Astana Singled Out Again. Serious Financial Woes

blazing_saddles

This time it's a definite. We know who put the "U" turn in "UCI".

http://www.sport24.co.za/Content/OtherSport/262/c0fc5fe73f37426991ad3bca0c380fe1/24-11-2009-01-17/Contadors_future_in_doubt
"Bruyneel told us that he would do everything possible to ensure that they withdrew our license," Proskurin said.

22 million up front. Is that realistic, or just extortion?

Bruyneel responds....
http://www.youtube.com/user/JohanBruyneelSports

Kléber

Astana have a bad reputation but they are not the only team in the sport with late payment of wages. Certainly the bar is being placed very high for them.

The Pro Tour is supposed to bring certainty for all. It's one thing to ensure riders get their wages paid but this certainty also needs to extend to teams and their sponsors. Seeing the governing body invent new hurdles or make up rules from one minute to the next risks deterring other sponsors into the sport, the risk is that no matter what you put in place, a select circle of power brokers within the sport control and manipulate regulations to their financial advantage.

Astana shouldn't have to put up additional guarantees, yes they missed payments last year but riders re-signing for the team knew the risks involved. Ironically this new guarantee could put riders on the dole, with the best, ie Contador and his pals, being cherrypicked by other teams.

Vino

EEz veery difficult times, Bruyneel knows what side the cookie is crumbled on I think.

He is right we are big competitions for his team but I am thinking he would only like to see glorious racing team without spanish mascot od Calves. I think we have meny obstacles on way to glory all next year that are not on the road. We are indifatigable. We are prevailing. We are Glorious and our presence is light to Amrstrongs Evil.

He never like the Calves because he likes to be the boss and also he knows i am better looking with more moneys and personal charm. Is obvious i have meny womens.


Ave pre season Calves

LangerDan

Nobodys looking for $22 milliion up front - the guarantee is is just a commerical instrument, much like buying insurance. Its a fairly standard undertaking when placing large-value commercial orders. According to the UCI rules, they'd have to guarantee at least 25% of their annual budget but the figure can be increased if the UCI auditors aren't happy with the financial stability of the paying agent.


The UCI ProTour rules are very clear on who provides the guarantee and they provide the teams with a list of acceptable banks. If the funding is as secure as Proskurin says, many of those banks would be happy to issue the guarantee in exchange for the fee.


Astana do seem to go out of their way to make life awkward for themselves.

GroupOfOne MkII

As Kleber says, it's not just Astana who aren't very good at putting their hands in their pockets, look at some of the Italian teams...

But then the UCI do seem to have a proper bee in their bonnet over Astana.

symo

The UCI could accept a first demand bank guarantee provided by teams to it's riders. That way the riders will know that they will be paid.

However that is common sense just like bikes will evolve. Therefore clearly unacceptable to the fat non-cyclists of the UCI.

LangerDan

symo wrote:

The UCI could accept a first demand bank guarantee provided by teams to it's riders. That way the riders will know that they will be paid.

However that is common sense just like bikes will evolve. Therefore clearly unacceptable to the fat non-cyclists of the UCI.

Why should the UCI have to review 50+ separate guarantees issued to all the riders and the support staff? If the the other small budget squads have had to get their finances sorted and issue a single guarantee, why should Astana be excused?

oscarbudgie

GroupOfOne MkII wrote:

As Kleber says, it's not just Astana who aren't very good at putting their hands in their pockets, look at some of the Italian teams...

But then the UCI do seem to have a proper bee in their bonnet over Astana.

Back in the day Molteni (italian salami makers) had a shocking reputation for late wages - even when they had Merckx winning everything

teagar

LangerDan wrote:

symo wrote:

The UCI could accept a first demand bank guarantee provided by teams to it's riders. That way the riders will know that they will be paid.

However that is common sense just like bikes will evolve. Therefore clearly unacceptable to the fat non-cyclists of the UCI.

Why should the UCI have to review 50+ separate guarantees issued to all the riders and the support staff? If the the other small budget squads have had to get their finances sorted and issue a single guarantee, why should Astana be excused?

I belive the UCI outsources all of that to a big accountancy firm . You're right. Astana shouldn't be exempt.

For those who take less of an interest in UCI/pro tour politics, what does this mean on the road? That Contador still could be free to leave?

blazing_saddles

teagar wrote:

For those who take less of an interest in UCI/pro tour politics, what does this mean on the road? That Contador still could be free to leave?

Well, of course. Come Wednesday, he could be free to move, back on contract, or, most likely, still in some sort of limbo.

I'm not really sure what the difference is, between having to guarrantee $22 million through a bank and paying $22 million into said bank. Not my field at all.

However, I did note this:
Last week, Samruk-Kazyna transferred an initial sum of about $3.7m to the paying agency that handles team salaries.

