension, you can negotiate a new contract (or a multi year deal for more money) after you get great results. You can't have everything at the same time, you either have financial security or the ability to renegotiate quickly...

 

[laarsland]

In hinsight he should have signed only a 1 year extension, you can negotiate a new contract (or a multi year deal for more money) after you get great results. You can't have everything at the same time, you either have financial security or the ability to renegotiate quickly...

…..or include a clause to renegotiate after the season if certain performance criteria are met.

Y’all never negotiated before?

 

[Ricco']

It's incredible how little loyalty there is nowadays. This is a very bad situation for any rider within a team, but specially for someone who has been forever in this structure. 7 seasons and it all goes with a puff.

Honestly, cycling is in a very bad place right now. Maybe it's my off season blues talking but I'm considering skipping next season (the way I'm used to watching for the past 20 years) to focus on other hobbies. The same teams and riders winning everything, races that we already know what will be the outcome from the start, no loyalty plus Discovery greed adding an extra layer of paywalling to watching races... It made me skip cross season this year for now and I'm honestly not missing it like I thought I would

 

[Samamba]

That system wasn’t fine because you get in situations where you have a rider being paid underneath market value. That Van Gils already extended his contract in March doesn’t change that he should get paid more now.

When Lotto signed Gilbert and over payed him massively everyone put the blame on Lotto, and righfully so. They almost collapsed because of that decision. It's not like the team could just give him less money back then. It's literally the managements job to try to lowball riders, it's the rider and his agent's job to make sure that doesn't happen. The reason why Van Gils is "underpayed" is because he was dumb enough to already sign a contract in March, his OWN decision. More, he pushed for a quick extension, you know why? Cause he wanted the extra money immediately, but also because Maxim himself thought the offer was more than he should be getting at that time, apparently he was even surprised when he got the initial offer because a few months back he hit another rider and he got suspended because of it. He thought his reputation was shot and didn't want to take the risk of getting injured and as a result not being able to get a good contract. He signed that contract cause he thought it was the most riskfree way to get a lot of money. The way you're thinking a rider can just ask for more money whenever they want, every month if they get better every month. That's not how it works, or at least how it should.

 

[Samamba]

Oficially I think their roster is full. Umba had confirmed his extension on August despite not being listed on PCS, unless the deal has been cancelled or there is another free spot which i'm unaware of.

Anyways being Astana I'm sure they would find a way to make room for Van Gils if needed.

Umba will most likely be with the devo team next season.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

That system wasn’t fine because you get in situations where you have a rider being paid underneath market value. That Van Gils already extended his contract in March doesn’t change that he should get paid more now.

So the rider undervalued himself. That's just bad negotiating, not a bad system.

 

[Berniece]

When Lotto signed Gilbert and over payed him massively everyone put the blame on Lotto, and righfully so. They almost collapsed because of that decision. It's not like the team could just give him less money back then. It's literally the managements job to try to lowball riders, it's the rider and his agent's job to make sure that doesn't happen. The reason why Van Gils is "underpayed" is because he was dumb enough to already sign a contract in March, his OWN decision. More, he pushed for a quick extension, you know why? Cause he wanted the extra money immediately, but also because Maxim himself thought the offer was more than he should be getting at that time, apparently he was even surprised when he got the initial offer because a few months back he hit another rider and he got suspended because of it. He thought his reputation was shot and didn't want to take the risk of getting injured and as a result not being able to get a good contract. He signed that contract cause he thought it was the most riskfree way to get a lot of money. The way you're thinking a rider can just ask for more money whenever they want, every month if they get better every month. That's not how it works, or at least how it should.

That's why I always like the bonus system Lefevere has in place. You get a low wage, but if you perform well you get more. This is fair for everyone. If you don't perform, the team didn't pay too much. If you did perform, you got a bonus for it. That bonus should be the same for everyone and team wide.

 

[Samamba]

That's why I always like the bonus system Lefevere has in place. You get a low wage, but if you perform well you get more. This is fair for everyone. If you don't perform, the team didn't pay too much. If you did perform, you got a bonus for it. That bonus should be the same for everyone and team wide.

