Trouble at t'Shack?

calvjones

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/astana- ... ot-out-yet

Astana seem to hold all the cards here. They have enough money to pay Brunyeel to take a year's gardening leave, keep the 4 under contract top quality water carriers, and where does that leave Lance? Without a PT license?

I just can't see LA being bothered in 2010 without Johan and with a crap team.

Unless the UCI rescind Astana's PT license and JB and the riders have a similar get-out to AC?

blazing_saddles

calvjones wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/astana-bruyneel-not-out-yet

Astana seem to hold all the cards here. They have enough money to pay Brunyeel to take a year's gardening leave, keep the 4 under contract top quality water carriers, and where does that leave Lance? Without a PT license?

I just can't see LA being bothered in 2010 without Johan and with a crap team.

Unless the UCI rescind Astana's PT license and JB and the riders have a similar get-out to AC?

Well, rumour has it, that this will indeed be happening, come Thursday.
We shall see, but we already know that Pat will bend or indeed invent any rule that will aid Lance in his quest.
He's certainly had value for his money, out of the UCI lackeys.

The other side of the coin being, as you point out: can the UCI seriously contemplate issuing a PT licence to a team, without it's manager and a roster of phantom riders?
Of course.

oscarbudgie

The fact that Astana didn't pay any wages for a couple of months this year is more ammo if the UCI want to revoke their licence

blazing_saddles

oscarbudgie wrote:

The fact that Astana didn't pay any wages for a couple of months this year is more ammo if the UCI want to revoke their licence

Not really. They issued deadlines for just that, which the Kazakhs met.
Now, they have a bright, shiney new sponsor.

However, I have no doubt the UCI will indeed revoke their licence, under whatever pretext.

Been thinking on this. Explains why the UCI have held onto the Shack licence decision.
They couldn't issue a licence to a phantom team with a phantom manager.
Their paperwork must be, at this time, bogus.

Until Pat removes the Astana block, it's pretty evident the only contract all these guys have with the Shack, is a verbal promise.

If they have actually signed a contract, while being under contract to another team, they can expect to be stuck in a legal quagmire for months, IMO.

Vino will not go down, without a very long and expensive fight.

secretsqirrel

Oh dear........
Everytime Blaze says 'Well rumour has it................'. He is usually bang on the money.

Bruyneel has really screwed up hasn't he? I wish the Kazakhs would just sack him, on the grounds that he has behaved unethically (and sue?).

It it hard to see how anyone could justify awarding a licence to The Shack, it is a bit brassy to expect to leave the dirt with Astana and walk away and start afresh elsewhere.

As for Vino, he won't go down without a fight, and he certainly won't go down alone.
[/i]

micron

Since he was the one who was withholding wages from certain team members to make a point and try and get the PT licence revoked earlier in the year, I think Bruyneel deserves a suspension.

Vino has absolutely nothing to lose if McBent revokes the licence so one hopes he spills all the beans

dave_1

micron wrote:

Since he was the one who was withholding wages from certain team members to make a point and try and get the PT licence revoked earlier in the year, I think Bruyneel deserves a suspension

JB witholding wages from the team?where's your source?

moray_gub

Dave_1 wrote:

micron wrote:

Since he was the one who was withholding wages from certain team members to make a point and try and get the PT licence revoked earlier in the year, I think Bruyneel deserves a suspension

JB witholding wages from the team?where's your source?

Since when has then ever been important ? you should know by now Dave these kind of wild claims are the norm in here when it comes to jb/lance/astana/shack

cougie

That would make more sense that it would be the manager witholding pay rather than a sponsor. Imagine the smaller multi sponsored teams. Would each rider get a few euros off each sponsor every month ? Of course not. The sponsor would make one payment and the team administrator pays the squad. Its all very peculiar.

dave_1

Moray Gub wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

micron wrote:

Since he was the one who was withholding wages from certain team members to make a point and try and get the PT licence revoked earlier in the year, I think Bruyneel deserves a suspension

JB witholding wages from the team?where's your source?

