Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

who is the 'Ian Holloway' of cycling ?

northernneilnorthernneil Posts: 1,907
edited October 2010 in Pro race
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/9116212.stm?ref=nf

wish someone would do this in cycling - guess Lemond is the closest ?

Posts

  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,891
    Carlton Kirby or Pat McQuaid - they're the only people who are ever as quite as wrong as Holloway is there.

    Note to Holloway: clubs don't own players like they're common dogs. If they don't want to sign a new contract, that's their prerogative. Same as any other employee.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • schweizschweiz Posts: 1,644
    RichN95 wrote:
    Note to Holloway: clubs don't own players like they're common dogs. If they don't want to sign a new contract, that's their prerogative. Same as any other employee.

    But surely they do? They've paid for the player. Then they have a contract which pays the player X amount over Y years. But at the end of the contract, they should still own the player and be able to negotiate a new contract. If a new contract cannot be agreed then the club should be able to sell the player for his current worth to recoup in whole or in part the amount they paid for the transfer. My employer didn't pay a transfer fee to my old employer so footballers and other professions where there is a transfer fee are not like 'any other employee'. Just because a player is over 24, they can walk out at the end of a contract for free...it's wrong. The players know this but are exploiting it. Rooney (or his agent) can go to another club and say 'I'm worth X million, but I'm over 24 and my contract is up next year. If you'll wait, I'll walk out on a 'Bosman', you can sign me for free but I want twice as much per week as I get now.' The new club is happy because although they have to fork out an extra 5 million a year to the player they don't have to pay 30 million up front.
  • northernneilnorthernneil Posts: 1,907
    at least he has the courage to have a pop at the authorities who run the game and tell them how he sees it. Instead of saying nothing... doing nothing ... when obviously something in the heart of the sport is wrong - thats where I made a link to cycling.
  • Who's Ian Holloway?
    Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.
  • cameronecamerone Posts: 1,232
    Schweiz- clubs pay for a player when they are in contract still hence the payment to the club 'selling' the player. The player is under a contract and 'owned' by the club only whilst under the term of the contract.
    They do not own them after the contract end, if they are stupid enough to pay gazzilions of pounds for a player effectively buying them out of a contract them more fool them

    In cycling look at wiggins being bought whilst under contract at garmin, and cancellera apparently buying himself out of his contract at saxo.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,891
    But surely they do? They've paid for the player. Then they have a contract which pays the player X amount over Y years. But at the end of the contract, they should still own the player and be able to negotiate a new contract. If a new contract cannot be agreed then the club should be able to sell the player for his current worth to recoup in whole or in part the amount they paid for the transfer. My employer didn't pay a transfer fee to my old employer so footballers and other professions where there is a transfer fee are not like 'any other employee'. Just because a player is over 24, they can walk out at the end of a contract for free...it's wrong. The players know this but are exploiting it. Rooney (or his agent) can go to another club and say 'I'm worth X million, but I'm over 24 and my contract is up next year. If you'll wait, I'll walk out on a 'Bosman', you can sign me for free but I want twice as much per week as I get now.' The new club is happy because although they have to fork out an extra 5 million a year to the player they don't have to pay 30 million up front.

    This is Cake Stop territory really, but...

    They haven't bought the player at all. They paid for his previous contract to be cancelled and his registration to be transferred to them for the period of the new contract. Once that's over their rights to the player are over. It's basic employment law. Players are employees, not commodities like a house (as Holloway seems to think).

    In cycling, if when Cavendish's contract is up at HTC he hasn't signed a new one, HTC can't ask for compensation from his new team. But by your logic, Sky could if Wiggins moved when his contract's up, because they 'paid' for him.

    Football isn't some sort of 'special case' just because fans invest emotionally in it. Apart from losing the PR battle, I can't see that Rooney has done anything wrong, really. He's just informed his employers (in good time) that he won't be signing a new contract and given them the chance to make some money.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • schweizschweiz Posts: 1,644
    RichN95 wrote:
    But surely they do? They've paid for the player. Then they have a contract which pays the player X amount over Y years. But at the end of the contract, they should still own the player and be able to negotiate a new contract. If a new contract cannot be agreed then the club should be able to sell the player for his current worth to recoup in whole or in part the amount they paid for the transfer. My employer didn't pay a transfer fee to my old employer so footballers and other professions where there is a transfer fee are not like 'any other employee'. Just because a player is over 24, they can walk out at the end of a contract for free...it's wrong. The players know this but are exploiting it. Rooney (or his agent) can go to another club and say 'I'm worth X million, but I'm over 24 and my contract is up next year. If you'll wait, I'll walk out on a 'Bosman', you can sign me for free but I want twice as much per week as I get now.' The new club is happy because although they have to fork out an extra 5 million a year to the player they don't have to pay 30 million up front.

    This is Cake Stop territory really, but...

    They haven't bought the player at all. They paid for his previous contract to be cancelled and his registration to be transferred to them for the period of the new contract. Once that's over their rights to the player are over. It's basic employment law. Players are employees, not commodities like a house (as Holloway seems to think).

    In cycling, if when Cavendish's contract is up at HTC he hasn't signed a new one, HTC can't ask for compensation from his new team. But by your logic, Sky could if Wiggins moved when his contract's up, because they 'paid' for him.

    Football isn't some sort of 'special case' just because fans invest emotionally in it. Apart from losing the PR battle, I can't see that Rooney has done anything wrong, really. He's just informed his employers (in good time) that he won't be signing a new contract and given them the chance to make some money.

    I’m an Oldham fan, so I have no such worries about players leaving on a Bosman. Most of the players we get are ‘Bosmans’ anyway!!

    The I understand it (and I admit that I could be wrong) is that before the Bosman ruling the clubs did own the players and the players were a commodity. The application of EU employment law has changed this so the transfer fee is does not imply ownership of a player. Clubs and fans alike struggle to accept that that if the player will be over 24 at the end of the contract the transfer fee should be ammortised by the club over the period of the initial contract and the club should not expect to recoup any money from transfer fees.

    However, a footballer is still not like a ‘normal’ employee. When I resign, I work my notice period (currently 3 months) and then I’m free to do what I want. My employer cannot actually refuse to accept my resignation. Yet I hear about footballers having requests to be transfer listed (cf. resignation) rejected and even if it is accepted, a transfer fee is needed to buy out a contract. Does this mean that players do not have a notice period? Is this also legal under EU law? That then brings up the the calculation of the transfer fee itself. It doesn’t (in the case of Rooney et al) just cover the cost of the remaining time of the players contract. There is a premium applied for a perceived value that the player could bring, not just in footballing revenue but marketing value. Therefore the player has a value as a commodity.

    It would be interesting to see a top footballer’s contract to see exactly what was written. It seems a dark and murky world.
  • robert-sbrobert-sb Posts: 118
    schweiz wrote:
    The I understand it (and I admit that I could be wrong) is that before the Bosman ruling the clubs did own the players and the players were a commodity.

    This is not quite true - and the truth shocked me when I first found out about it. At the end of a contract the club had to offer the player a contract at least equal to the one just expired, so far so good. However, this did not just apply to wages but also add ons, including, amazingly, the signing on fee. So if, when a player joined, they offered a £50k signing on fee + £2,000 a week (you can see when my era was !) then, when that contract expired they would have to offer a £50k signing on fee + £2,000 a week again ! If they didn't meet the same terms the player then became a free agent.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 28,799
    schweiz wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    But surely they do? They've paid for the player. Then they have a contract which pays the player X amount over Y years. But at the end of the contract, they should still own the player and be able to negotiate a new contract. If a new contract cannot be agreed then the club should be able to sell the player for his current worth to recoup in whole or in part the amount they paid for the transfer. My employer didn't pay a transfer fee to my old employer so footballers and other professions where there is a transfer fee are not like 'any other employee'. Just because a player is over 24, they can walk out at the end of a contract for free...it's wrong. The players know this but are exploiting it. Rooney (or his agent) can go to another club and say 'I'm worth X million, but I'm over 24 and my contract is up next year. If you'll wait, I'll walk out on a 'Bosman', you can sign me for free but I want twice as much per week as I get now.' The new club is happy because although they have to fork out an extra 5 million a year to the player they don't have to pay 30 million up front.

    This is Cake Stop territory really, but...

    They haven't bought the player at all. They paid for his previous contract to be cancelled and his registration to be transferred to them for the period of the new contract. Once that's over their rights to the player are over. It's basic employment law. Players are employees, not commodities like a house (as Holloway seems to think).

    In cycling, if when Cavendish's contract is up at HTC he hasn't signed a new one, HTC can't ask for compensation from his new team. But by your logic, Sky could if Wiggins moved when his contract's up, because they 'paid' for him.

    Football isn't some sort of 'special case' just because fans invest emotionally in it. Apart from losing the PR battle, I can't see that Rooney has done anything wrong, really. He's just informed his employers (in good time) that he won't be signing a new contract and given them the chance to make some money.

    I’m an Oldham fan, so I have no such worries about players leaving on a Bosman. Most of the players we get are ‘Bosmans’ anyway!!

    The I understand it (and I admit that I could be wrong) is that before the Bosman ruling the clubs did own the players and the players were a commodity. The application of EU employment law has changed this so the transfer fee is does not imply ownership of a player. Clubs and fans alike struggle to accept that that if the player will be over 24 at the end of the contract the transfer fee should be ammortised by the club over the period of the initial contract and the club should not expect to recoup any money from transfer fees.

    However, a footballer is still not like a ‘normal’ employee. When I resign, I work my notice period (currently 3 months) and then I’m free to do what I want. My employer cannot actually refuse to accept my resignation. Yet I hear about footballers having requests to be transfer listed (cf. resignation) rejected and even if it is accepted, a transfer fee is needed to buy out a contract. Does this mean that players do not have a notice period? Is this also legal under EU law? That then brings up the the calculation of the transfer fee itself. It doesn’t (in the case of Rooney et al) just cover the cost of the remaining time of the players contract. There is a premium applied for a perceived value that the player could bring, not just in footballing revenue but marketing value. Therefore the player has a value as a commodity.

    It would be interesting to see a top footballer’s contract to see exactly what was written. It seems a dark and murky world.

    Sounds like you're on a permanent contract.

    Footballers are on fixed term contracts, most workplaces have a few people on FTCs - they sign a contract to work for a fixed period of time. No get-out unless agreement from both parties.
    However, a recent ruling by the EU (and yet to be applied in a high profile case) means that employees on long term contracts can buy out the final 12 months of their contract if they want. This was why it was reported that Rooney could leave for £5m in June 2011.


    The transfer fee has nothing to do with the amount the employee is being paid. It is simple a fee agreed between company A and company B for company B to break the fixed term contract it has with employee H. This then frees employee H to sign a contract with company A.

    In cycling, Sky was company A, Garmin was company B, Wiggins employee H.
    In football, using James Milner to Man C as an exmaple, Man City paid Aston Villa £26m to break their contract with Milner, enabling Man City to agree a contract with Milner.

    It's a lot easier to understand transfers and fairness when footballers are thought of as people rather than objects!
  • schweizschweiz Posts: 1,644
    Choppered wrote:
    schweiz wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    But surely they do? They've paid for the player. Then they have a contract which pays the player X amount over Y years. But at the end of the contract, they should still own the player and be able to negotiate a new contract. If a new contract cannot be agreed then the club should be able to sell the player for his current worth to recoup in whole or in part the amount they paid for the transfer. My employer didn't pay a transfer fee to my old employer so footballers and other professions where there is a transfer fee are not like 'any other employee'. Just because a player is over 24, they can walk out at the end of a contract for free...it's wrong. The players know this but are exploiting it. Rooney (or his agent) can go to another club and say 'I'm worth X million, but I'm over 24 and my contract is up next year. If you'll wait, I'll walk out on a 'Bosman', you can sign me for free but I want twice as much per week as I get now.' The new club is happy because although they have to fork out an extra 5 million a year to the player they don't have to pay 30 million up front.

    This is Cake Stop territory really, but...

    They haven't bought the player at all. They paid for his previous contract to be cancelled and his registration to be transferred to them for the period of the new contract. Once that's over their rights to the player are over. It's basic employment law. Players are employees, not commodities like a house (as Holloway seems to think).

    In cycling, if when Cavendish's contract is up at HTC he hasn't signed a new one, HTC can't ask for compensation from his new team. But by your logic, Sky could if Wiggins moved when his contract's up, because they 'paid' for him.

    Football isn't some sort of 'special case' just because fans invest emotionally in it. Apart from losing the PR battle, I can't see that Rooney has done anything wrong, really. He's just informed his employers (in good time) that he won't be signing a new contract and given them the chance to make some money.

    I’m an Oldham fan, so I have no such worries about players leaving on a Bosman. Most of the players we get are ‘Bosmans’ anyway!!