1. Lefevere isn't the only one doing that, a lot of riders have that. Van Gils has it for example. A lot of Lotto riders have it
2. Doesn't make riders happy out of nowhere when another team can just give them the money without bonusses, so without risk. You need to understand that Bora will just be massively overpaying Van Gils probably. Rumored offer is 2M, that's absolutely insane for someone who has 1 WT win. Bora does not care about overpaying, just like UAE doesn't.

 

[Mayomaniac]

1. Lefevere isn't the only one doing that, a lot of riders have that. Van Gils has it for example. A lot of Lotto riders have it
2. Doesn't make riders happy out of nowhere when another team can just give them the money without bonusses, so without risk. You need to understand that Bora will just be massively overpaying Van Gils probably. Rumored offer is 2M, that's absolutely insane for someone who has 1 WT win. Bora does not care about overpaying, just like UAE doesn't.

Their Ardennes Classics team has been bad this season, but overpaying Van Gils like that seems like a bit of an overreaction to me...

 

[Berniece]

1. Lefevere isn't the only one doing that, a lot of riders have that. Van Gils has it for example. A lot of Lotto riders have it
2. Doesn't make riders happy out of nowhere when another team can just give them the money without bonusses, so without risk. You need to understand that Bora will just be massively overpaying Van Gils probably. Rumored offer is 2M, that's absolutely insane for someone who has 1 WT win. Bora does not care about overpaying, just like UAE doesn't.

And that's where UCI comes in with a proper ruleset on how a wage should be constructed. So you don't get teams that can just buy everyone out.

2M is too much for how he's riding now, and others are being paid. Maybe they truly believe that with their training methods, nutrition, he'll be a podium contender for every hard race and come close to the likes of Evenepoel/Pogacar.

 

[theyoungest]

It's incredible how little loyalty there is nowadays. This is a very bad situation for any rider within a team, but specially for someone who has been forever in this structure. 7 seasons and it all goes with a puff.

Honestly, cycling is in a very bad place right now. Maybe it's my off season blues talking but I'm considering skipping next season (the way I'm used to watching for the past 20 years) to focus on other hobbies. The same teams and riders winning everything, races that we already know what will be the outcome from the start, no loyalty plus Discovery greed adding an extra layer of paywalling to watching races... It made me skip cross season this year for now and I'm honestly not missing it like I thought I would

This is a bit opportunistic and fatalistic. At the end of last season you'd have said "I can't anymore, what with Jumbo winning everything and leaving crumbs for the rest". See where we're at, just one year later. Jumbo are yesterday's news already, we have a new team dominating everything. Maybe it's good to have another super rich team to compete with them, rather than UAE being the only ones with the money to do whatever the hell they want. And most importantly, why does Van Gils moving to Red Bull change anything for you as a viewer? If anything it increases his chances of competing against UAE, which is what you want, right?

And the bit about cyclocross I don't understand at all, there isn't a dominating rider or team in any of the categories, men or women, so what are you talking about? Or you mean that you can only watch it behind a paywall... well, there are solutions to that

 

[Salvarani]

So the rider undervalued himself. That's just bad negotiating, not a bad system.

A very cynical way to look at it.

Because in that moment it might have made sense for him.... but things change.

It doesnt mean he cant come back to renegotiate new terms after performing and showing more quality/worth, than what he is currently being paid. He has a strong argument for that and have offers on the table from other teams. He can give them a chance to match what others are offering or they can offer him something that they can both agree on to continue working with each other.

Going to the team and having a conversation about it isnt exactly strange here. Strike while the iron is hot.

Lotto can shut it down and say no, but they should probably be prepared that the rider may not want to ride for them anymore and will be seeking ways to terminate the contract earlier than the original expiration date. Not exactly strange either.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

A very cynical way to look at it.

Because in that moment it might have made sense for him.... but things change.

It doesnt mean he cant come back to renegotiate new terms after performing and showing more quality/worth, than what he is currently being paid. He has a strong argument for that and have offers on the table from other teams. He can give them a chance to match what others are offering or they can offer him something that they can both agree on to continue working with each other.

Going to the team and having a conversation about it isnt exactly strange here. Strike while the iron is hot.

Lotto can shut it down and say no, but they should probably be prepared that the rider may not want to ride for them anymore and will be seeking ways to terminate the contract earlier than the original expiration date. Not exactly strange either.

