Astana's hour cometh?

ACMadone

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/astanas-hour-cometh

Well the deadline was supposed to be 17:00 CET but there's been nothing announced. Does that mean they've stumped up with the $6m? Has anybody seen anything?

ACMadone

ACMadone wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/astanas-hour-cometh

Well the deadline was supposed to be 17:00 CET but there's been nothing announced. Does that mean they've stumped up with the $6m? Has anybody seen anything?

Sorry 6m Euros

Kléber

As far as I know, the team seems to have met the rules by paying the wages and refilling the deposit/bank guarantee demanded for the Pro Tour licence already. This €6m amount is additional, a sort of "you've messed up in the past so we want you to commit the money now" payment.

As much as this extra payment seems to be useful to ensure the wage payments are protected, I fear it is being used as a gambit because people know the Kazakhs can't pay this so quickly. This then "allows" the UCI to strip the licence from the Kazakhs and give it to Bruyneel/Armstrong/Mystery Donor for free, something which lies well beyond the rules and is another example of the UCI bending, in fact rewriting the rules to suit favoured parties.

If I've got this all wrong, can someone please post the rules or explain where things stand?

markwalker

Kléber wrote:

As far as I know, the team seems to have met the rules by paying the wages and refilling the deposit/bank guarantee demanded for the Pro Tour licence already. This €6m amount is additional, a sort of "you've messed up in the past so we want you to commit the money now" payment.

As much as this extra payment seems to be useful to ensure the wage payments are protected, I fear it is being used as a gambit because people know the Kazakhs can't pay this so quickly. This then "allows" the UCI to strip the licence from the Kazakhs and give it to Bruyneel/Armstrong/Mystery Donor for free, something which lies well beyond the rules and is another example of the UCI bending, in fact rewriting the rules to suit favoured parties.

If I've got this all wrong, can someone please post the rules or explain where things stand?

Nothing would surprise me now

FOAD

I don't think it matters what the rules are or where they are written down, as the UCI seem to have made a few up as they went along in relation to LA.

SpaceJunk

FOAD wrote:

I don't think it matters what the rules are or where they are written down, as the UCI seem to have made a few up as they went along in relation to LA.

I once got my hands on the official UCI rulebook. It is as follows:

Rule # 1. The UCI can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and is never wrong.
Rule # 2. If the UCI is wrong, refer back to rule 1.

ACMadone

SpaceJunk wrote:

FOAD wrote:

I don't think it matters what the rules are or where they are written down, as the UCI seem to have made a few up as they went along in relation to LA.

I once got my hands on the official UCI rulebook. It is as follows:

Rule # 1. The UCI can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and is never wrong.
Rule # 2. If the UCI is wrong, refer back to rule 1.

That's made me chuckle just as I'm on my way to bed

SpaceJunk

Here's the latest from Cycling News:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/no-payment-yet-for-astana

Article doesn't really explain much, except that Astana haven't got the 6 million Euro.

iainf72

That article does indicate things could get very messy very soon.

If the UCI say the team can't continue without the new funds, someone doesn't need to just find the short fall, they need to find the whole budget as the Kazaks will be wanting their money back.

Interesting scenario for ASO too because if the team does collapse and then a new one is born, they didn't invite the new team to the Tour....

blazing_saddles

When Liberty Seguros pulled their sponsorship and the team folded, at exactly this time of the year in 2006, Astana were not issued a licence in time to ride the Tour, but had to wait until the Vuelta.

Doesn't a new team require an ocean of new documantation?

If Armstrong is going to ambush this one, McQuaid is going to have to bend over backwards.

iainf72

Blazing Saddles wrote:

If Armstrong is going to ambush this one, McQuaid is going to have to bend over backwards.

Or forwards.

Kléber

As much as the Kazakh backers seem badly organised, which other sponsor could suddenly find €6m just to keep the team going. I'm still seeing this payment as some kind of ransom and a pretext for the UCI to strip away the licence.

