Vaughters calls for caps on salaries and budgets

[bammbamm1961]

Caps have never worked, All that happens is a big budget gets split to Two teams that work together - look to NASCAr as an example. I agree with JV that the new points system is a bad problem - there is an old business saying "you get what you inspect, not what you expect".

Before testing for EPO, there was a rule for hemocrit levels, nobody was allowed over 50, so what happened..... Everybody was suddenly at 49.5. Even those with norms of 41-43 ( that is the average norm BTW).... So JV's comments are important to listen to on this subject. But limits to spending in the sport are not a solution

 

[Race Radio]

Caps have never worked, All that happens is a big budget gets split to Two teams that work together - look to NASCAr as an example. I agree with JV that the new points system is a bad problem - there is an old business saying "you get what you inspect, not what you expect".

Before testing for EPO, there was a rule for hemocrit levels, nobody was allowed over 50, so what happened..... Everybody was suddenly at 49.5. Even those with norms of 41-43 ( that is the average norm BTW).... So JV's comments are important to listen to on this subject. But limits to spending in the sport are not a solution

Caps have worked great in the NFL.....but I do not understand how they would benefit cycling

 

[Mambo95]

Vaughters's ideas tend to fall into two categories. Those which are in the interests of the sport and those that are in the interests of himself and his team.

The salary caps fall into the latter category. His comments on the rankings fall into the former.

 

[kiwirider]

What he is describing is the self same problem that any business owner or manager has - namely that your best people are usually also the ones you have to work hardest to retain. This fact is a combination of their ambition and their attractiveness to your competitors. You are always running a balance between extending your best people, exposing them to new and exciting challenges, training them up ... and watching your back in case someone else is trying to steal them or in case they get itchy feet.

His comments about not wanting to put good people in big races don't wash. I mean, call me simple, but as I see it:
good riders giving good performances in good races = happy sponsor = more money (or at least more consistent money) = better ability to compensate riders (and keep them) or to replace those who will inevitably leave.
There's a second equation:
good rider in good races = happy rider = rider less likely to want to leave.
Again, change the reference from races to "projects", "products", "client jobs" or whatever and it's the self same problem that any business faces.

In reality, cycling teams have it somewhat easier than most in the business world for two reasons. First, if I use myself as an example: I've been a senior manager in a number of industries and for large multi-nationals, so how many jobs vacancies do you think are out there that I can potentially apply for at any one time? (Note: this isn't the same as saying that I'd get them - just saying what could entice me away from my current post.) Now compare that to the number of opportunities that a top level cyclist has. Which number do you think is greater?

Second, riders have fixed term contracts that they can only get out of under set circumstances or with agreement from the team. Contrast that to how the rest of us are employed - we're free to go at any moment. So, again, who is likely to be harder to retain (over the short to medium term at least)?

All that to say that, if I didn't know better, I'd say that JV is finally finding out what it's like to run his own business!

 

[flicker]

I agree with JV. I think the cap should be 2 bikes per year, gas money to get to the races and vouchers for motel 6 and in and out burgers.
Oh yeah, also a couch to sleep on and 10 grand a year.
Hey that is better than most US pros make!

 

[Spider1964]

< Snipped for brevity >
All that to say that, if I didn't know better, I'd say that JV is finally finding out what it's like to run his own business!

Agree with your sentiments, JV (again) is painted in a self centred light, offering up excuses without offering a viable alternative. Welcome to the real world sideburn city.

The size of your business is irrelevant.... keep your employees happy with suitable incentives in place for performance and you will keep more than you lose. As a small business owner, my staff are rewarded commensurate with measurable output, the more they make the more I make, simple really. JV needs to set in place an equally simple system for his staff, that rewards them (monetary/riding in certain races) and him (results = happy sponsors = more points). Immaterial whether it's sales / results / working for other riders / output during races, it's all measurable.

Left-field, but JV might be advised to read Moneyball. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball

 

[brianf7]

Placing a total sallery cap on all riders in the team will mean that no team can go out and buy all the top riders and form a monolopy.

that is good for any sport that compeets in teams.

if the cap is $20 million so be it then if they want to keep riders from UCI top 10 they still pay the going rate and then shed some of the other over paid riders who are not pulling their waight.
It will make way for more young blood.

But will they agree to a cap on managers salery as well.

