11 major teams considering plans to break away from the UCI

[Astana1]

One big difference between cycling and other sports (like football) is that the stable factor in cycling aren't the teams, it's the races (and the UCI). There are some older teams like Lotto or Rabobank, but most teams have a short lifespan, especially compared to a sport like football, which has teams that are over a 100 years old.

In a sport like that (football), the teams have a long term interest in the succes of the sport. In cycling, they don't. Guys like Riis and Bruyneel (and I believe Vaughters as well) don't even have a sponsor for next year, if they don't find one, they are out of cycling next year. With this structure, it's almost unavoidable that the teams will allways care about nothing but their short term interests, and therefore you need an organisation like the UCI that stands above the parties, and has that long term perspective. Of course, the UCI are far from perfect, and can be improved upon in many areas, but you need an organisation like that.

The teams complain that the UCI treats them like children, and behave like dictators, true as that may be, you need such a stable factor in the sport. If you give the teams a big input in cycling policy, they could decide on one thing this year (keep the radios), but the next year you could have five new teams, who decide the opposite (ban the radios). The teams have only short term interests, and their composition is far too fluid to give them a big influence on the UCI policy.


Crackpot theory time: what Bruyneel, Riis and Vaughters want is a bigger cut of the television-rights. They are sick of begging sponsors every year for a 1 or 2 year contract, they want to become long term players in cycling. If they get a significant cut of the TV-pie, having a big sponsor is only a secondary source of income, their teams can survive without it. If in such a system they get to decide who has a right to that money, who is part of the in-group, they can set themselves up as the main players in cycling for the next 20 years, without having to worry about those pesky UCI rules, and not having to go on a constant sponsor-hunt, and without the swords of Damocles above their heads that could end their involvement in cycling the moment they fail to find a new sponsor.

I agree with your assessment completely. They are trying to carve out some sort of financial stability. Riis, Bruyneel and Vaughters want an enduring presence, but they can't have that when they are relying on rich benfactors and title sponsors that only commit 2-3 years at a time. If you think this is all about race radios then you are only seeing part of the picture. These teams are basically living paycheck to paycheck.

I also really disagree that F1 is some sort of model of stability. F1's "stability" is an illusion. In F1 model, in the original Concorde Agreement, you "earned" a share of the F1 Money based on how many race points you scored. If your team scored enough Championship points then the series basically funded a large portion of the transport expenses thus defraying your expenses. Since the details of the Concorde Agreement were secret for a long time (and may still be) I can't spell out what the true financial benefits were, but I can say that team owners got filthy rich by it. That doesn't mean that teams were financially secure, it just means that as the owners got wealthier and wealthier they were less enthusiastic about spending/risking their personal fortune on the running of the team.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

One big difference between cycling and other sports (like football) is that the stable factor in cycling aren't the teams, it's the races (and the UCI). There are some older teams like Lotto or Rabobank, but most teams have a short lifespan, especially compared to a sport like football, which has teams that are over a 100 years old.

In a sport like that (football), the teams have a long term interest in the succes of the sport. In cycling, they don't. Guys like Riis and Bruyneel (and I believe Vaughters as well) don't even have a sponsor for next year, if they don't find one, they are out of cycling next year. With this structure, it's almost unavoidable that the teams will allways care about nothing but their short term interests, and therefore you need an organisation like the UCI that stands above the parties, and has that long term perspective. Of course, the UCI are far from perfect, and can be improved upon in many areas, but you need an organisation like that.

The teams complain that the UCI treats them like children, and behave like dictators, true as that may be, you need such a stable factor in the sport. If you give the teams a big input in cycling policy, they could decide on one thing this year (keep the radios), but the next year you could have five new teams, who decide the opposite (ban the radios). The teams have only short term interests, and their composition is far too fluid to give them a big influence on the UCI policy.


Crackpot theory time: what Bruyneel, Riis and Vaughters want is a bigger cut of the television-rights. They are sick of begging sponsors every year for a 1 or 2 year contract, they want to become long term players in cycling. If they get a significant cut of the TV-pie, having a big sponsor is only a secondary source of income, their teams can survive without it. If in such a system they get to decide who has a right to that money, who is part of the in-group, they can set themselves up as the main players in cycling for the next 20 years, without having to worry about those pesky UCI rules, and not having to go on a constant sponsor-hunt, and without the swords of Damocles above their heads that could end their involvement in cycling the moment they fail to find a new sponsor.