The timing is very bad too, if Armstrong has a sponsor lined up with him, now is the time for maximum agitation to ensure the sponsor benefits from their name all over the kit in July.

iainf72

Kléber wrote:

As much as the Kazakh backers seem badly organised, which other sponsor could suddenly find €6m just to keep the team going. I'm still seeing this payment as some kind of ransom and a pretext for the UCI to strip away the licence.

You may well be right. That's why I wish the ASO would take a strong position and say they've invited x team and will not tolerate a change this late in the game.

Astana have met the contractual obligations. At best I'd expect the UCI could suspend the license based on this extra cash but not remove it, afterall the Kazak's have got a lot of skin in the game already.

blazing_saddles

I hope, if it's their final act, that the Kazakh's fire Bruyneel and kick out the party crasher, using this counter accusation they have made against him, with regard to missuse of funds.

I'm sure, that they can slow this "fast track" process down, to the point where it becomes impossible to establish a new team, in time to ride the Tour.

All the riders would need new contracts, for a start.

At least, it would give Contador an ideal opportunity to jump ship and join Caisse, early, in time to ride the Tour.

micron

It seems fairly clear from the cn piece that the KF would be more than happy to see the back of Bruyneel.

The UCI froze the original guarantee after the Gusev affair and refuse to let the KF use the money to pay the extra (unlawful) guarantee they're demanding. The KF are also asking Bruyneel to account for the money they paid into his company to cover wages - they say they paid it, the team in Catalonia was paid, Horner says he's always been paid so quite what has Bruyneel been doing with it?

iainf72

Are the riders contracts with the Astana team or with JB's company? Anyone know?

Micron - You're not accusing Bruyneel of running a ponzi scheme now, are you?

leguape

Blazing Saddles wrote:

When Liberty Seguros pulled their sponsorship and the team folded, at exactly this time of the year in 2006, Astana were not issued a licence in time to ride the Tour, but had to wait until the Vuelta.

Doesn't a new team require an ocean of new documantation?

If Armstrong is going to ambush this one, McQuaid is going to have to bend over backwards.

I thought that the only reason they didn't start the Tour was because they didn't have enough riders to constitute a team after over half of them got fingered for OP involvement.

LS had pulled their sponsorship well before the Tour and they were riding as Astana Wurth until Wurth dropped them as well, hence Vinokourov liberating a bit of national pride funding after finding interim solutions to bridge the gap to the new licence.

They were riding on the existing Active Bay one which the UCI then cancelled and generated a new licence for Astana, which Manolo Saiz got his tits in the mangle over with legal wrangling.

ermintrude

You may 'loathe' JB and LA and think it amusing they they're in this mess but just remember there are a whole raft of other riders, mechanics etc. who are in real jeopardy, whilst AC might sneak in somewhere else should the team fold what about the rest, and all this just 2 weeks before the Tour.

blazing_saddles

leguape wrote:

I thought that the only reason they didn't start the Tour was because they didn't have enough riders to constitute a team after over half of them got fingered for OP involvement.
LS had pulled their sponsorship well before the Tour and they were riding as Astana Wurth until Wurth dropped them as well, hence Vinokourov liberating a bit of national pride funding after finding interim solutions to bridge the gap to the new licence.
They were riding on the existing Active Bay one which the UCI then cancelled and generated a new licence for Astana, which Manolo Saiz got his tits in the mangle over with legal wrangling.

May well be, as far as the Tour is concerned and they rode the Vuelta as Astana Wurth.

It is interesting, however, to read the comparison with this situation and the time frame for them being granted a license:-

As you say, Saiz wouldn't play ball. (and neither will the Kazakh fed)
However, the 3GT's gave them the green light to ride, without a PTL.
It took until December 20th for the UCI to relent and issue the new one.

In this case, I think they have relented, in advance.

blazing_saddles

ermintrude wrote:

You may 'loathe' JB and LA and think it amusing they they're in this mess but just remember there are a whole raft of other riders, mechanics etc. who are in real jeopardy, whilst AC might sneak in somewhere else should the team fold what about the rest, and all this just 2 weeks before the Tour.

You are absolutely correct.
All the more strange, therefore, that the UCI would demand 6 million Euros, in advance, knowing it is unlikely to be forthcoming in these recessionary times, no?

