Changing the Business Model of Pro Cycling

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
More Strides than Rides said:
I was pretty negative, wasn't I.

The right rebuttal to my post is, just like you ask, "What would you do about it?"

But the answer is frustrating: I won't do anything. Even if I tried, I couldn't do anything. The only thing I can do is spend money one way or another. I am not a part of any organization, team or club. I am not a stakeholder in any way. I've posted before about trying to avoid brands with disreputable sponsorships, but all that really amounts to is not buying Powerbars.

Not to get all nihilist, but none of us matter. The closest we can come is to influence the stakeholders, which is incredibly difficult to do: either they are not interested in us (by which I mean message board opinions), they are not interested in our money, or are so fossilized in their beliefs that they won't change anyway.

(None of this is directed at you, just generally airing grievances.)

The above poster was correct in anchoring any discussion around the goals for cycling. Globalizing the sport means alienating its current hardcore base. Growing the sport means alienating some fans who want the sport all to themselves. Revolutionizing the sport means changing what anchored its hardcore fans for so long (look at Cookson's proposed reforms and the reactions for examples of all of these). Cleaning up the sport means stopping investment in all of those until it is cleaned up right (and also threatening the job security of its leadership if cleaned up right, so it will never happen).

I forget what point I was trying to make. I've also just put myself into a negative and existential train of thought.:(

Maybe I'll edit tomorrow with something more useful.:eek:
Let me try and explain my thoughts some further.

I'am under no illisuion that I matter in the sense that how I post will change cycling.
Cycling being clean or not is outside your, mine and most of us' influental circle..
To me it is more a matter of principle.

The moment that I only post that nothing ever will change and that no ideas will do any good, is the moment I don't care any more...
I've not reached that point yet, but when I do, I will probably not post in the Clinic anymore..
Because If i don't care, there is also no point for me to call out riders, criticize authorities etc..
I'am not holding this personal stance as a marker for how you or others should post or percieve things here.
It is a personal principle. But that doesn't mean i can't try to infuence the discussion towards what to me is interesting.
I'am also fond of discussion, and I do think that discussion is more interesting and relevevant the moment you are open to possibilities, even though things might seem out of reach. If everyone is just being in agreement with each other discussion becomes trivial and irrelevant to me.

You mention your post in the "nobody's innocent" thread -I did see that.
It is hard to do your "shopping" in the world without indirectly supporting things you may not support in you mind. But on the other hand boycot of dubiousness leads to more dubiousness in the sense that controversy might be hidden to the consumer.

So why cast your vote if it doesn't matter..?

Well, maybe it matters to us personally, and this may be the core of my post. If at least in my mind I'am performing thought experiments (channeled out via postings) as to what might constitute a better approach to anti-doping then I can look back and say that I didn't just lay down or refused what might be solutions of validity. Same as I strive to in my "real" life....
In that sense it maybe maters because I feel better with my "naive" postive self.

To be clear I am only exlpaining my own opinions and beliefs here.
I am not saying that I'am perfect and all you others are just negative or should see things the way I do.. What matters to one does not necessarily matter to others. Also do I realise that I'am probably not the one in ownership of the most realism here. Nor am I always able to live up to my own standards of what I would like to think of myself.

Now this post ended up being a lot about myself, and maybe other posters.
Usually I don't like things being so, but I thought it the best suited approach to explain my opinion on the matter. I'am not interested in a discussion of posters per se. Most of the time I don't think that leads anywhere good.
I like things being about content rather than about posters.

So in conclusion I was attempting to clarify my "whining" ;)
So excuse me if it came across longhaired and/or judgemental.
That was not my intent by any means.

Now I didn't adress the points you raised in relation to Roberts post above.
But this post is already too long, so that will be another time..
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Re:

Oleg Tinkov said:
Here is my statement: World cycling has to change... or die, or maybe just lurch from scandal to scandal for another decade as we watch teams come and go. That is today's situation, where teams do not have income, just huge expense that would be unthinkable in other professional sports. Teams depend on sponsorship for 99% of their revenue and this model is neither viable nor durable. This is the origin of the doping, the endless scandals and the whole 'grey tinge' of this wonderful sport. The paradox is that cycling is the world's second most popular spectator sport, after football, but at the same time it is the poorest sport.
Why is this happening? I will try to analyse the problem funnel.
This is how the chain should look ideally:
- income (from television and participation in races) for teams
- race organisers receive MORE from TV channels
- TV channels get more viewers and more demand
- races are an interesting show - this is entertainment
- a cycling star academy should be created and we should work on increasing viewing figures (see experience of Formula 1)
- ALL!!! stars should participate in these races (here we should look to the experience of Tennis)
Of course, you could look at this funnel from the bottom up. People obviously need to watch the races rather than sleeping during siesta time in Continental Europe:).
We need to find a way to get them interested during long and boring stages. We probably need to make them shorter or start to show them later, when there is a final battle.
We need to make races more interesting and think-up new ones. As an idea: GP Monaco on Saturday before the motor racing, and sell seats in rows that are already set up. But it is important that the best sprinters come for this kind of event - the best mountain racers should go to all the grand tours. That is why I proposed the 'Three Grand Tour Challenge' which provoked such a heated discussion - which made me very happy! If you want to have a real show, you need to have the very best competing against the very best. We definitely need to reduce the number of races - noone is interested in these provincial races that get no TV coverage. Here I am talking about World Tour teams - I think that teams with lower status can participate in those more local events and so they do have a place in the sport.
Again, everything hinges on the idiotic 'ciclismo storico' . I agree with Fabian Canchelara - who needs this tradition of 'do as my grandad did'? Spain, Italy, France, Belgium are all stuck in a 20th Century paradigm - this is an anachronism in the age of the Internet, the iPhone, mass mobility and a broad-based approach to sport and life in general. In those days you really did have to ride your bike without gear changes and a lamp strapped to your forehead. We need to cut the number of races, reduce their duration and make them more viewer-friendly. For example, we could have more 'ring' races around cities, etc.
Cycling has to change. The times of Sainz, Bryneel and Riis are over - they were stuck in the 2000s and that is not necessarily about doping. They just don't get some obvious things and don't know how to manage teams in modern way. Managing a team is not just about issuing instructions from a car radio or about casting a spell over the riders at which Riis was unsurpassed, for example. Managing a team is about boring, monotonous work in the office. The day of the boring and meticulous managers has come - guys like Dave Brailsord and, I hope, our new Director Stefano Feltrin.
Directing the team and its riders from preparation today must be driven by mathematical and statistical analysis and data mining. Sport science is the king now! Today the winner is not the one that trains the most but the one who trains the right way, not the one who injects EPO, but the one with a healthy diet and the one who consumes the right drinks before, after and during lengthy training sessions.
It is for this reason that I am not considering the torrent of offers of 'Riis replacements' that I have been inundated with from all over the globe. We don't need this - this is the old way of thinking and it is no longer viable!
We have some of the best riders in the peloton, we have a superb team of trainers and specialists and, hey, cycling is a team sport - let's not forget that. So I believe in my team - Tinkoff-Saxo and in our team of like-minded professionals! We don't need a star-manager - we are a team of stars of world cycling: Stefano Feltrin, Steve de Jong, Sean Yates, Bobby Julich, Daniel Healey, etc. and together we will make our team into a Super-Team.
But of course if cycling itself doesn't change as I wrote above, then it will be that more difficult. And everything will stay the same as it is now - each man for himself fighting to save his own skin. I call out to all teams to unite to establish new rules of the game, to influence the UCI and race organisers. I realize that this is difficult task, and there needs to be more team-owners rather than former sportsmen who managed to find sponsors and survive, earning their million-a-year.
I believe in my favorite sport and I believe in the dialectic of life too....
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
Shall ASO live long and stay strong. If Tinkov and/or JV prevail, it would be the end of cycling as we love it...

If Tinkov isn´t happy with the way things are, he is free to make his own cycling organization. He then can introuce us the "Tour of Russia" with 40 stages a 100 kms. And to add excitement & show effects he could include some climbs up to the top of Mount Elbrus...

Omg, what a arrogant prig. Every time he opens his mouth, only shit comes out of it. Literally.
 
Re:

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Shall ASO live long and stay strong. If Tinkov and/or JV prevail, it would be the end of cycling as we love it...

If Tinkov isn´t happy with the way things are, he is free to make his own cycling organization. He then can introuce us the "Tour of Russia" with 40 stages a 100 kms. And to add excitement & show effects he could include some climbs up to the top of Mount Elbrus...

Omg, what a arrogant prig. Every time he opens his mouth, only shit comes out of it. Literally.
Wow, two drafts I didn't send, and you speak my mind. One ounce of truth, four ounces of BS, Oleg being Oleg.

The business model doesn't only mean revenue, the only part that Oleg seems to (somewhat) understand. Yes, the "mom and pop" days are over. Oleg just picks the worst examples of change:

Tennis: adjusted to inflation, only the very top players have benefited from bigger prizes. And I suspect that it is that gold rush that turned tennis into what it is today doping wise. And BTW, it is when the ATP pulled an Oleg and forced players to play more tournaments that Borg got pi$$ed and retired. For crying out loud, who, in a free world can force the top riders to race all three GTs? Stalin?

Formula One: changes ensured that the big money got a return on their investment. The small guys are nothing. In '81, until the end of the season, drivers from Renault, Williams, Brabham, and Ligier had a shot at the title. Now that Grand Prix in Las Vegas, that last race, that was entertainment! Not the circus maximus that Oleg dreams of. The Tour of Monaco...how about the Ronde of Abu Dhabi? The cobbles of the great wall?