So, that is 15%, or there abouts, up front? It also says initial payment, so one assumes more would follow.

However, for a more positive take on events.
http://www.biciciclismo.com/cas/site/no ... p?id=19819

which says, in Googlespeak:-

The UCI is to the wait of a banking guarantee of the Astana

The future of the Astana continues in the air. It has brought to light today Nikolai Proskurin, vice president of the Kazakh Cycling Confederacy, the International Cycle Union (UCI) has required a banking guarantee of the annual budget of the team as condition to grant the license ProTour.

Proskurin has considered the reasonable demand and esteem that the team can comply it tomorrow.

It they passed week, the Government of Kazakhstan announced an injection economica of in 14.5 million euro (22 million dollars) that should guarantee the financial viability of the team that in 2010 will be called Samruk Kazyna.

intothe12

Blazing Saddles wrote:

teagar wrote:

I'm not really sure what the difference is, between having to guarrantee $22 million through a bank and paying $22 million into said bank. Not my field at all.
.

no bank in the current market will provide a guarantee unless they themselves are covered in the event of paying out. added to that, a bank would charge usually a min of 1% of the guarantee amount per year. In essence, the sponsor paying out 22m into an account, or 22m to a bank to provide a guarantee is approx the same thing, unless some bank would take credit risk on some kazah company, in effect an IOU, even it is a state company. I reckon no western bank in their right mind would guarantee a kazah sandwich, never mind 22m - that country is the equivalent of a modern day Dodge city, kansas about the same time Wyatt Earp ruled the town.

frenchfighter

Bruyneel is a low grade character like many in the Whack Shack.

I hope all is cleared with Astana and they trample the grandads. There are double standards and biases from UCI...what a surprise.

Astana's new sponsor is a sovereign wealth fund - they shouldn't have any trouble whatsoever in fronting this cash...pocket change.

iainf72

frenchfighter wrote:

Astana's new sponsor is a sovereign wealth fund - they shouldn't have any trouble whatsoever in fronting this cash...pocket change.

It should be pocket change, but if they're being awkward about it you must ask why.

richard wants a baum

Hardly suprising that they being a bit careful with Astana they have kind of given them reason to be a little suss. At the same time i cant see there actually being any problem with it in the end.

iainf72

They've got until 18:00 today to get the guarantee in place.

They've said the Kazak government are standing behind it but because Astana also missed rider payments in October, the UCI are not happy with promises from them and would prefer a proper financial document.

Fair do's I say.

Bakunin

I agree with Iain -- yes, the UCI is a joke, but Astana has put itself in this position.

Pay the riders.

blazing_saddles

http://www.bndestem.nl/sport/sportalgem ... -gered.ece

Astana is saved?

Not surprised they missed payments in October, considering they weren't even sure who was left on the payroll.

blazing_saddles

For now, we have this:
http://www.bikeworldnews.com/index.php/ ... r-license/

Cyclingnews awaiting the official UCI announcement.

So, Oscar Pereiro will be joining Astana, it seems.

timoid.

Looks like its official:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/astana- ... d-contador

iainf72

Can you all stop calling them Astana now? They've got a new name you know.

Thank you please.

blazing_saddles

iainf72 wrote:

Can you all stop calling them Astana now? They've got a new name you know.

Thank you please.

I can't get used to calling them the Shack. Sorry. :P

Now it's Lampre facing the PT axe.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-reg ... s-for-2010

moray_gub

Blazing Saddles wrote:

http://www.bndestem.nl/sport/sportalgemeen/5858566/Rini-Wagtmans-Astana-is-gered.ece

Astana is saved?

Its all smoke and mirrors they were always going to be on the scene next year.

moray_gub

frenchfighter wrote:

Bruyneel is a low grade character like many in the Whack Shack.

/quote]

Are you in a position to judge who is a low grade character and who is not , ok maybe you could say that about Peter Sutcliffe or somebody like that but a DS of cycling team who hasnt really done anyhting wrong other than be hugely succesful ........you really need to get a sense of perspective.

micron

It depends whether people you perceive to be duplicitous, lying spinmongers are 'low grade' or not.

Though I appreciate this description applies to 99% of politicians as well as the Hog

moray_gub

micron wrote:

It depends whether people you perceive to be duplicitous, lying spinmongers are 'low grade' or not.

Though I appreciate this description applies to 99% of politicians as well as the Hog

You could apply that to almost any top level manager in professional sport though couldnt you they all spin and lie to suit themsleves. Real low grade characters for me are rapists or a paedo or murderers etc etc not some arrogant cycling team manager.

calvjones

Wheelsucker.

'nuff said.

micron

+1 calvjones

plectrum

I really think this extra scrutiny is fair and I hope this Once to Liberty to Astana team finally dies a death.