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

[Berniece]

"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.

Nothing is said about less races and less teams. And this is just a summary of everything that was said before. Still not an actual presentation

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Nothing is said about less races and less teams. And this is just a summary of everything that was said before. Still not an actual presentation

So we aren't allowed to judge what has been said about its contents by the people who are proposing it?

"The people proposing it have told us this about what the proposals include, but we don't know what it might include yet"

 

[hrotha]

We already have the US criterium circuit and Belgian kermissen. These clowns are not even original

 

[Samamba]

Nothing is said about less races and less teams. And this is just a summary of everything that was said before. Still not an actual presentation

Why are you trying to be so positive about it when you - as a fan - won't benefit from it at all? More like the opposite, they will try to make more money by milking fans like they did with other sports.

 

[Netserk]

As suspected, rather than value creation, the playbook is destruction, control and capture.

 

[Berniece]

So we aren't allowed to judge what has been said about its contents by the people who are proposing it?

I’m saying that you are deliberately making negative assumptions, without anything pointing in that direction. There’s enough to discuss, but you are also making conclusions that you can’t yet.

Why are you trying to be so positive about it when you - as a fan - won't benefit from it at all? More like the opposite, they will try to make more money by milking fans like they did with other sports.

Because I find that we have a ridiculous business model in cycling and we can benefit from something better too. And I don’t like to be negative by default towards change without knowing full context.

 

[Samamba]

Because I find that we have a ridiculous business model in cycling and we can benefit from something better too. And I don’t like to be negative by default towards change without knowing full context.

A better business model for everyone working in the space (apart from a ton of riders not in the big teams probably) doesn't mean it's a good business model for fans. You are a fan, you're talking against your own interests. Also the whole "bad businessmodel" is just something that managers have manipulated you into thinking (it says enough that they keep referring to F1 as a good example). Cycling does not have to a huge sport (it's not possible the way it is), it's perfectly fine being somewhat niche. WT and most Pro Team riders earn plenty of money. If anything, there's too much money in the sport already.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

So I'll be able to watch the Visma Vultures battle the BORA Red Bulls, Picnic Piglets and Decathlon Disruptors in front of 100 VIP guests at the Jeddah Waterfront? Take my money!

We obviously do have to wait for the specific details, but if it kills of races with history and engaged and supporting organisations, volunteers and communities somewhere else, I won't be a fan.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

"Costing $300-million, the Saudi-backed OneCycling Project proposes a fresh model for cycling with ticketed races, blockbuster startlists and city circuits".

So given the basic principles of human geography: that cities tend to be on easy to cultivate plains, of general by the coast so that they had good communications in the era of trading mainly being by ship, is this to be a series of events for sprinters. Because while many of us enjoy those types of races (and many of us abhor them), that is not the type of event in which the ramance of cycling takes rooyt in the heart of casual viewers.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

"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.

That deserves not to be lost in the middle of a LS epic length text.

 

[Tim Cahill]

Saudi Arabia, from what I can see has brilliant actual terrain for GC riders, they just prefer to project a certain image of themselves it seems, keep the tribesmen over there where the cameras can't see them.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I’m saying that you are deliberately making negative assumptions, without anything pointing in that direction. There’s enough to discuss, but you are also making conclusions that you can’t yet.

As opposed to you, who is totally being neutral and totally not glazing the project and its authors by pretending that we know nothing about it when large parts of what it entails have leaked, and insisting none of the negative perceptions have turned out to be accurate when literally every part of the proposal leaked has been exactly as forecast by its opponents.

Last time out you were insisting the proposals didn't include paid tickets and popcorn when I and others derided them, only to then turn around when it turned out they did include that to say that, actually, this was a good thing.

I know you hate ASO's influence over the sport, but change isn't worth embracing just because it's change; it has to offer an appreciable benefit over the status quo to achieve widespread support. And as long as everything about the change proposed not only fails to improve the sport, but in fact makes the sport worse, I - and from the looks of things most of the cycling fanbase too - will continue to criticise and oppose the changes proposed. Sure, the team owners who want more money and the power to say "no, we aren't gonna race where it's cold and wet or for more than 200km, that seems too much like hard work" will be all in favour, but that ain't the sport most of us fell in love with.

 

[Berniece]

A better business model for everyone working in the space (apart from a ton of riders not in the big teams probably) doesn't mean it's a good business model for fans. You are a fan, you're talking against your own interests. Also the whole "bad businessmodel" is just something that managers have manipulated you into thinking (it says enough that they keep referring to F1 as a good example). Cycling does not have to a huge sport (it's not possible the way it is), it's perfectly fine being somewhat niche. WT and most Pro Team riders earn plenty of money. If anything, there's too much money in the sport already.

A better business model could also translate in better experience for the fans. Also cycling is giving us a lot for not a lot of money. I don't mind it costing us something. I actually want cycling to become bigger, it's the most beautiful sport in the world. More people should enjoy it.

As opposed to you, who is totally being neutral and totally not glazing the project and its authors by pretending that we know nothing about it when large parts of what it entails have leaked, and insisting none of the negative perceptions have turned out to be accurate when literally every part of the proposal leaked has been exactly as forecast by its opponents.