I thought these UCI Bank guarrantees were to secure riders positions, not to put teams in the dole queue, en masse.

Surely, a compromise could be found. Perhaps payment by certain dates, of installments?

That is, of course, assuming that the UCI have no hidden agenda.

Kléber

ermintrude wrote:

You may 'loathe' JB and LA and think it amusing they they're in this mess but just remember there are a whole raft of other riders, mechanics etc. who are in real jeopardy, whilst AC might sneak in somewhere else should the team fold what about the rest, and all this just 2 weeks before the Tour.

It's examples like this that won't win JB and LA any new fans. Rather than building a project for the long term, we're got bizarre wranglings. As I've said above, it looks like the Kazakhs have fulfilled their part of the bargain but now the UCI have moved the goalposts, a unilateral move that only seems to apply to this team.

Any new team should be about setting up something from 2010 to 2012 and beyond, this really looks like people are stirring to get the licence in time for July and the UCI seems like a biased referee here.

As leguape points out, the team was created from a mess and has been suspect for sometime but there's no need for things to be made even worse. Hopefully the mess will be settled in the coming days but in the meantime potential sponsors looking at cycling will find another reason to stay away, knowing that the sport is administered in an arbitrary and partial manner, something that can have consequences for many more many riders and support staff than are on the Astana roster today.

micron

More from Equipe http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/breves20 ... tinue.html

The plot thickens - Bektourov receiving friendly texts from McQuaid with no mention of the 6 million? Seems this whole affair came as a surprise to them. The KF will send a bank guarantee to the UCI for the money but, if the UCI refuse it, they will go to court.

Monty Dog

My understanding is that bank guarantees are requires for the rider's wages until the end of the season - they don't want teams to benefit from the exposure of the Tour without the guys knowing they're getting paid for their efforts. Not sure about the ownership structure of Astana - I'm assuming the team is registered to the Kazakh fed and they hold the ProTour license i.e. it's not JB's or LA's to negotiate. The UCI could sell the license to someone else - but knowing the UCI, dear Pat will be concocting a plan for his ol' muckers!

dennisn

FOAD wrote:

I don't think it matters what the rules are or where they are written down, as the UCI seem to have made a few up as they went along in relation to LA.

Key words being "SEEM to have"

blazing_saddles

dennisn wrote:

Key words being "SEEM to have"

Well, unless the other 18 Pro Tour teams have been asked for millions in advanced payments, the key words are actually, 'made a few up'.

Unless, of course, you can't point us to the relevant UCI sub section rule, Dennis?

SpaceJunk

Well if Astana does fold, ASO can always invite Ceramica Flaminia as a wild card entry and let a former Italian Champion ride.

Now that would be funny - at least on this forum!

secretsqirrel

Vino has spoken (Google Translation sorry!)

And what do I do?
Enough to frighten Europe crazy money. Managers «Astana» should significantly cut back the budget instead of the club and world celebrities to recruit more to the team of Kazakh youth. And at first to solve local problems: do not fight for victory in the Tour, as, for example, T-shirts for the King of the mountain, or a better sprinter.

Something tells me he's had enough of JB and his signings........

Taken from sports.kz 'Plywood on the Paris' article.

dennisn

Blazing Saddles wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Key words being "SEEM to have"

Well, unless the other 18 Pro Tour teams have been asked for millions in advanced payments, the key words are actually, 'made a few up'.

Unless, of course, you can't point us to the relevant UCI sub section rule, Dennis?

Of course I can't. Hmmmmmmm "of course I can't"? Sounds weird. Then again I was always on the verge of failing English in school. It was one of those classes that I had zero interest in and had to fight to even stay awake. Bored the hell out of me.
But I digress. Anyway, only making my usual snide / sarcastic remark on the "pro scene".
I am, however, becoming very interested in this BIG announcement that is forthcoming(maybe). Should make for a very crazy day in cycling if it lives up to the expectations
of everyone(well most everyone).

blazing_saddles

Astana came up with the money today and will continue until the end of the season.

kazakh translation

lucybears

UCI Bank guarantees
2.15.092 - 2.15.109
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getOb ... &id=34028&