The revenge of Rasmussen ...

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

snackattack

BANNED
Mar 20, 2012
581
0
0
The bank is bringing 4 witnesses to the stand:

1) Theo de Rooij
2) Erik Breukink
3) Geert Leinders
4) Vincent Pijpers
 

snackattack

BANNED
Mar 20, 2012
581
0
0
Rasmussen argues that Rabobank has fired him unjustly. The Dane claims that the team management was aware of lying about whereabouts as common practise.

Rasmussen claims 5.8 million euro on appeal in damages, because he has lost the necessary income. In 2008 he received a first payout of 715.000 euro asssigned by a lower Dutch court.

For the record the bank has the burdon of proof in this one.

chicken will appear in person tomorrow November 12, 2012
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
It should be a slamdunk for Rasmussen, and could be the final straw of why Rabo pulled out - not wanting to pay up for their own crass decision - it could bankrupt the team if they lose.

It would be interesting if Rabo try to deflect blame on UCI who actually destroyed the rest of his career.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
mountainrman said:
It should be a slamdunk for Rasmussen, and could be the final straw of why Rabo pulled out - not wanting to pay up for their own crass decision - it could bankrupt the team if they lose.

It would be interesting if Rabo try to deflect blame on UCI who actually destroyed the rest of his career.
So are you also familiar with Dutch civil law? :)
 

snackattack

BANNED
Mar 20, 2012
581
0
0
mountainrman said:
It should be a slamdunk for Rasmussen, and could be the final straw of why Rabo pulled out - not wanting to pay up for their own crass decision - it could bankrupt the team if they lose.
The Rabobank sponsor said last month that it was walking away from the sport due to the USADA case against Lance Armstrong, with Rabobank agreeing to honour the existing contracts. However unless the court agrees that Rasmussen can chase the sponsor for the sum involved, the budget may not exist to cover any successful 2013 white label outfit.

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13270/Michael-Rasmussen-back-in-court-tomorrow-as-multi-million-Euro-claim-continues.aspx#ixzz2BxHmLSbq

Velodude said:
So are you also familiar with Dutch civil law? :)
donno but take the e word it's no lottery
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
mountainrman said:
It should be a slamdunk for Rasmussen, and could be the final straw of why Rabo pulled out - not wanting to pay up for their own crass decision - it could bankrupt the team if they lose.

It would be interesting if Rabo try to deflect blame on UCI who actually destroyed the rest of his career.
So contract and civil law practices are your specialty?

No, just no. This won't bankrupt the team. The money set aside to fund a Pro Tour team is guaranteed. It is in a set bank account the UCI verifies. Any damages the court assigns to be paid to The Chicken will not come from that account. Use some common sense in future.
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Euro 5 mil to Rabo is chicken feed. Made and lost in single trades.

The real reason Rabo pulled out was that this case, and other doping liabilities that may follow have the potential to further undermine the brand if it were seen to be active in cycling during 2013.

It would be great to see Rabo follow Skins at taking legal action against UCI. But I can't see that happen somehow.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Galic Ho said:
So contract and civil law practices are your specialty?

No, just no. This won't bankrupt the team. The money set aside to fund a Pro Tour team is guaranteed. It is in a set bank account the UCI verifies. Any damages the court assigns to be paid to The Chicken will not come from that account. Use some common sense in future.
Have you been following any of the news about the accounts "guaranteed" by the UCI? I'm not sure that you can rely on the "guarantee" of the UCI.

One of the stories I remember was from Floyd and his experience with the Mercury team (related in Kimmage's long interview). The other came from an Australian team within the last year or so.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
MarkvW said:
Have you been following any of the news about the accounts "guaranteed" by the UCI? I'm not sure that you can rely on the "guarantee" of the UCI.

One of the stories I remember was from Floyd and his experience with the Mercury team (related in Kimmage's long interview). The other came from an Australian team within the last year or so.
Last I heard that was one of the few things you could trust was solid and factual coming from the UCI. This site in an article last year said Ernst and Young had to verify the numbers. You might have heard of them.

