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

[Squire]

I would love it if ASO just tell them to F##K right off and just remove all these OneCycling teams and roll on with the races they got. People would still go watch the Tour in july and the guys dominating that Tour would instantly become the new stars and those "super teams" would disappear into no one cares land.

I've been saying pretty much this whenever I've bothered commenting on the endless stream of attempts by people to enrich themselves by 'saving' cycling. Cycling is the races, not teams or riders. The winner of the Tour is the biggest star in cycling. If Pog wants to be the new Benjamin Dyball by winning the Grand Tour of the Desert or the GP du VIP Tents, then I wish him all the best. But people believing that most fans will just automatically watch whatever race the best riders are riding, no matter where that may be, are severely mistaken in my opinion.

I seem to have a similar arguement everytime I post something in the lesser known races thread (normally in response to a "sh*t races" comment).

Especially last year, with the MVDP/Pog domination, lesser known races saved the season for me. Some of the more fun I had watching cycling last year was stuff like the Oberösterreich Tour on a local broadcast streamed on Youtube. And some of the Belgian 1.1 races were definite highlights. I know most cycling fans are not as nerdy or romantic as I am about it, but I think most fans have at least an element of that. @Rackham's post paints a great picture of this.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Why wouldn't they be able to discover talents anymore? That's what youth categories, and youth races are for. Scouting is already present at junior/U23 level. Just because there are less races at adult level, doesn't mean this is the same for junior races.

 

[Berniece]

You can always do try outs or pick up riders from lower level. The whole WT, PT thing can still exist

 

[Libertine Seguros]

You can always do try outs or pick up riders from lower level. The whole WT, PT thing can still exist

You suggested that it didn't matter if there were no non-WT pro races and teams died because the top teams could scout from espoirs and juniors. You literally said "why do we need more teams and races?" in response to a comment of mine about the closed shop of the top level, suggesting you didn't believe we needed any teams or races outside of the top level.

So what races at this lower level are they picking riders up from? They still have to afford to close roads, provide security etc., and now they don't have access to any of the higher level teams that often help attract sponsors and fans to these races. And are these guys going to be charging entrance fees to their little crits and circuit races too, or is earning money only for Plugge and his buddies?

 

[pastronef]

Meanwhile RCS will bend backwards to accomodate their requests, you just know that Vegni (and even worse, Cairo, the owner of RCS) are already smelling the Petrodollars...

well, this would not surprise me. but I can understand, RCS has been trying for years to step up. I would even be fine with it

 

[pastronef]

And that's what is holding cycling back. ASO monopolized cycling and rejects all new. Only ASO is making money and they share money with nobody. Clown prize money for their races and teams don't care about them.

So not impressed by this and as a fan i don't care about huge profits of ASO...

ASO has got the 2 greatest races, Tour and Roubaix. that's how it goes. yes, there should be a change in their policies, but new sponsors putting money in the sport do it because ASO's races exist. and in any case I'll always side with ASO and not with Plugge and One-Cycling

 

[Mayomaniac]

well, this would not surprise me. but I can understand, RCS has been trying for years to step up. I would even be fine with it

If that means that there is actual pressure from the teams/sponsors for riders to ride hard Giro mountain stages, then it has something positive.
Otherwise, watch out for the Saudi's buying the Giro and then transfering (the first half of) the race to Saudi Arabia, Dakar style.
Someone just needs to gaslight them into making a race with all those absurdly steep Arabian monster climbs/passes out there.

Anyway, I actually think if you throw big money at it then you organize a series of big hillclimbs with mass starts where you sell tickets and have an overall points classification. Because some lame, Hammer Series style, crit races aren't gonna draw flies...

 

[Berniece]

You suggested that it didn't matter if there were no non-WT pro races and teams died because the top teams could scout from espoirs and juniors. You literally said "why do we need more teams and races?" in response to a comment of mine about the closed shop of the top level, suggesting you didn't believe we needed any teams or races outside of the top level.

So what races at this lower level are they picking riders up from? They still have to afford to close roads, provide security etc., and now they don't have access to any of the higher level teams that often help attract sponsors and fans to these races. And are these guys going to be charging entrance fees to their little crits and circuit races too, or is earning money only for Plugge and his buddies?

I think you misunderstood me, because I didn't say that we don't need non-WT pro races and teams. Maybe it's easier to wait for the actual proposal, and discuss it then. At the moment I get why they want to change things. You see it as if the only reason they want to do it is more money, which is a bit cynically of you. It can be both. Better for the sport AND make more money.