    The I understand it (and I admit that I could be wrong) is that before the Bosman ruling the clubs did own the players and the players were a commodity. The application of EU employment law has changed this so the transfer fee is does not imply ownership of a player. Clubs and fans alike struggle to accept that that if the player will be over 24 at the end of the contract the transfer fee should be ammortised by the club over the period of the initial contract and the club should not expect to recoup any money from transfer fees.

    However, a footballer is still not like a ‘normal’ employee. When I resign, I work my notice period (currently 3 months) and then I’m free to do what I want. My employer cannot actually refuse to accept my resignation. Yet I hear about footballers having requests to be transfer listed (cf. resignation) rejected and even if it is accepted, a transfer fee is needed to buy out a contract. Does this mean that players do not have a notice period? Is this also legal under EU law? That then brings up the the calculation of the transfer fee itself. It doesn’t (in the case of Rooney et al) just cover the cost of the remaining time of the players contract. There is a premium applied for a perceived value that the player could bring, not just in footballing revenue but marketing value. Therefore the player has a value as a commodity.

    It would be interesting to see a top footballer’s contract to see exactly what was written. It seems a dark and murky world.

    Sounds like you're on a permanent contract.

    Footballers are on fixed term contracts, most workplaces have a few people on FTCs - they sign a contract to work for a fixed period of time. No get-out unless agreement from both parties.
    However, a recent ruling by the EU (and yet to be applied in a high profile case) means that employees on long term contracts can buy out the final 12 months of their contract if they want. This was why it was reported that Rooney could leave for £5m in June 2011.


    The transfer fee has nothing to do with the amount the employee is being paid. It is simple a fee agreed between company A and company B for company B to break the fixed term contract it has with employee H. This then frees employee H to sign a contract with company A.

    In cycling, Sky was company A, Garmin was company B, Wiggins employee H.
    In football, using James Milner to Man C as an exmaple, Man City paid Aston Villa £26m to break their contract with Milner, enabling Man City to agree a contract with Milner.

    It's a lot easier to understand transfers and fairness when footballers are thought of as people rather than objects!

    I am on a permanent contract but I work/have worked (in the Aerospace industry) with many people on a fixed term contracts, but usually both sides could cancel the contract with one weeks notice.

    I guess the view of players as tradeable commodities is not helped by the agents who often see the players as just that.

    Do you know how the transfer window system fits in with EU rules? Could that not be classed as some kind of restriction of being able to carry out trade?
  • Tom ButcherTom Butcher Posts: 7,137
    As has already been alluded to wasn't the current system an attempt to keep some kind of market for players whilst staying within EU law ? I certainly remember the Bosman case forcing the hand of the people that run football - the current system may give players too much leverage but I doubt Holloway's preferred system is legal.

    It's pretty typical for Holloway to be ranting about the people that run the game being out of touch with football people - by which he means players and former players. Pre season wasn't he on about his chairman not understanding what it would take to keep Blackpool in the Premiership. I've long thought him a bit of a knob that gets away with it by virtue of being a good manager - very much in the Gordon Strachan mould in that regard. I think they get paid so much they start believing they are in some way special rather than just very lucky to be good at a job that pays shedloads.

    it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,891
    As has already been alluded to wasn't the current system an attempt to keep some kind of market for players whilst staying within EU law ? I certainly remember the Bosman case forcing the hand of the people that run football - the current system may give players too much leverage but I doubt Holloway's preferred system is legal.

    The problem of the perception of the Bosman ruling is that fans only really notice it in relation to the big name players - guys who make as much in a week as I do in a year. But Jean-Marc Bosman was playing in the lower leagues in France and Belgium, not a high earner. It's guys like that it protects. The elite benefit, but they're not the majority of Euro players.

    To tie this into cycling, I personally believe that cycling could benefit from a football style transfer system (like the Wiggins move). It allows the smaller teams to get money in the bank for developing riders, making the scrapping around for sponsors less desperate. It would also make sure that riders that deserve it can get longer contracts and more security (and therefore less tempted to dope).
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 28,799
    schweiz wrote:
    Choppered wrote:
    schweiz wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    But surely they do? They've paid for the player. Then they have a contract which pays the player X amount over Y years. But at the end of the contract, they should still own the player and be able to negotiate a new contract. If a new contract cannot be agreed then the club should be able to sell the player for his current worth to recoup in whole or in part the amount they paid for the transfer. My employer didn't pay a transfer fee to my old employer so footballers and other professions where there is a transfer fee are not like 'any other employee'. Just because a player is over 24, they can walk out at the end of a contract for free...it's wrong. The players know this but are exploiting it. Rooney (or his agent) can go to another club and say 'I'm worth X million, but I'm over 24 and my contract is up next year. If you'll wait, I'll walk out on a 'Bosman', you can sign me for free but I want twice as much per week as I get now.' The new club is happy because although they have to fork out an extra 5 million a year to the player they don't have to pay 30 million up front.