Are you talking about Pegasus? Yeah they had trouble getting the initial deposit. If you get the ok from the UCI, you have the money in the account and that is a proper checks and balance system signed off by the auditor Ernst and Young. Once that is done, the cash is in the account. Remember Astana had deposit problems?

Rabobank gave their word that the cash was there for next years funding despite them removing their name from the clothing. I have no doubt that money is there. The UCI most certainly make sure they get paid. It's their core motivation.

What the Italians have shown is how that money is used and deposited into illicit shadow companies run by guys like Ferrari is actually more the norm than even the skeptical would suspect. I believe the figure was deposits for riders salaries from 20 Pro Tour and Conti teams. And no, I don't think the Ernst and Young auditors looked that deep. If they did WADA would have a field day.

Rabobank have likely pulled sponsorship to limit liability. And I cannot blame them. They've helped many people and are getting burnt by a corrupt few at the top of the cash train, aka, the UCI overlords. And yes, I hope the Chicken gets some remuneration. People knew the deal, he was a scapegoat. Somebody didn't like him. He was no less deserving of winning the Tour than Contador. That was still the best Tour I've ever watched.
 
Sep 29, 2012
422
0
0
Galic Ho said:
Last I heard that was one of the few things you could trust was solid and factual coming from the UCI. This site in an article last year said Ernst and Young had to verify the numbers. You might have heard of them.

Are you talking about Pegasus? Yeah they had trouble getting the initial deposit. If you get the ok from the UCI, you have the money in the account and that is a proper checks and balance system signed off by the auditor Ernst and Young. Once that is done, the cash is in the account. Remember Astana had deposit problems?

Rabobank gave their word that the cash was there for next years funding despite them removing their name from the clothing. I have no doubt that money is there. The UCI most certainly make sure they get paid. It's their core motivation.

What the Italians have shown is how that money is used and deposited into illicit shadow companies run by guys like Ferrari is actually more the norm than even the skeptical would suspect. I believe the figure was deposits for riders salaries from 20 Pro Tour and Conti teams. And no, I don't think the Ernst and Young auditors looked that deep. If they did WADA would have a field day.

Rabobank have likely pulled sponsorship to limit liability. And I cannot blame them. They've helped many people and are getting burnt by a corrupt few at the top of the cash train, aka, the UCI overlords. And yes, I hope the Chicken gets some remuneration. People knew the deal, he was a scapegoat. Somebody didn't like him. He was no less deserving of winning the Tour than Contador. That was still the best Tour I've ever watched.
I think it's cute that you actually think an Audit Report means something in this context.

Especially a Swiss one done under IFRS.
 

snackattack

BANNED
Mar 20, 2012
581
0
0
Told u so `it gets nasty´ the bank's going over the F cliff.

New witnesses called in to testify including Rasmussen and van Heeswijk.

2 more very high profiled are scheduled on whom the Judges are still deliberating was told by chickens lawyer Brantjes today.

© AP
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
purcell said:
I think it's cute that you actually think an Audit Report means something in this context.

Especially a Swiss one done under IFRS.
I think it's cute that someone thinks Europeans in general have any semblance of intellect and proficiency in financial matters both theoretically and in practice. The only people in Europe worth trusting are the Germans and the Swiss in this regard. If you need to ask why you are beyond help.

When you explain the differences in the historical structures of the two main financial structures originating from Europe and can name them, then maybe I'll consider you have an IQ over 110. Till then, I'll just sit back and laugh at your joke of a post.

The post was about money being in a bank account. Money that is used for salaries and to make sure riders exist. It's the basics, nothing more and it is the core value the UCI has. We get paid. We don't we shut you down. It's the simplest concept in cycling to understand. Look after your own. People like you remind me of why I see idiots everywhere. You cannot even get the basics in a simple context right. You instead, run off on a tangent. Thanks for lowering the collective intellect on this forum another step lower.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
purcell said:
I think it's cute that you actually think an Audit Report means something in this context.