Create fixed set of teams, and races, and ranking, which results in more engagement of the public. Combined with more circuit races for safety, having the public see the riders more often, and as a revenue stream. All of that would change the business model, and generate more money (if successful). I would also like to see a proper transfer system in place so that development teams can get a bigger slice of that pie too. But that's not part of this OneCycling, I think. That lies with the UCI.

 

[repre]

ASO has got the 2 greatest races, Tour and Roubaix. that's how it goes. yes, there should be a change in their policies, but new sponsors putting money in the sport do it because ASO's races exist. and in any case I'll always side with ASO and not with Plugge and One-Cycling

U take down elephant first, then take care about smaller foes. ASO's monopoly HAS to be destroyed first for well being of cycling. They are parasites.

 

[pastronef]

U take down elephant first, then take care about smaller foes. ASO's monopoly HAS to be destroyed first for well being of cycling. They are parasites.

it's a no for me. it has to be modified, not destroyed. who owns the TDF (a race protected by the French nation) won't be taken down

 

[repre]

it's a no for me. it has to be modified, not destroyed. who owns the TDF (a race protected by the French nation) won't be taken down

monopoly has to be destroyed, not the owner of the race. But ASO now has too much authority and slowing cycling down.

 

[pastronef]

monopoly has to be destroyed, not the owner of the race. But ASO now has too much authority and slowing cycling down.

Saudis(One-Cycling) aside, who has money to break the ASO "monopoly"?
remember ASO bought Paris-Nice when the old owners and sponsors couldn't keep going, owns Tro-Bro-Leon (great traditional historic race). they created the Tour feminin, the Vuelta femenina, they own Paris-Tours and didn't get it WT to have more French teams racing it.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I think you misunderstood me, because I didn't say that we don't need non-WT pro races and teams. Maybe it's easier to wait for the actual proposal, and discuss it then. At the moment I get why they want to change things. You see it as if the only reason they want to do it is more money, which is a bit cynically of you. It can be both. Better for the sport AND make more money.

Create fixed set of teams, and races, and ranking, which results in more engagement of the public. Combined with more circuit races for safety, having the public see the riders more often, and as a revenue stream. All of that would change the business model, and generate more money (if successful). I would also like to see a proper transfer system in place so that development teams can get a bigger slice of that pie too. But that's not part of this OneCycling, I think. That lies with the UCI.

We've had a lot of leaked talks about what the proposals include, however, and unless they have changed considerably since the last time this was pushed, then waiting for the proposals to be firmly pushed runs the risk of them already having executed a fait accompli to the point where it doesn't matter what they propose, it's already been implemented. Which I strongly suspect they're trying to do anyway.

The last set of leaks had a set of three day same-format races that would "probably" include a TTT and could be taken to places around the world as a sellable format, and with paid entry to stand by the road on the circuit. Which sounds an awful lot like the last attempt to revolutionise the sport, which failed miserably and justifiably, died off quietly and sees nobody clamouring for its return.


And yes, I do absolutely see the only reason for this proposal as being that the rich team owners want more money. Because I see absolutely nothing about anything that has been proposed at any time in the last couple of decades about "improving the sport" by anybody, be it McQuaid, Cookson, Lappartient, Vaughters or Plugge, that has been about anything other than mutilating the sport into whatever grotesque facsimile is necessary to put more money in their own back pocket, or at least in Vaughters' case, protecting the money that they already have in their back pocket.

 

[Tim Cahill]

I quite like cycling the way it is now, don't see why it needs to change much. Few safety reforms maybe, new fans or money coming into the sport don't affect me at all and I can't pretend to care. Ruined British football the stupid money did, the quality has never been higher but it was more fun when everyone was a bit sh*t.

I'd still watch the tour even if it was some butchers and bakers from provincial France racing.

 

[Eddy Evenepoel]

U take down elephant first, then take care about smaller foes. ASO's monopoly HAS to be destroyed first for well being of cycling. They are parasites.

But it’s not really a monopoly when you have RCS, Flanders Classics and other organizers of bigger races as well..?

 

[Berniece]

But it’s not really a monopoly when you have RCS, Flanders Classics and other organizers of bigger races as well..?

You have different races, but the amount of money they generate compared to the TDF is laughable.