Strongly disagree. If he makes an agreement and is not willing to abide by the terms of it, for the duration of it, he is acting in bad faith in making the agreement/contract in the first place.
He would expect the team to hold to their side of the deal, such that he would receive payment if he were unwell, injured, in poor form, underperforming: he should be equally obliged.

 

[Salvarani]

It isn't underpaying though. You can't pay a rider exactly what they're worth, because you can't see into the future. The thing about contracts is both parties take a risk. The rider can blow up and suddenly be worth a lot more or he underperforms while getting big bucks (ahem, Froome). Well, tough luck in both cases: that's the chance they took when signing the contract.

Two things can be true.

However, the proactive way from the team would have been to offer him new terms and securing his services for the future. Give him some reward and pat of the back. Encouragement to keep performing and make good results for the team.

7 months later they are in a different place. Thats life.

Bad situation, since they seem far apart with little room to make a compromise.

 

[Salvarani]

Strongly disagree. If he makes an agreement and is not willing to abide by the terms of it, for the duration of it, he is acting in bad faith in making the agreement/contract in the first place.
He would expect the team to hold to their side of the deal, such that he would receive payment if he were unwell, injured, in poor form, underperforming: he should be equally obliged.

Yeah I dont agree at all with any of this, sounds "good" in theory but it is people and feelings you are dealing with here. It doesnt work that way in real life. You will lose people with that stance. They likely come to an agreement to terminate it early doors as neither will be able to continue working with each other.

And I will always stand on the individuals side.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

the proactive way from the team would have been to offer him new terms and securing his services for the future. Give him some reward and pat of the back. Encouragement to keep performing and make good results for the team.

Is that not exactly what they did in July? "We have the legal right to say that we don't have to pay you any more, because you have an existing contract. But we are willing to give you more, if you are willing to do your bit and commit to us for another year." So Van Gils said yes to the former, andsaid yes to the corollary to that with his fingers crossed behind his back. Thoroughly disreputable.

You say that the team should secure his services for the future, and then state that the employer should never be able to secure anything. That is not a valid basis for commitment.

 

[Samamba]

Underpaid? No worries, threaten to break your contract and just leave
Overpaid? No worries, you can just keep doing nothing as the team can't do anything about it anyways.

So basically, riders always win, teams always lose. I really don't understand how there's people who actually think that's normal and good for a sport.

I also don't understand why in cycling people always take the side of the riders for some reason. At this point there should absolutely be no sympathy with riders when they complain about their team not selecting them to certain races when they are leaving. If riders are going to be only thinking about themselves and so whatever tf they want, then teams can too.

 

[Salvarani]

Said ”things change”. They cant work together anymore then that will likely be that.

Peace.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Said ”things change”. They cant work together anymore then that will likely be that.

Peace.

But if things change in the direction of the rider being off form or unfit, the team is still obligated. So things changing seems to be an entirely one-directional thing.

And when things change like the rider winning a race, is that not exactly what he was being paid for, and paid in the hope of it happening? So why should he then be able to claim that he has rights beyond the contract, when he is only doing what the team hoped and envisioned in giving him the contract?

If they "can't work together anymore", is that for any reason other than the rider being sulky that he didn't negotiate better terms in the first place?

 

[YavorD]

Said ”things change”. They cant work together anymore then that will likely be that.

Peace.

Well, I guess Ineos should just off-load Bernal or at least massively decrease his wage then?

Just applying you logic to a case that's totally opposite and the team is harmed by signing a contract.

 

[Salvarani]

Well, I guess Ineos should just off-load Bernal or at least massively decrease his wage then?

Just applying you logic to a case that's totally opposite and the team is harmed by signing a contract.

Thats not my logic.

 

[Salvarani]

But if things change in the direction of the rider being off form or unfit, the team is still obligated. So things changing seems to be an entirely one-directional thing.

And when things change like the rider winning a race, is that not exactly what he was being paid for, and paid in the hope of it happening? So why should he then be able to claim that he has rights beyond the contract, when he is only doing what the team hoped and envisioned in giving him the contract?

If they "can't work together anymore", is that for any reason other than the rider being sulky that he didn't negotiate better terms in the first place?

You get the job, good.

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

Pretty simple.