Should I elaborate with regards to football/soccer and rugby? Ahahaha :(

Of course, science is saving us. Oleg names Dave B., whose protege never trained in a wind tunnel and became a monster time trialist. And the diet of course (medium rare for Berto). The right drink, a la Floyd.

Oh my, oh my. I need a beer...the right drink for me now. Cheers!!!
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
1+ Tonton.

Agree on everything, especially how F-1 was destroyed.

Luckily it seems ASO still has more power than this prig. And since this narcissist made the big mistake to dump Rijs (the lesser evil, the more experienced, the more knowledgable*), he soon will lose Saxo as sponsor. Then go the riders. And we may further get lucky with 2/3 Saxo positives, then Tinkov is history in a hurry. Would be great for cycling.

(* None shall think that Rijs is the evil doper, and Tinkov the saint. Everybody shall listen to TH about this issue)
 
Re:

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
1+ Tonton.

Agree on everything, especially how F-1 was destroyed.

Luckily it seems ASO still has more power than this prig. And since this narcissist made the big mistake to dump Rijs (the lesser evil, the more experienced, the more knowledgable*), he soon will lose Saxo as sponsor. Then go the riders. And we may further get lucky with 2/3 Saxo positives, then Tinkov is history in a hurry. Would be great for cycling.

(* None shall think that Rijs is the evil doper, and Tinkov the saint. Everybody shall listen to TH about this issue)
For the doping issue, maybe it's as simple as a pension system based on years as a pro, that kicks in 10 years after retirement and can be revoked if sample C (or whatever you want to call it, or maybe new revelations) gets you busted. There would be an incentive for guys to be clean.

Cycling is not failing. Yes, it can grow. But come on! New races would have to be at the expense of the existing ones. Dismissing the "old world" is just idiotic. Look at the crowds: nothing but the football/soccer world cup can match that.

ASO is almighty. BTW I wish they would spend a few mils and pave the Jandri. That's my problem with them. Just cash in...but lord, what a finish it would be! To ASO, Oleg is an annoyance, a newer version of Tapie in the '80s. Those guys never last.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Professional cycling has always been managed by a narrow clique of good old boys. The good old boys will never surrender their fiefdoms. Unless a competitor arises on the scene, pro cycling will always be SSDD. The riders really ought to form a union (they could call it something like the "UCI") to look out for their interests.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
Tonton said:
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
1+ Tonton.

Agree on everything, especially how F-1 was destroyed.

Luckily it seems ASO still has more power than this prig. And since this narcissist made the big mistake to dump Rijs (the lesser evil, the more experienced, the more knowledgable*), he soon will lose Saxo as sponsor. Then go the riders. And we may further get lucky with 2/3 Saxo positives, then Tinkov is history in a hurry. Would be great for cycling.

(* None shall think that Rijs is the evil doper, and Tinkov the saint. Everybody shall listen to TH about this issue)
For the doping issue, maybe it's as simple as a pension system based on years as a pro, that kicks in 10 years after retirement and can be revoked if sample C (or whatever you want to call it, or maybe new revelations) gets you busted. There would be an incentive for guys to be clean.

Cycling is not failing. Yes, it can grow. But come on! New races would have to be at the expense of the existing ones. Dismissing the "old world" is just idiotic. Look at the crowds: nothing but the football/soccer world cup can match that.

ASO is almighty. BTW I wish they would spend a few mils and pave the Jandri. That's my problem with them. Just cash in...but lord, what a finish it would be! To ASO, Oleg is an annoyance, a newer version of Tapie in the '80s. Those guys never last.
ASO... sure, go for cash. No doubt. But when I see cycling events it still looks like sport. Ofc with all the dark sides. But no European cycling fan with a right mind would wish that cycling becomes true circus a la WWE like Tinkov wants, and to lesser extend JV... If Tinkov is here to make money... well, he should aim for another hobby. If he cant live with the insecurity of sponsors and/or keeping the WT status... well, isnt that how business works? Risk and reward? He (and JV) must be really bitter about the fact that cycling isnt like NFL socialism, where the fan gets milked and no owner runs the risk of losing: Revenue is shared, no matter if you win or lose, plus there is no insecurity of getting relegated after a lousy season... Ofc bastered Tinkov wants it that way: Milking the fans, and collecting cash flowing from the sky without working for it. Must be his Yeltsin-Era thinking. As I said, a true evil basterd. He shall go to hell...
 