 

[Dundee]

Salary Caps are ok but difficult to control. The cap may well be 20mil lets say, however you will find top riders receiving ‘bonuses’ outside of the cap. Sponsors, or friends of the team providing massive incentives to riders through their books, not the riders team books. The administrative cost (UCI) to oversee a salary cap system, then investigate possible breaches would be huge. The underlying rules would be complicated and as anyone who deals with rules knows you will always find a loop hole.

 

[MD FACG FACP]

Caps have never worked, All that happens is a big budget gets split to Two teams that work together - look to NASCAr as an example. I agree with JV that the new points system is a bad problem - there is an old business saying "you get what you inspect, not what you expect".

Before testing for EPO, there was a rule for hemocrit levels, nobody was allowed over 50, so what happened..... Everybody was suddenly at 49.5. Even those with norms of 41-43 ( that is the average norm BTW).... So JV's comments are important to listen to on this subject. But limits to spending in the sport are not a solution

41 is the low end of the range, the high end is 50.2. Anything in between is normal according to my lab results. Mine was 48.8 on 4/28, and I'm not on procrit (epo)...fwiw

 

[dolophonic]

Vaughters's ideas tend to fall into two categories. Those which are in the interests of the sport and those that are in the interests of himself and his team.

The salary caps fall into the latter category. His comments on the rankings fall into the former.

Amen... he is just self serving.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Vaughters's ideas tend to fall into two categories. Those which are in the interests of the sport and those that are in the interests of himself and his team.

The salary caps fall into the latter category. His comments on the rankings fall into the former.

Just what I was thinking too.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Placing a total sallery cap on all riders in the team will mean that no team can go out and buy all the top riders and form a monolopy.

that is good for any sport that compeets in teams.

if the cap is $20 million so be it then if they want to keep riders from UCI top 10 they still pay the going rate and then shed some of the other over paid riders who are not pulling their waight.
It will make way for more young blood.

But will they agree to a cap on managers salery as well.

I see how that would create parity between teams. But I wonder how this might affect rider particpation at some of the "perceived" lesser races (e.g. Giro < Tour), and how this might also affect the competitiveness and fan attraction of those lesser races. I mean, if a team only has one or two main leaders, would that team likely just send the second tier riders to the lesser races? It happens that way now to some extent anyway, so I'm not sure it would be any different with a cap. I dunno. Any ideas?

 

[PCutter]

JV conveniently ignores a few points for his argument;

last time I checked riders have always left for pastures they perceive as greener. This has nothing to do with points, more to do with opportunities and money.
Garmin outbid other teams for the services of Cam Meyer and Jack Bobridge in the first place. They were always young guys who would no doubt progress over the period of their contracts, and given their multiple track world champ exploits and a fair bit of ability on the road, would always be chased by teams at the end of their contracts - regardless of what points they held

Perhaps JV should concentrate on developing an environment where riders want to stay rather than chasing shadows of who might sign where.

 

[Zweistein]

I guess if you ride for Vaughters, you shouldn't expect Vaughters to pay you market wage.

 

[just some guy]

Heres an idea

We have 16 licences for the World tour.

People own these licences for 4 years. During these 4 years there is a certain level required by the team.

Points
clinic issues
etc

If they break some of their contract say like Footen last year or maybe lampre might this year the licence is taken off them and up for sale.

This licence is then up for "purchase" The team who buys the contract from the UCI will then have to show they will be competitive with riders and the UCI can control who buys the team.

So this year and last for that matter a team cannot buy a world tour place by stacking a team it only becomes available if the team does not perform or breaks the rule re clinic issues.

But a licence can be bought so say all teams are performing well and there are "no" visible clinic issue a big spender can buy a licence if approved by the UCI a certain % of the riders for the team must be kept for 1 year.

So this year Greenedge could only enter the world tour by buying a licence for the 2012 year.

Riders who be able to have better long term contracts

Sponsor money would know what they are buying for a period of time

Teams would develop young talent and be less likely to have them walk out on mass ie Saxo

as part of this more stable environmental life teams must also have a womens and U23 team attached to it

teams would want wins to keep the sponsor happy.

Cycling would be more stable, but some of the smaller say French teams may not like it maybe a French super team might work

But it would reduce poaching of riders to build a team I think.

But it should be clear and open who is under the points level which maybe a % of the leading teams points.

just some ideas

 

[usedtobefast]

I guess if you ride for Vaughters, you shouldn't expect Vaughters to pay you market wage.

hence, this issue with the World Champion,eh?

 

[Astana1]

Caps have worked great in the NFL.....but I do not understand how they would benefit cycling

I have to disagree with you on that. Over the years I have lost interest in the NFL because of the ridiculous degree of parity. It just seems like an overcontrolled and mediocre product.