Especially a Swiss one done under IFRS.
Ferryman, if my post was insulting so was purcell's by the tone. Do you actually know anything about auditing? What I originally posted, that purcell replied to, was the easiest thing about auditing to fathom. It was simple. If purcell can get the simplest thing completely wrong and mock me at the same time, even if it is a weak form of mockery, then a sarcastic reply is almost guaranteed in the real world. Do the mods expect us to sugar coat everything for the newbies? Whatever, I get your point but my reply was worded as it was because purcell's interpretation was a complete 180 turn on what was very simple and easy to recognise.

Purcell got the context and implication 100% wrong. Nobody mentioned jack about an audit report. It was clearly implied the physical scope of the audit was what mattered. And that means checking with a bank rec that the cash is in an account. Simplest thing in the world. Well for countries that have proper regulation systems in measure it is. Oh snap, that means the Swiss!:eek: Short story is, they are getting paid and it is very very simple to verify. Audit's are about guarantee, well the audit report is. It involves a qualitative report on quantifiable data, of which they take samples randomly (accounts, stock and inventory, payment schedules, etc). This is the one thing where they don't take a sample. They check the entire thing. Why? Because that is the chief aim with their role with the UCI and team analysis. There is no need for random sampling as this is about PAYMENT of SALARIES. So they check the physical account. Simple bank rec and it's either there or isn't. Same thing happened with Christina Watches this last week. Had an issue with the paperwork, needed to clarify money was there, the delay was getting the bank to confirm the cash was in the account. But purcell should know this if he/she knew anything about auditing. Same theory at play, different example.

BTW IFRS is irrelevant in this context. So why mention it? And the real sinker, is that purcell was laughing at the Swiss. Look at Europe economically and financially. The only people anyone should be taking seriously above and beyond anyone else in Europe ATM is the Swiss and Germans. If I need to spell out why, then it's beyond a person, because they clearly count using their fingers and toes. That isn't being mean or discriminatory, it's calling a spade a spade in this current economic climate. Some countries are run better than others and a lot of that comes down to accounting and financial regulation. Ask the Americans about that and the GFC. Swiss Businesses have good reps for a reason.

If that still doesn't make sense, then ask Rabo and the Dutch after this case who advised them to do what they did to the Chicken. If that person is still in employment, they won't be for much longer. The UCI want money. They get that through the teams and sponsorship and they make damn well sure it is in the bank before you get accredited and rubber stamped. If Ernst and Young say the cash is there, then their word should be taken, not joked about like purcell's post implies. EY don't employ idiots. I know. FWIW I don't like a lot of the history behind Swiss banking, but their business is the UCI's purpose for existing. Also look at the UCI headquarters. They probably just shopped around the town for a reliable business to check accounts. Not hard to find in Switzerland.

This is all basic auditing theory. Not hard to fathom if you've studied it. I have, has purcell?
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
snackattack said:
up........
have been following your occasional updates with interest, snackattack.
qs: what do you/can we expect from this case in terms of salient information leaking into the press?
 

snackattack

BANNED
Mar 20, 2012
581
0
0
sniper said:
have been following your occasional updates with interest, snackattack.
qs: what do you/can we expect from this case in terms of salient information leaking into the press?
The national networks were present last time.

Chicken and van Heeswijk (who spoke in favour click > 2007) are to testify.

That new lord Plugge replacing Knebel aired today on tv he will show up to
defend the banks position on all of this, so some fireworks is to be expected.
 

snackattack

BANNED
Mar 20, 2012
581
0
0
update

Breukinks early exit might be proven to be an expensive one as the record shown today proves he was aware of chickens deceit already in april 2007 and according to chickens testimony all heading the branch were.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY