Discovery in disarray.... ?
- Thread starter whiteboytrash
- Start date
That makes sense, Bruyneel is running out of options. He now has no sure-thing GT winner (but rather Savoldelli who has a track record at the Giro, and hopefully Popo who is being groomed for the TdF) and beyond Hincapie, who has yet to win a monument, no outstanding rider for the classics.cyclingheroes said:
Having Leif on the team, as someone who has a 2nd and 3rd at the Ronde is better than riding against him.
Here's a thought re Hoste and DC :
JRMDC makes the very valid point that QS etc are prepared to wave the checkbook to procure a rider to win classics.
Diablo and others have made the point repeatedly about the ProTour points and how a Classic win - in PT points terms - is massive compared to say winning a stage in a GT or in fact in comparison to winning a GT.
Valid points both.
So looking at DC, Hoste has performed really well in RVV and P-R.
He can perform in one day classics.
I think that by letting him go, DC are foresaking potential PT points and - in a seson where it is probable that they won't win a GT - the letting go of such a talent could hurt DC's standing in the PT competition.
I still feel that it is wrong to let go of a guy who finished second in tow of the hardest races of the season.
They did this before by allowing Boonen to walk away.
I think they could be repeating that same mistake with Hoste.
JRMDC makes the very valid point that QS etc are prepared to wave the checkbook to procure a rider to win classics.
Diablo and others have made the point repeatedly about the ProTour points and how a Classic win - in PT points terms - is massive compared to say winning a stage in a GT or in fact in comparison to winning a GT.
Valid points both.
So looking at DC, Hoste has performed really well in RVV and P-R.
He can perform in one day classics.
I think that by letting him go, DC are foresaking potential PT points and - in a seson where it is probable that they won't win a GT - the letting go of such a talent could hurt DC's standing in the PT competition.
I still feel that it is wrong to let go of a guy who finished second in tow of the hardest races of the season.
They did this before by allowing Boonen to walk away.
I think they could be repeating that same mistake with Hoste.
I would agree Lim. I think that Discovery could still be a bit too GT-centric, if that is possible (watch them turn around and win the TdF with Paolo or Popo, LOL).limerickman said:
cyclingheroes said:
I don't think Bruyneel was willing at any point to match the Davitamon offer. He is unhappy that Hoste is leaving Disco, in the sense that Hoste was developing as a Classics rider and improving his ITT skills.
Also, Hoste was worth more money than his current salary after his good early season performance, but Disco was not wililng to pay what Dav was offering. There was no attempt, however, to match the Dav offer.
After stating that Hoste probably had five offers on May 11, cyclingnews obtained the following quote from Bruyneel himself. You don't need "inside" info on this; Bruyneel was not matching it, period.
"I've still not made a decision and am leaving the work up to my manager," Hoste was quoted as saying. But Discovery said that it will not match the offers of the other teams: "We didn't do it for Livingston, nor for Leipheimer, Hamilton, Boonen or Roberto Heras," said Johan Bruyneel. "That's not our style. But of course it's disappointing that he goes now at the moment that the time is ripe with Leif."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/may06/may11news3
Given his performances in the RVV, those count as "...developing as a classics rider..."?musette said:
Who else, pray tell us, does Discovery have developing as a classics rider, the ever younger Hincapie (who is four years older than Leif)?
It'll be interesting what Disco do when they introduce the relegation system to the ProTour and the chase for points becomes more intense.
Disco are clearly having trouble not putting all their eggs in the GT basket - I suppose it takes time to get out of a particular mindset but, in a transitional season, it's surprising to see them floundering around rather than using this time to develop as a fully formed team - after all, they have the riders but, instead of investing their time in their younger talent they seem unwilling/unable to let go of the 'old' guys.
Perhaps they are simply winding down the team and when the Disco sponsorship finishes that'll be that?
Disco are clearly having trouble not putting all their eggs in the GT basket - I suppose it takes time to get out of a particular mindset but, in a transitional season, it's surprising to see them floundering around rather than using this time to develop as a fully formed team - after all, they have the riders but, instead of investing their time in their younger talent they seem unwilling/unable to let go of the 'old' guys.
Perhaps they are simply winding down the team and when the Disco sponsorship finishes that'll be that?
Fair point Musette - except that, if you look at the winners of this year's Classics they've been overwhelmingly up and coming riders who are stronger than the Van Petegems and Hincapies of this world, and will continue to progress as those riders will, inevitably, decline. Besides, to pull off a Duclos Lasalle you need to hang on to those younger, stronger domestiques (like Lemond )
As I say in the above post, Disco's continued investment in relatively 'old' riders seems curious to me - and out of step with developments in cycling as a whole where the young guns are definitely coming to prominence.
)As I say in the above post, Disco's continued investment in relatively 'old' riders seems curious to me - and out of step with developments in cycling as a whole where the young guns are definitely coming to prominence.
musette said:
I've been very reliably informed that Bruyneel tried to persuade Hoste to change his mind as recently as last week.
Need to put this issue in to context - Hoste was prized away from Lotto to DC on the understanding that he (Hoste) would be allowed to develop at DC.
I am told that it quickly became apparent that DC had some difficulty in fulfilling their side of the bargain and that Hoste began to realise that his development as a rider was not a priority at DC.
This obviously played out in the background.
In the meantime, we had Hoste's superb performance in RVV and P-R.
Then we had the debacle about who was supposed to do what during RVV - and it was at that point that, so I'm told, that Hoste's management
started listening to offers from teams like Lotto.
In the meantime, as you point out Bruyneel tried to make amends on the money side and I am told some more money was forthcoming but that additional money carried extra conditions, which Hoste and his management refused to countenance.
I can tell you this because tow other teams were also bidding for Hoste as well.
And Hoste informed all three teams that he would give DC right of first refusal
as late as last week - to which Bruyneel was working.
The part that I find irritating is that DC has several guys who were hired to protect and lead out Lance on the climbs. These guys have gone into active retirement. They no longer lead out or protect anyone on climbs. The team gets no benefit from them. In fact they did very little for Lance in 05. Most of the help he got then came from Popo and Paulo.micron said:
micron said:Fair point Musette - except that, if you look at the winners of this year's Classics they've been overwhelmingly up and coming riders who are stronger than the Van Petegems and Hincapies of this world, and will continue to progress as those riders will, inevitably, decline. Besides, to pull off a Duclos Lasalle you need to hang on to those younger, stronger domestiques (like Lemond
As I say in the above post, Disco's continued investment in relatively 'old' riders seems curious to me - and out of step with developments in cycling as a whole where the young guns are definitely coming to prominence.
Agreed.
Hincapie should have adopted a Sean Yates Motorola Super domestique role for the younger talent at DC.
And ideally the strategy ought to be - whoever is going better on the ride, all the team support that rider.
Instead DC seemed to be intent on supporting Hincapie's Classic ambitions - to the deteriment of actually having a chance of winning RVV (and perhaps P-R)
Related point: why hasn't DC done anything for the Ardennes classics? I've wondered sometimes why Hincapie, with his late-developing climbing prowess, doesn't take a shot at some of these. Perhaps in the past it has interfered with his ability to re-peak for the TdF, I don't know. But in general DC doesn't seem to have taken a strong interest in these races.
Here is what Bruyneel did:
"Q: Another big news item for the team was Leif Hoste signing on with Davitamon-Lotto for next season. Talk about the decision process and the reported "no negotiation" standpoint you took in this matter.
Bruyneel: The principle we have is if a rider performs well and likes the environment and the team setting then it takes a lot better offer to leave. No one leaves for the same money. Hoste had a good Spring and we offered him a good improvement on his contract for 2007, but others offered him more. I thought our offer was good for him and his value on the market, so in order to leave then someone has to offer to pay him more than his value. We won't overpay anyone just to keep him, so then the rider has to decide if the change he is offered is worth the money.
Q: You and I spoke about this in California, that it's not just the rider who provides value to the team, but the team also does for the rider, too.
A: Exactly. And what is that team-provided value worth to the rider? Hoste felt really good on our team, we made him as comfortable as possible, we worked so he had the opportunity to go for his objectives… it's an open market for everyone, Hoste was at the end of his contract and he got bigger offers than ours. Yes, he chose to go but I'm happy we stuck to our principles and used the same judgment that we use for all our riders."
Hoste did deserve more money than his not-so-lucrative 2005/2006 contract, because he has done well so far in 2006. However, the point is that DC was only willing to pay Hoste what Bruyneel thought they should pay him. There was no negotiation on salary, and no attempt by Bruyneel to match higher offers.
"Q: Another big news item for the team was Leif Hoste signing on with Davitamon-Lotto for next season. Talk about the decision process and the reported "no negotiation" standpoint you took in this matter.
Bruyneel: The principle we have is if a rider performs well and likes the environment and the team setting then it takes a lot better offer to leave. No one leaves for the same money. Hoste had a good Spring and we offered him a good improvement on his contract for 2007, but others offered him more. I thought our offer was good for him and his value on the market, so in order to leave then someone has to offer to pay him more than his value. We won't overpay anyone just to keep him, so then the rider has to decide if the change he is offered is worth the money.
Q: You and I spoke about this in California, that it's not just the rider who provides value to the team, but the team also does for the rider, too.
A: Exactly. And what is that team-provided value worth to the rider? Hoste felt really good on our team, we made him as comfortable as possible, we worked so he had the opportunity to go for his objectives… it's an open market for everyone, Hoste was at the end of his contract and he got bigger offers than ours. Yes, he chose to go but I'm happy we stuck to our principles and used the same judgment that we use for all our riders."
Hoste did deserve more money than his not-so-lucrative 2005/2006 contract, because he has done well so far in 2006. However, the point is that DC was only willing to pay Hoste what Bruyneel thought they should pay him. There was no negotiation on salary, and no attempt by Bruyneel to match higher offers.
musette said:
Well, I can tell you that Bruyneel as of last week had obtained extra funds and had approached Hoste.
Hoste had three bids in for him and he allowed DC the right of first refusal.
Bruyneel offered him extra cash but it was tied to conditions which Hoste was not willing to accept.
Your report above doesn't contain the full facts.
JRMDC said:
From what my contact said, it appears that Hoste felt that DC wanted him (Hoste) to support Hincapie rather than giving him (Hoste) a chance to get a result. Therefore he felt inhibited by the atmosphere at DC.
That's what I've been told.
And this tension has existed at DC as regards one day races - it seems that DC
work on the basis of riders working for GH as regards the classics, rather than Gh doing the work for riders who may well be going better than him in the one day races.
Per cyclingnews, Hoste's pay increase (not total pay, but the increase from 2006) is reportedly 200K euros under Hoste's new contract.
As of May 11, Bruyneel had already said publicly and in cyclingnews he was not matching other teams' offers for Hoste. Whether Hoste presented Bruyneel with a right of first refusal on the number he was going to pick does not mean that Bruyneel wanted that ROFR. Host may have gratuitously offered Bruyneel the ROFR.
I provided the very clear May 11 quote from Bruyneel above that he was not matching. That's pretty convincing, rather than undisclosed information sources speculating about this or that.
If you were Bruyneel and you wanted to retain Hoste, wouldn't you try not to **** him off by not publicly stating that you wouldn't match? Especially since, if you ended up matching, you would have egg on your face by your early disclosure of no matching.
The obvious point is that Bruyneel had no incentives to disclose that he wouldn't match so publicly on May 11, unless he were not matching.
-- Saying he wouldn't match would only encourage other teams to offer to Hoste, and increase the chances Hoste would leave. Because the other teams would be assuaged that Hoste was not just using their offers as bargaining chips to increase DC's offer, but actually had a strong likelihood of leaving.
-- Saying he wouldn't match would only reduce his future credibility in future contract negotiations with other DC riders, if he ended up later caving in and matching. By saying publicly he wouldn't match, Bruyneel also continued to set his precedent of not matching (except he matched Landis' financial offer from Phonak, but, after talking with Landis, felt Landis wanted to leave) riders who wanted to leave. That is why, in his May 11 statement, Bruyneel mentioned all the people he had not matched for: Heras, Leipheimer, Hamilton, Boonen. He wanted to signal that he had a long policy of not matching. Basic negotiations tactic over time, with respect to establishing the credibility of one's asserted positions.
As of May 11, Bruyneel had already said publicly and in cyclingnews he was not matching other teams' offers for Hoste. Whether Hoste presented Bruyneel with a right of first refusal on the number he was going to pick does not mean that Bruyneel wanted that ROFR.
Host may have gratuitously offered Bruyneel the ROFR. I provided the very clear May 11 quote from Bruyneel above that he was not matching. That's pretty convincing, rather than undisclosed information sources speculating about this or that.
If you were Bruyneel and you wanted to retain Hoste, wouldn't you try not to **** him off by not publicly stating that you wouldn't match?
Especially since, if you ended up matching, you would have egg on your face by your early disclosure of no matching. The obvious point is that Bruyneel had no incentives to disclose that he wouldn't match so publicly on May 11, unless he were not matching.
-- Saying he wouldn't match would only encourage other teams to offer to Hoste, and increase the chances Hoste would leave. Because the other teams would be assuaged that Hoste was not just using their offers as bargaining chips to increase DC's offer, but actually had a strong likelihood of leaving.
-- Saying he wouldn't match would only reduce his future credibility in future contract negotiations with other DC riders, if he ended up later caving in and matching. By saying publicly he wouldn't match, Bruyneel also continued to set his precedent of not matching (except he matched Landis' financial offer from Phonak, but, after talking with Landis, felt Landis wanted to leave) riders who wanted to leave. That is why, in his May 11 statement, Bruyneel mentioned all the people he had not matched for: Heras, Leipheimer, Hamilton, Boonen. He wanted to signal that he had a long policy of not matching. Basic negotiations tactic over time, with respect to establishing the credibility of one's asserted positions.
Similar threads
