Breaking Away - "Top cycling teams explore creating new competitive league"

[tobydawq]

Did you read the article? Because he clearly explains what the issue is with stage races, or races in general, and how they can optimize this.

Lol, he doesn't clearly explain anything at all. He just states that there will be a time when the Tour can't cover 200 kms but no reason at all is given. Just something about speed limits and villages. Which is not a problem that will become insurmountable given that it is not an increasing issue but just an issue that has been there forever.

 

[Berniece]

Lol, he doesn't clearly explain anything at all. He just states that there will be a time when the Tour can't cover 200 kms but no reason at all is given. Just something about speed limits and villages. Which is not a problem that will become insurmountable given that it is not an increasing issue but just an issue that has been there forever.

For the TDF I think it's different, I agree that they won't have any issues with planning a 200km race. But other race organizers do have issues with it. As with the costs of it all. A circuit makes sense to resolve these issues.

 

[Ricco']

Congratulations, Monsieur Plugge, you are doing the impossible, make Cyclingnews forum stand alongside ASO.

 

[pastronef]

I remember when Brailsford was a danger for cycling (well, in some obsessed minds). ten years after Sky's climbing times are shattered and Plugge's team won 3 GT in a year and he wants to create a new league. oh feck off.
I'll back ASO always

 

[CyclistAbi]

Did you read the article? Because he clearly explains what the issue is with stage races, or races in general, and how they can optimize this.

I read your summary and now i read the whole article too. I just don't see it, that is the problem. On why a stage race would make more money if it would be a circuit and on why people would want to watch such racing more. If it would be that easy then criteriums would likely already carry much more weight?

But this was not my point. Likely if one would invest heavily in some circuit based race, then likely over time it could grow in popularity. The point i was trying to make is on why would you want to do that now. That is involve it in One Cycling project. As from grand perspective of things this is a rather small change. But the amount of effort it would need, for all parties to agree, that is in my opinion just not reachable in some reasonable time frame. And then still all the rest ...

On the plus side it's said this is not a Super League and all parties should be involved. So i guess they should conduct further discussions to test on where the agreement is.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

In a podcast Richard Plugge (CEO of Visma-LAB) talked a bit more about ONE-cycling. Major take aways:

• ONE-cycling is for everyone, not a select few teams
• They are currently at a standstill
• There are more investors than only Saudis
• He doesn't understand why we don't do more circuit races like we do for the World Championship, because logistically it's a nightmare to make a route of 200km. It would be more interesting financially too.

Translation in english:

Richard Plugge: 'Er komt een moment dat ook de Tour niet meer van A naar B kan over 200 kilometer'

Visma | Lease a Bike-ploegbaas Richard Plugge heeft

www-indeleiderstrui-nl.translate.goog

So it is every bit as sh!t as we feared then.

It's about making everything circuits so that they can charge an entry fee and siphon that funding to the teams. And it's "for everyone" in the top tier, and if you're not one of the top tier teams, you only exist to develop riders for the top tier.

Who knows at what races though, because all the money is being siphoned off to the top teams, because they're creaming off the profits and expecting organisers will just be there to organise races out of the good of their hearts. Maybe the teams themselves can band together and organise some dog-and-pony shows on closed circuits and you can pay €9 for a warm beer or some cold frites which have been absolutely ruined by adding mayonnaise, on top of your €30 to stand by the side of a small Belgian road where you used to watch better racing for free every month at a range of different levels.

"Fewer races, with the same riders in them every time, where I can guarantee my team will be winning the vast majority! Why would anybody be against that?"

 

[CyclistAbi]

Maybe the teams themselves can band together and organise some dog-and-pony shows ...

And camels. Joking aside you can never make millions out of this.

 

[Berniece]

And it's "for everyone" in the top tier, and if you're not one of the top tier teams, you only exist to develop riders for the top tier.

Who knows at what races though, because all the money is being siphoned off to the top teams, because they're creaming off the profits and expecting organisers will just be there to organise races out of the good of their hearts. Maybe the teams themselves can band together and organise some dog-and-pony shows on closed circuits and you can pay €9 for a warm beer or some cold frites which have been absolutely ruined by adding mayonnaise, on top of your €30 to stand by the side of a small Belgian road where you used to watch better racing for free every month at a range of different levels.

That's not what he said.

 

[Netserk]

For the TDF I think it's different, I agree that they won't have any issues with planning a 200km race. But other race organizers do have issues with it. As with the costs of it all. A circuit makes sense to resolve these issues.

Costs rise, no doubt. So does the value of the sport. It's no biggie. We have tiny races that are without circuits, it's no problem for professional cycling for at least 20 years.

By that time Plugge will be long gone and ASO will continue to reap the benefits of their investments in the sport. I'm happy with a stakeholder who is in it for the long haul.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

That's not what he said.

Why do you think he said circuit races would be "more interesting financially"?

 

[pastronef]

I posted a tweet with an Erzen interview but no source was mentioned. my bad I didn't check. I delete

 

[Netserk]

Source? I made it up.

EDIT:

I posted a tweet with an Erzen interview but no source was mentioned. my bad I didn't check. I delete

Sorry, that was my reaction to Erzen, not you. As in it's a number based on wishful assumptions.

 

[Berniece]

Why do you think he said circuit races would be "more interesting financially"?

Because that's literally the case for organizers of the race? You need less of everything to organize the race on a circuit. You don't need so many people on the road, you don't need as many banners, fences, etc.