Since when has then ever been important ? you should know by now Dave these kind of wild claims are the norm in here when it comes to jb/lance/astana/shack

I forgot MG...you are right enough, people do sometimes say whatever they like wthout source on here, but it makes them less convincing generally in various topics.

micron

Nobody aware of the structure of Astana and the way the Kazakh Federation gave Bruyneel's company the wages money and the responsibility of paying it to his riders? Or od the fact that high profile riders apparently weren't being paid and yet Chris Horner said he'd never had a problem receiving his wages?

Sorry, can't legislate for your ignorance and inability to argue the point or research this for yourselves I'm afraid.

blazing_saddles

The payment issue remains a mystery. Some Astana riders claimed to never have missed being paid, others claim to have had missed several months salary.
Riders not getting paid is nothing new. I'm not sure whether it would be down to Bruyneel.
Coast owed the Coast riders. Kelme were behind paying their riders, several times in their last couple of years.

However, given all that has past, since then, with UCI ultimatums, it is fair to assume subs are up to date.

If it is a question of Bruyneel's, or the Kazakh's credibility, neither inspires confidence.

Before anyone demands a source for Bruyneel's lack of credibilty, (I know the Kazakh's will be taken as read) I cite the fact that he has announced a Shack roster that is bogus and submitted a licence application under this pretext.

micron

I seem to recall press releases announcing Kloeden et al signing to the Shack yet now we learn they have never been released from their Astana contracts. Of course Bruyneel would never do anything for gain or advantage, but only ever has the good of the sport at the heart of his decisions - justl like when he broke the PT teams agreement and signed Basso :roll:

secretsqirrel

micron wrote:

Nobody aware of the structure of Astana and the way the Kazakh Federation gave Bruyneel's company the wages money and the responsibility of paying it to his riders? Or od the fact that high profile riders apparently weren't being paid and yet Chris Horner said he'd never had a problem receiving his wages?

Sorry, can't legislate for your ignorance and inability to argue the point or research this for yourselves I'm afraid.

A hint...........

The Chris Horner quote was from an article on Velonews, about the time of the Giro. He stated that he had always been paid, and paid very well.
Seriously, someone should question how the team ran out of money before the first GT had started? It was even claimed that the bond had been spent by that time.
If Contador had not been paid, he could have claimed breach of contract and walked away, surely?

moray_gub

micron wrote:

Nobody aware of the structure of Astana and the way the Kazakh Federation gave Bruyneel's company the wages money and the responsibility of paying it to his riders? Or od the fact that high profile riders apparently weren't being paid and yet Chris Horner said he'd never had a problem receiving his wages?

Sorry, can't legislate for your ignorance and inability to argue the point or research this for yourselves I'm afraid.

Surely you are the one making the claims regarding Bruyneel being responsible for riders not being paid and you are being called to provide a source and your inability to do just that speaks volumes So basically no source then fine move along here there is nothing to see................

moray_gub

Blazing Saddles wrote:

The payment issue remains a mystery. Some Astana riders claimed to never have missed being paid, others claim to have had missed several months salary.
Riders not getting paid is nothing new. I'm not sure whether it would be down to Bruyneel.
Coast owed the Coast riders. Kelme were behind paying their riders, several times in their last couple of years.

However, given all that has past, since then, with UCI ultimatums, it is fair to assume subs are up to date.

If it is a question of Bruyneel's, or the Kazakh's credibility, neither inspires confidence.

Before anyone demands a source for Bruyneel's lack of credibilty, (I know the Kazakh's will be taken as read) I cite the fact that he has announced a Shack roster that is bogus and submitted a licence application under this pretext.

A source to confirm he was directly responsible for riders not being paid would be fine, see thats the problem imo posters are so obssesed with LA/JB/SHACK/ASTANA they are quite willing to post nonsense provided it fits in with how they see JB et al.