 

[repre]

But it’s not really a monopoly when you have RCS, Flanders Classics and other organizers of bigger races as well..?

Monopoly exist when one company owns more than 35% on the market share. And ASO owns much more than that. Of course there are other players, but RCS influence is negligible if compared with ASO. Flanders classics i even don't wanna talk about))

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Monopoly exist when one company owns more than 35% on the market share

???

 

[E_F_]

other organizers of bigger races as well..?

What organizers? Emilia???

 

[pastronef]

What organizers? Emilia???

Suisse, Romandie, Itzulia, Flanders Classics, RCS, Bink-Bank-Renewi, etc

 

[pastronef]

I'd still watch the tour even if it was some butchers and bakers from provincial France racing.

THIS

 

[E_F_]

Suisse, Romandie, Itzulia, Flanders Classics, RCS, Bink-Bank-Renewi, etc

I meant excluding RCS and Flanders classics, but I guess OCETA is a good shout since they do organize two raceson the world tour.

 

[Rob5091]

More on the OneCycling hoopla. Why do I get the feeling that this is some PR attempt to win over "hearts and minds" or "shape the battlefield" as people say. We have n't got to the "ASO, bad!" "Saudi sportswashing, good!" level yet but we'll see after Lappi's attempt to be IOC head honcho.
https://velo.outsideonline.com/road...is-one-cycling-will-it-happen-whos-behind-it/

 

[Berniece]

I’m wondering if RCS gets a seat at the table, if there races will get priority over those of ASO. For example, they don’t want to have 2 stage races at the same time, so Paris-Nice will be moved back and Tirreno is the best preparation for MSR

 

[Libertine Seguros]

"Costing $300-million, the Saudi-backed OneCycling Project proposes a fresh model for cycling with ticketed races, blockbuster startlists and city circuits".
- So literally what we thought it was going to be, but apparently we were all jumping to conclusions and needed to wait for them to explain what their wonderful idea was going to be that's totally different to all the other proposed reinventions of the wheel that we've seen by the same actants for the last two decades.

"On the subject of media, it is thought that One Cycling would also provide a media content pool from all participating teams and races that fans could eventually possibly subscribe to."
- Isn't that what Velon already gives us, and while it has curio value, we haven't really seen enough engagement to say people really give a flying one about?

"There are seven teams pushing for One Cycling: Visma-Lease a Bike, Red Bull-Bora-Hansgrohe, Ineos Grenadiers, Lidl-Trek, EF Education-EasyPost, Soudal Quick-Step and Picnic PostNL."
- So basically, the teams with the biggest budgets (other than the two sponsored by nations directly competing with the Saudis) who want to ensure that status in perpetuity, and Jonathan Vaughters as some kind of tag-along mascot. Hilarious that the two teams with actual Saudi connections, Movistar and Jayco, are not named as being on-board, although the former are in negotiations. The latter are actually opposed to the current proposals according to the article.

"RCS, organizers of the Giro d’Italia and most of the big Italian races, could still be tempted to come on board, sources say."
- So this suggests that at present they are not on board, contrary to a few of the jumping-the-gun suggestions.

The article is also clear payola, as they restrict the entire section on "why aren't some teams and organisers on board?" to "ASO are the ones with the most money so they don't want to share" - and then gives a larger amount of words to Richard Plugge's comments without any editorialising or fact-checking.

"He talked about the need to make cycling more comprehensible, to make shorter stage races the same length – currently they range from four to nine days – and to avoid big races overlapping, something more prevalent in the spring calendar."
- So it's literally the same thing proposed by McQuaid and Cookson in their time - formula stage races, all the same length, no overlaps.

"Public reaction to the plans has been mostly negative, with fans disappointed by the prospective investment from Saudi Arabia, a country that continues to face serious questions over its human rights record. Moreover, there are fears that tradition will be substituted by radical innovation – fans have been clear that they don’t want glorified criterium races."
- who cares what the audience wants, we the existing audience know what it's like to watch races for free, they're marketing to people who don't know that it used to be free. We know this.

Conclusion:

The proposals are LITERALLY EVERYTHING THEIR CRITICS SAID THEY WOULD BE. Months of absolute BS "just wait til we know what it involves" and "cycling has to change, you're being too quick to criticise" down the drain. I said it would be the same pig with different lipstick, but actually it's THE SAME PIG WITH THE SAME LIPSTICK.