 

[Astana1]

Sounds like Vaughters is having sponsor issues.

 

[greenedge]

I hope meyer and bobridge leave. They've developed there well but i want to see some of his talented youth program for the pacific fall into some other team's area of jurisdiction.

 

[will10]

lol, nothing to do with greenedge being your username then?

 

[luckyboy]

I think a cap would be good in terms of limiting the number of star riders on teams. However, there will always be a way around it and seeing as it's not going to happen I'm not going to overanalyse.

 

[movingtarget]

It just gives people more incentive to cheat. They know that they will exceed the cap so they make payments in other forms, like buying cars and houses etc in lieu of extra salary which shows up on the books. Most of the time it does not work. It just means the richer teams keep it hidden and the poorer teams can't compete anyway. Athletes should earn what others are willing to pay them. They work hard enough for it over many years. Sure, you get some very young people earning ridiculous money but that also happens in the entertainment business and other careers as well.

 

[kiwirider]

It just gives people more incentive to cheat. They know that they will exceed the cap so they make payments in other forms

... or simply run false accounts. Melbourne Storm anyone???

For those of you form outside of Australasia, their story goes something like this:

On 22 April 2010 the club admitted that it had committed serious and systematic breaches of the salary cap for the last five years by running a well-organized dual contract and bookkeeping system which left the NRL ignorant of $3.17 million in payments made to players outside of the salary cap, including $550,000 in 2007, $965,000 in 2009 and $1.03 million in 2010. As a result, NRL Chief Executive David Gallop stripped the Melbourne Storm of their 2007 and 2009 premierships and their 2006, 2007 and 2008 minor premierships (which have been withheld), fined them an Australian sporting record $1,689,000, deducted all eight premiership points they had already received in the 2010 season, and barred them from receiving premiership points for the rest of the season.

 

[Oldman]

I agree with JV. I think the cap should be 2 bikes per year, gas money to get to the races and vouchers for motel 6 and in and out burgers.
Oh yeah, also a couch to sleep on and 10 grand a year.Hey that is better than most US pros make!

We talking one couch per team or one per rider. Each rider having their own would be Sweet!

 

[JV1973]

Just a quick response, b/c I think some of your interpretations of what I'm saying are a bit off....

First, a salary or budget cap is just one idea, of many, I threw out there. Read what I said. I also proposed 50/50 points splitting and have proposed longer term participation guarantees in the past. All of these ideas have one aim: Long term stability of the sport. That is not solely self serving, and it's a bit offensive to say that without examining the issue.

So, why would budget caps be beneficial? My first thought is that it creates better competition. You can buy 1*Fabian and 7 OK riders for $6M or you can buy 8*Excellent riders for $6M, but who wins the race? Maybe one, maybe the other, but no matter, it'll be a good race!

Secondly, it prevents long time and loyal sponsors, such as FDJ from being pushed aside by large wealthy teams. In turn this creates a more competitive sponsorship market, as commercial/public sponsors realize that they can enter the sport at $xxx and be competitive. It's a known price and valuation, same for everyone. This creates greater interest by this category of sponsor, which will need value to show to their shareholders to justify the investment. Then the onus is on team management to create the most competitive team within the context of a certain budget.

So, maybe a sponsor could spend $20M, but they're only allowed to spend $15M. Well, they then realize greater value for their sponsorship dollars, are a happier sponsor, and therefor stay in the sport longer, creating stability. Stability, in turn, makes for a healthier environment for athletes, fans, organizers, and UCI alike.

Of course, with time, you could raise the budget cap, as this market becomes more competitive and larger sponsors want to consistently enter. Which would be great!

The realities of being a business owner don't scare me in the least. Recruiting and my guys being recruited is just part of it. However, cycling is also a sport, and the more competitive and interesting the sport is, the better for everyone that's involved in cycling, businessmen and fans alike. So, my proposals have more to do with that, than anything else.

Same logic for why would I want to sit a great rider just because I think he's taking points to another team? I hate that, but I've almost done it a few times. It kills the races, its tears the fabric of a team apart. That was the meat of the article. So, I'm fine with guys going to other teams, but when that jeopardizes my race invites, I get upset! This isnt a major issue with my team, as my major points carrying riders are on long term contracts, but it is an issue for many teams, and I don' think its correct.

I don't have all the answers, not at all, but I don't think the current system is in the best interest of cycling.

Teams should be judged on what they ARE, not what they might be.

JV