Wow, good stuff. I was in favor of a break in some respects, but this is something I hadn't thought of at all. Either way, there will be some interesting twists and turns in the next few months (and a more interesting off season)

 

[thehog]

Except the only way they could get TV rights is through the race organisers, and there is no way the race organisers would commit to giving managers long-term invite guarantees for their teams.

The race organisers are part of the breakaway! So they're well on board.

 

[Jamsque]

The race organisers are part of the breakaway! So they're well on board.

The race organisers are by no means on board. There have been meetings and conversations between the big organisers and the leaders of the breakaway but I haven't read anything that suggests any commitment on the part of RCS or ASO or anyone else.

 

[thehog]

The race organisers are by no means on board. There have been meetings and conversations between the big organisers and the leaders of the breakaway but I haven't read anything that suggests any commitment on the part of RCS or ASO or anyone else.

What utter fodder.

 

[Jamsque]

Awesome! Thanks for engaging with me Hog. I'm really glad we were able to have this conversation and your contributions are much appreciated.

 

[thehog]

Awesome! Thanks for engaging with me Hog. I'm really glad we were able to have this conversation and your contributions are much appreciated.

Cool ya jets man.

What I meant is that RCS have already confirmed they are on board and in discussions. ASO has spoken to JayV but not confirmed anything. RCS and ASO make up 80% of the races that matter so done deal... where do I sign?

 

[Mellow Velo]

Except the only way they could get TV rights is through the race organisers, and there is no way the race organisers would commit to giving managers long-term invite guarantees for their teams.

Especially as the ASO has only this week extended their contract with France tv and will continue with FTA tv coverage until 2015.
http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/183292/ebu-extends-aso-deal-for-cycling-coverage

Rai tried to go down the ppv line, 10 years ago and got their fingers burned.
They won't be trying that again in a hurry and they won't be giving up their rights to broadcast, either. The RCS won't break from RAI. No way.

Anybody fancy the odds on Sporza handing over their productions to say Sky?

I'll give you an example.
In France, Sport+, part of the TPS (now Canal+ group) dipped their toe into the cycling market and for a couple of years things seemed to be moving down that road. If you ever wondered why Eurosport stopped showing Pais Vasco, Catalunya etc, here's the reason.
A couple of years later, they are back with Eurosport and Sport+ now shows little in the way of cycling.
The lucrative market being Sky's rugby/football output.

So, you have the hardly cash rich Eurosport supplying ppv and national tv the internal viewing.

There is no bigger cut of the tv rights because the market isn't available for all the major events and quite frankly, outside places like the US and Australia, there just isn't a market. Full stop.

 

[c&cfan]

botton line..

is this really going to happen? good or bad?

 

[skippy]

SILLY QUESTION !

What is there to stop Mc Queasy telling "sponsors" that they "risk repercussions" if they sign up with any of the teams that are looking for "New Contracts" next year ?

Would "sponsors" be intimidated enough to avoid these "managers" regardless of their talents and pool of racers ?

Look at what happened to Gerolsteiner's management team and MIlram is possibly another less obvious example .

BMC was Phonak but there is another factor in play with that situation !

 

[Dutchsmurf]

Cool ya jets man.

What I meant is that RCS have already confirmed they are on board and in discussions. ASO has spoken to JayV but not confirmed anything. RCS and ASO make up 80% of the races that matter so done deal... where do I sign?

RCS have confirmed they are talking. ASO has confirmed they are talking. To be on board they need to do more than just talk though. The teams want a bigger part of the money. ASO and RCS have the money. So unless you have a source stating ASO and RCS are willing to give up part of their money, ASO and RCS aren't on board.

 

[hrotha]

I have trouble believing ASO and RCS, who have spent the better part of a decade fighting for their right to invite whoever they damn well please, would go with something like this without major concessions.

 

[jens_attacks]

nah aso and rcs are really sick of uci.uci's management of professional cycling since 2005 was one of the greatest disasters i've seen in sports.can you imagine how much money aso and rcs lost because of the image of this pro sport being flushed down the toilet?since 2005 every month it was a doping scandal.there were huge sponsors lost because of this fool,crazy management.prudhomme knows this,zomegnan too.it's a business opportunity like no other this one.i really hope they will make it.

my guess is that astana,katusha and bmc will also leave uci.