On top of that you can also make the race safer, since you don't need to find 200 km's of safe roads, just 20-30km's.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Because that's literally the case for organizers of the race? You need less of everything to organize the race on a circuit. You don't need so many people on the road, you don't need as many banners, fences, etc.

On top of that you can also make the race safer, since you don't need to find 200 km's of safe roads, just 20-30km's.

I don't believe that that was the intent. They've been wanting to push ticketed entry and concessions for years.

A pack of identikit three-day races in a standardised format? Why, that sounds like the same "package a bunch of races that have the same formula and then sell the hosting rights to the highest bidders" crap that has been peddled by dozens of plans to "revolutionise" cycling over the years. We had Cookson's "stage races of six days, none overlapping so all the big guns can do all the races" story, we had the pre-Cookson "four day race with one flat stage, one mountain stage, one hilly stage, one ITT", and we had the Hammer Series. That's three failed attempts at this same revolution that I can name off the top of my head and that have been in the last 12-13 years.

 

[Berniece]

I don't believe that that was the intent. They've been wanting to push ticketed entry and concessions for years.

Something can be good for multiple reasons. It can be good for the race organizers as well as the teams. Even for the viewers. You can watch the cyclists come by multiple times instead of only once.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Something can be good for multiple reasons. It can be good for the race organizers as well as the teams. Even for the viewers. You can watch the cyclists come by multiple times instead of only once.

Something can be bad for multiple reasons too, but I guess your dislike of ASO has got you committed hard to supporting this idea, no matter what it entails.

 

[Berniece]

Something can be bad for multiple reasons too, but I guess your dislike of ASO has got you committed hard to supporting this idea, no matter what it entails.

I'm just not against it until I've heard everything properly about what they are trying to do. I don't like immediately shooting something down, without knowing the full details. It's an added bonus to see ASO being brought down a notch.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I'm just not against it until I've heard everything properly about what they are trying to do. I don't like immediately shooting something down, without knowing the full details. It's an added bonus to see ASO being brought down a notch.

You seem to have literally said everything they've said so far is a good idea and responded back to every comment that criticises the idea to quash concerns and criticisms. That's not "not immediately shooting something down", that's "actively bigging something up".

I can't wait to hear about the pristine quality of the tarmac.

 

[Eddy Evenepoel]

Cant wait for the Tour being 21 criteriums in different french cities. Maybe one stage can be a 3 lap criterium over Ventoux and another stage can be 10 flat laps around Le Bourg d’Oisans and then finish on Alpe d’Huez. All hail Richard Plugge, the savior of cycling.

 

[Berniece]

You seem to have literally said everything they've said so far is a good idea and responded back to every comment that criticises the idea to quash concerns and criticisms. That's not "not immediately shooting something down", that's "actively bigging something up".

I can't wait to hear about the pristine quality of the tarmac.

I said I wouldn’t like it if it’s a closed off league, and that there wouldn’t be a promotion/relegation system for example.

 

[Netserk]

You seem to have literally said everything they've said so far is a good idea and responded back to every comment that criticises the idea to quash concerns and criticisms. That's not "not immediately shooting something down", that's "actively bigging something up".

I can't wait to hear about the pristine quality of the tarmac.

Does it get the seal of approval?

The tarmac was as smooth as a babys botty.

 

[ManicJack]

I don't believe that that was the intent. They've been wanting to push ticketed entry and concessions for years.

A pack of identikit three-day races in a standardised format? Why, that sounds like the same "package a bunch of races that have the same formula and then sell the hosting rights to the highest bidders" crap that has been peddled by dozens of plans to "revolutionise" cycling over the years. We had Cookson's "stage races of six days, none overlapping so all the big guns can do all the races" story, we had the pre-Cookson "four day race with one flat stage, one mountain stage, one hilly stage, one ITT", and we had the Hammer Series. That's three failed attempts at this same revolution that I can name off the top of my head and that have been in the last 12-13 years.

Plugge should get in touch with the Williams brothers. Heard they think that they know a thing or two about that model. 🥴

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

On top of that you can also make the race safer, since you don't need to find 200 km's of safe roads, just 20-30km's.

On top of that you can say goodbye to an enormous amount of local government tourist promotion funding, and therefore local govt co-operation, because if the races don't ride through the scenery such that it has a supporting cast, you don't get the support of the people who you need to agree to road closures etc.

 

[Berniece]

On top of that you can say goodbye to an enormous amount of local government tourist promotion funding, and therefore local govt co-operation, because if the races don't ride through the scenery such that it has a supporting cast, you don't get the support of the people who you need to agree to road closures etc.

So World Championships just don’t exist?

 

[Ricco']

Good point. World Championships have been moving out of the classic "X" laps around a circuit to have "Point A to B" before entering a circuit. That way, they can share the costs between multiple cities as one of them has the benefit of having the start of the race and other the finish.

Compare the profiles of the first decade of this century with what has been the norm in the past years. Back then they started in the same place they finished and only did the circuit, not anymore.

Plus, I'll add that a circuit such as the Glasgow one, with all its twists and turns, that is also being praised by the one cycling pluggers, is significantly more dangerous than the majority of point A to B 200 km routes. And with cities going all in in making their environnement more suitable for pedestrian infrastrucuture and to curb car speeds, city environment will only get more dangerous for bike racing going forward.