Last time out you were insisting the proposals didn't include paid tickets and popcorn when I and others derided them, only to then turn around when it turned out they did include that to say that, actually, this was a good thing.

I know you hate ASO's influence over the sport, but change isn't worth embracing just because it's change; it has to offer an appreciable benefit over the status quo to achieve widespread support. And as long as everything about the change proposed not only fails to improve the sport, but in fact makes the sport worse, I - and from the looks of things most of the cycling fanbase too - will continue to criticise and oppose the changes proposed. Sure, the team owners who want more money and the power to say "no, we aren't gonna race where it's cold and wet or for more than 200km, that seems too much like hard work" will be all in favour, but that ain't the sport most of us fell in love with.

When did I insist that it wouldn't include paid tickets? I honestly can't remember that anymore. I also don't see an issue with paid tickets. I know that goes in against what cycling used to be, but if you're going to do more circuit races, with great locations where you see the riders more often, I don't mind it being paid. Since that will also help the race organizers who hopefully translate that extra money in more safe circuits (materials, people), and obviously more money for the riders, teams riding it.

 

[Potomac]

Saudi Arabia, from what I can see has brilliant actual terrain for GC riders, they just prefer to project a certain image of themselves it seems, keep the tribesmen over there where the cameras can't see them.

You can come with great profiles in the Saudi Arabian peninsula but iis is not very photogenic. A big of watching cycling for me is seeing vineyards and fields of grain, lavender, cows, lush forests, old world villages, etc. Well that's my onion. Desert landscapes can be beautiful, I think Lawrence of Arabia had amazing cinematography, but I haven't seen anything watching cycling races there.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

A better business model could also translate in better experience for the fans. Also cycling is giving us a lot for not a lot of money. I don't mind it costing us something. I actually want cycling to become bigger, it's the most beautiful sport in the world. More people should enjoy it.


When did I insist that it wouldn't include paid tickets? I honestly can't remember that anymore. I also don't see an issue with paid tickets. I know that goes in against what cycling used to be, but if you're going to do more circuit races, with great locations where you see the riders more often, I don't mind it being paid. Since that will also help the race organizers who hopefully translate that extra money in more safe circuits (materials, people), and obviously more money for the riders, teams riding it.

"great locations" meaning "pan-flat city centre circuits" according to what we know.

Closing down of which is likely to cost more to secure. Hell, the 2014 World Championships bankrupted the city of Ponferrada, and that's the lovely cheap circuit race that is apparently the future. Maybe they weren't charging people enough to see Simon Gerrans do nothing and then cry in the press that other people didn't drag him up to the front.

Yea, I don't buy it. And as somebody who's caught flights to other countries to take buses and trains to the middle of nowhere and walk for two hours up a mountainside to watch races pass, and as someone who watched stage 5 of the 2012 Vuelta a España, a circuit race around a city, from the roadside, I know which spectacle was worth my spending money on and which was not, and it's not the one that One Cycling is proposing to be the future.

That stage also had Alejandro Valverde, Alberto Contador, Joaquím Rodríguez, Chris Froome, Damiano Cunego, Nairo Quintana, Igor Antón, Tom Dumoulin, Philippe Gilbert, Rigoberto Urán, Denis Menchov, Richie Porte, Nacer Bouhanni, John Degenkolb and Elia Viviani in it, so the star power was perfectly fine too.

 

[Samamba]

A better business model could also translate in better experience for the fans. Also cycling is giving us a lot for not a lot of money. I don't mind it costing us something. I actually want cycling to become bigger, it's the most beautiful sport in the world. More people should enjoy it.

If you want it to become bigger by changing what the sport is you're simply not a cycling fan.

Also tell me how then. In what way can a businessmodel be better for the fans than the money coming from sponsoring and it being free to watch?

Your sport also does not get bigger by putting it behind even more paywalls btw. Just ask MotoGP fans.

 

[Potomac]

If only Taylor Swift would start boinking Powless or Jorgenson.

Then cycling fans would become legion. And TV viewership would skyrocket, so the traditional notion of sponsorship would become very lucrative.

(I think both these dudes owe me a beer for my suggestion)

 

[Berniece]

"great locations" meaning "pan-flat city centre circuits" according to what we know.

Closing down of which is likely to cost more to secure. Hell, the 2014 World Championships bankrupted the city of Ponferrada, and that's the lovely cheap circuit race that is apparently the future. Maybe they weren't charging people enough to see Simon Gerrans do nothing and then cry in the press that other people didn't drag him up to the front.

Because all WC races are pan-flat…most of them on a circuit. Or some Italian fall classics, also pan flat on those circuits… it’s by using such absolutes that I don’t feel you are being honest.

If you want it to become bigger by changing what the sport is you're simply not a cycling fan.

Also tell me how then. In what way can a businessmodel be better for the fans than the money coming from sponsoring and it being free to watch?

Your sport also does not get bigger by putting it behind even more paywalls btw. Just ask MotoGP fans.

Maybe we just have a different opinion about what cycling is? For me it’s about the race, and the competition.