 

[BroDeal]

There is no bigger cut of the tv rights because the market isn't available for all the major events and quite frankly, outside places like the US and Australia, there just isn't a market. Full stop.

There cannot be much money in U.S. broadcasting rights of cycling. The Vuelta and Giro rights were picked up by a fledgling channel because no other channel was interested. The TdF broadcast is supported by amazingly few advertisers

 

[hfer07]

I have trouble believing ASO and RCS, who have spent the better part of a decade fighting for their right to invite whoever they damn well please, would go with something like this without major concessions.

at the same time UCI and their endless attempts to create the ProTour system have held back ASO & RCS in the teams choosing process. there most a balance between which teams "truly deserve" the spots, and which teams qualify for Wildcards, regardless all behind closed doors deals & sponsorship pressures- and is there where I find the problem with this "New Cycling League", since they are pushing the sponsor cash flow in front as a mandatory rule to enter the GTs-which at the same time could diminish any possibilities of small teamns to "earn" their way to the big races.... At least the entire Cycling community is finally aware that this entire BS is based on MONEY-not in some rhetorical Bvllsh!t put together by JB,JV,BR and Co.

 

[Mellow Velo]

The combined total of races owned by the ASO and RCS, (including the Vuelta)
is sixteen.

Not much of a season there, to say the least, but getting them both on board would probably destroy the UCI as a viable organization.

So, with the UCI gone, who is going to fund and organise the admistration of the hundreds of other races in the various UCI calenders?

 

[ksmith]

nah aso and rcs are really sick of uci.uci's management of professional cycling since 2005 was one of the greatest disasters i've seen in sports.can you imagine how much money aso and rcs lost because of the image of this pro sport being flushed down the toilet?since 2005 every month it was a doping scandal.there were huge sponsors lost because of this fool,crazy management.prudhomme knows this,zomegnan too.it's a business opportunity like no other this one.i really hope they will make it.

my guess is that astana,katusha and bmc will also leave uci.

So are you saying it's the UCI fault that riders dope ?

 

[Oldman]

So are you saying it's the UCI fault that riders dope ?

Many would say the UCI decides who gets away with doping. That does facilitate the continued use.

 

[Race Radio]

...hardly registered with the fans?....the F1 stop in Montreal is by far the biggest event on the civic calender...hotels rooms in town and in the surrouding area are booked solid...as in the town is packed, and the house is rockin'...

...and yes I've been there...have you?...

...as for the bike races...seemed pretty packed to me...but then, as with the F1, I only attended in person and to be completely honest about it I didn't read all of the reports...so there there may be an alternative reality out there that I'm not aware of...

Cheers

blutto

Who is talking about F1? I am talking about the bike races.

 

[orbeas]

Time to leave the UCI ????????

Following on from todays headline

Teams walk out of UCI meeting over race radio ban

is this the end of pro racing under the UCI ???

lets hope that the ASO joins the teams and we have a properly run and organised pro cycle racing. Instead of having it controlled by that clown McQuiad and his bunch of idiots.

 

[thehog]

Yes like us. Three threads on the same topic. Get it together.

 

[pedaling squares]

It is more of a 'breakaway' thread than another radio thread so I merged it into the existing breakaway thread. Hope that makes sense to the OP.

 

[jens_attacks]

Following on from todays headline

Teams walk out of UCI meeting over race radio ban

is this the end of pro racing under the UCI ???

lets hope that the ASO joins the teams and we have a properly run and organised pro cycle racing. Instead of having it controlled by that clown McQuiad and his bunch of idiots.

let's hope so.the fuccers did enough bad.time for change.

 

[nowhereman]

Following on from todays headline

Teams walk out of UCI meeting over race radio ban

is this the end of pro racing under the UCI ???

lets hope that the ASO joins the teams and we have a properly run and organised pro cycle racing. Instead of having it controlled by that clown McQuiad and his bunch of idiots.

I'm with you! I hope the teams and the organizers take the loot & the game away from the UCI. The arrogance, and veiled operating procedures of that organization have made this change long overdue.

 

[Winterfold]

McQuaid is just a total bell-end.

To make that threat to JV then be left speaking to a room full of empty chairs.

It would be funny (OK it is) if it wasn't such a tragedy having such a complete loser and fool in charge of the sport we love...