    This is Cake Stop territory really, but...

    They haven't bought the player at all. They paid for his previous contract to be cancelled and his registration to be transferred to them for the period of the new contract. Once that's over their rights to the player are over. It's basic employment law. Players are employees, not commodities like a house (as Holloway seems to think).

    In cycling, if when Cavendish's contract is up at HTC he hasn't signed a new one, HTC can't ask for compensation from his new team. But by your logic, Sky could if Wiggins moved when his contract's up, because they 'paid' for him.

    Football isn't some sort of 'special case' just because fans invest emotionally in it. Apart from losing the PR battle, I can't see that Rooney has done anything wrong, really. He's just informed his employers (in good time) that he won't be signing a new contract and given them the chance to make some money.

    I’m an Oldham fan, so I have no such worries about players leaving on a Bosman. Most of the players we get are ‘Bosmans’ anyway!!

    The I understand it (and I admit that I could be wrong) is that before the Bosman ruling the clubs did own the players and the players were a commodity. The application of EU employment law has changed this so the transfer fee is does not imply ownership of a player. Clubs and fans alike struggle to accept that that if the player will be over 24 at the end of the contract the transfer fee should be ammortised by the club over the period of the initial contract and the club should not expect to recoup any money from transfer fees.

    However, a footballer is still not like a ‘normal’ employee. When I resign, I work my notice period (currently 3 months) and then I’m free to do what I want. My employer cannot actually refuse to accept my resignation. Yet I hear about footballers having requests to be transfer listed (cf. resignation) rejected and even if it is accepted, a transfer fee is needed to buy out a contract. Does this mean that players do not have a notice period? Is this also legal under EU law? That then brings up the the calculation of the transfer fee itself. It doesn’t (in the case of Rooney et al) just cover the cost of the remaining time of the players contract. There is a premium applied for a perceived value that the player could bring, not just in footballing revenue but marketing value. Therefore the player has a value as a commodity.

    It would be interesting to see a top footballer’s contract to see exactly what was written. It seems a dark and murky world.

    Sounds like you're on a permanent contract.

    Footballers are on fixed term contracts, most workplaces have a few people on FTCs - they sign a contract to work for a fixed period of time. No get-out unless agreement from both parties.
    However, a recent ruling by the EU (and yet to be applied in a high profile case) means that employees on long term contracts can buy out the final 12 months of their contract if they want. This was why it was reported that Rooney could leave for £5m in June 2011.


    The transfer fee has nothing to do with the amount the employee is being paid. It is simple a fee agreed between company A and company B for company B to break the fixed term contract it has with employee H. This then frees employee H to sign a contract with company A.

    In cycling, Sky was company A, Garmin was company B, Wiggins employee H.
    In football, using James Milner to Man C as an exmaple, Man City paid Aston Villa £26m to break their contract with Milner, enabling Man City to agree a contract with Milner.

    It's a lot easier to understand transfers and fairness when footballers are thought of as people rather than objects!

    I am on a permanent contract but I work/have worked (in the Aerospace industry) with many people on a fixed term contracts, but usually both sides could cancel the contract with one weeks notice.

    I guess the view of players as tradeable commodities is not helped by the agents who often see the players as just that.

    Do you know how the transfer window system fits in with EU rules? Could that not be classed as some kind of restriction of being able to carry out trade?

    Transfer window is only a restriction on registering players. Rooney could transfer to Real Madrid today, but his registration wouldn't be sorted until january ie he couldn't play until then. Therefore no restraint on employees moving companies, just the new company can't start playing them uintil the window opens.
  • RoscobobRoscobob Posts: 344
    Who's Ian Holloway?

    This is Ian Holloway:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB9rI7p7vmk
  • Oh right, some footballer or other.
    Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.
Sign In or Register to comment.