Look at De Ronde, they changed the parcours, made it so that fans could watch the riders more often, while charging VIP’s. Resulted in better experience for fans while earning more as the organiser.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Because all WC races are pan-flat…most of them on a circuit. Or some Italian fall classics, also pan flat on those circuits… it’s by using such absolutes that I don’t feel you are being honest.

And by refusing to acknowledge discussion of the parts that have been leaked or outright stated by the likes of Plugge in the press, and instead insisting that we aren't allowed to have opinions until they do a formal presentation, and by moulding your opinion around what Plugge states and dismissing any and all criticism and glazing the proposals regardless of what they entail, and by outright stating that you will embrace change solely because you dislike ASO, I feel that you are a dishonest shill. You've decided that whatever this is, it is good and are sticking firmly to that stance regardless of what mental contortions it takes.

We weren't allowed to think the proposals would involve paid tickets and popcorn, until it was revealed they would, at which point you thought it was a good idea. We weren't allowed to say it was designed solely around the owners of the big teams trying to shut people out of their little club, and you're still clinging to that one to this day despite the fact that literally everything that's come out about the project involves zero provision for helping any race or team below the cartel. We weren't allowed to think it would mean mutilating the calendar for a set of fixed-format races, until it was revealed they would, and you decided it was a good idea.

We weren't allowed to see the fact that none of this proposal revealed so far is original, but instead just a Greatest Hits collection of previous failed attempts by the richest people in the sport to make themselves richer, and draw conclusions about what that meant. That was beyond the pale for you. Taking the way the sport has been for a century out back and giving it the Ol' Yeller treatment, screwing fans over, screwing small teams and races over and re-inventing the Hammer Series wasn't beyond the pale, but recognising that parts of this proposal bore resemblance to previous proposals from McQuaid, Cookson, Vaughters and Velon - and that all of those proposals were deeply unpopular with the fanbase and ultimately failed, and saying as much - that was going TOO FAR and needed rebuking because we don't want people getting wind that people think Richard Plugge isn't hopping into bed with the Saudi government out of altruism.

 

[Berniece]

And by refusing to acknowledge discussion of the parts that have been leaked or outright stated by the likes of Plugge in the press, and instead insisting that we aren't allowed to have opinions until they do a formal presentation, and by moulding your opinion around what Plugge states and dismissing any and all criticism and glazing the proposals regardless of what they entail, and by outright stating that you will embrace change solely because you dislike ASO, I feel that you are a dishonest shill. You've decided that whatever this is, it is good and are sticking firmly to that stance regardless of what mental contortions it takes.

You think I'm going to like something purely because I dislike ASO? That's childish. I'm also not saying that whatever this is, it is good. I've said numerous times that I'm looking forward to the complete proposal, and that I'm keeping an open mind. Could well be that I dislike the end result.

Parts like more circuit races, seeing the riders more often, more safe races, is all fine for me. I don't have an issue with that if that can improve the business model.

 

[yaco]

Cycling is doing OK with teams having bufgets over 50+ millions. Riders are well paid and new races are entering the market. I doubt that you need One Cycling but if you go down that path then the investment should be arounf 500 million.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

You think I'm going to like something purely because I dislike ASO? That's childish. I'm also not saying that whatever this is, it is good. I've said numerous times that I'm looking forward to the complete proposal, and that I'm keeping an open mind. Could well be that I dislike the end result.

Parts like more circuit races, seeing the riders more often, more safe races, is all fine for me. I don't have an issue with that if that can improve the business model.

When you say things like this:

I dislike ASO, and I dislike the current business model, so I’m all for a change when it comes to that.

It's an added bonus to see ASO being brought down a notch.

It's very easy to see why somebody might see it this way.

You've not just said you're looking forward to the complete proposal and "keeping an open mind", you've actively promoted every suggestion of what it includes so far as being positive, parroted the talking points better than a paid PR agent for Plugge, and gone out of your way to dismiss any and all criticism, because apparently we aren't allowed to criticise any of the things we DO know about the proposal.

 

[Berniece]

When you say things like this:


It's very easy to see why somebody might see it this way.

You've not just said you're looking forward to the complete proposal and "keeping an open mind", you've actively promoted every suggestion of what it includes so far as being positive, parroted the talking points better than a paid PR agent for Plugge, and gone out of your way to dismiss any and all criticism, because apparently we aren't allowed to criticise any of the things we DO know about the proposal.

If you're going to keep speaking in absolutes, than let's just drop the discussion. It's not worth it. Just like I never said I only like this because I dislike ASO, I also never said you can't discuss the proposal. If those are the conclusions you are drawing from what I'm writing, then I'll just ignore you in this thread. You are misquoting, and misrepresenting me.

 

[Mayomaniac]

I really need to contact them and sell them my idea that is clearly better than scripted crits.

 

[pastronef]

If only Taylor Swift would start boinking Powless or Jorgenson.

Then cycling fans would become legion. And TV viewership would skyrocket, so the traditional notion of sponsorship would become very lucrative.

(I think both these dudes owe me a beer for my suggestion)

well let's hope she bangs Powless, it would add the native-american nations into to TV viewership numbers!