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