Mar 27, 2014
202
0
0
Just one quick thought before we all get on the bashing the men willing to invest their own money and take a risk in life, I see nothing arrogant about what he is saying. Sure he may be a bit flambouyant but so are many of the stars of cycling and they are loved not loathed.
Why does it cost in excess of 30 million euros to run a world tour team?
Because a world tour team is required to attend a certain number of races around the world throughout the year, This is mandated by the UCI.
Why? because ASO will not allow the new races to offer more money and take away teams from it's smaller races - so uses the GT's to force the UCI to ensure that the teams turn up to the small poorly run crappy European races they don't want to do. If we don't get a full compliment of world tour teams we will take the TdF out of the UCI calender!! Sound familiar.

ASO has been holding the sport of cycling hostage for over two decades and prevented growth or any sort of forward progression in it's constant demands for cash. The only reason ASO ever got behind any sort of Anti- Doping effort was when it realised doping would ruin it's income as TV channels started to drop the coverage and therefore not paying for TV rights.

ASO are as complicit in the ruin of cycling as others have been. And lets not forget who would ride in the front car with Christian Prudhomme at the GT's Hein and Pat in all there narcissistic egotistic glory. they are as thick as thieves.

When you have one organisation which owns the golden goose you cannot ever grow the sport because that organisation will hold it back.

A worldwide calender would be ideal - racers could get to race in good weather year round, new racers from smaller nations could race in races as wild cards, new entrants to the sport could be found, new fanbases could be garnered.

But no we have the spring season in Europe that must not be messed with because of ASO, we have the grand tours that cannot be messed with because of ASO. They are not some saviour to the sport they are a money grabbing machine that does not care about fans or riders or the sport.

And how can you relate cycling to WWE - that is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Relate it to cricket would be better
Cricket was dying but someone came up with the one day format, then it was slowly dying because that was too long as well
Now we have 20:20 and big bash and the IPL. And cricket has never been healthier, not just at a 20:20 level but there are more people attending the full 4 day versions of the game and test match attendance has not declined.
What Oleg is saying is right - the masses who are going to be able to keep sport alive do not want to watch 6 hours of idiots riding down a flat straight road while listening to some dim witted irishman continually using french terms for things which have an english name and are perfectly usable.

They want an hour or two of great racing and top sportsmen trying to win out.

Welcome to the twenty first century and unless the rest of cycling and the stolid old school fans realise the world is changing you will end up like the WRC - sat in a forest on your own in wales getting covered in sh!t watching one or two teams ride around in circles.
 
I wonder if you read the thread, Robert Moore. It's not bashing Oleg to break his statement down and expose the stupidity of his argument, like the race in Monaco or his take about science, et caetera.

Your point about changing the race calendar is naive at best: it's not ASO, but the fans, the crowds who line up the roads who won't let anyone mess with the spring calendar in Europe. You don't have a clue, dude. Your racing in the sun idea is laughable. It is not by eliminating things that work that you will grow the sport.

Yes, the model can and should be improved. There are some interesting ideas in our thread, if you want to take the time to read them. There also is the recognition that never ending doping scandals hurt the popularity (and funding) of the sport. Oleg brings wrong answers to a true question, from why riders dope to the moronic training science that was served to us...in the '90s and 00's :)

Having said that, cycling will still exist after you and I are gone. It survived two world wars and Armstrong after all...

Finally, Oleg seems to forget one important detail: in cycling (at least RR), no ticket sales, no $30 parking, no "don't bring your stuff" policy that makes you spend $6 for a watered-down hot chocolate or $8 for a beer. This means that a creative approach to financing must be found.
 
Mar 27, 2014
202
0
0
TonTon yes I have read it and if you had bothered to, you will have noticed I have posted in it before

Also I did not say the fans were not willing to go to the races in the spring

The fans mean nothing - They mean nothing to ASO, they mean nothing to the UCI and they mean nothing to the riders.
ASO do not need the fans who come out to the side of the road because as you so rightly pointed out they don't spend anything to be there, and actually they cost ASO money because they have to put in place crowd control.
The UCI don't care about them they only care about the race
The riders don't care about them they only care about winning and getting paid.

The reason ASO is the problem is that there are only a few times in the year when races can be held in certain parts of the world and if you want to increase cycling globally you need a year round calender, as golf has just done, as Soccer has with its 9 month season and then major championships in the off season etc etc.

The reason you cant do this is because as I said ASO state that if the UCI wont force all world tour teams to send a team to each of their races they will pull the GT's from the UCI and then the UCI business model goes out fo the window.
ASO rationale for this action. Because if they dont have all the top teams they will not get the TV revenue because the TV channels would not run the coverage.

I have said it before and I will say it again - Until those people who look at cycling as this monument and tradition and all pervasive creation actually realise we are now living in the world of business and money then cycling wont change and it will continue to deteriorate.

What Oleg is saying if you read between the lines and look at what he has said in the past is that CRITS WORK. If you had ever been to any you would know. The crowds at the london criterium around canary wharf are 4 or 5 deep and it is only a few hours of a persons evening taken and it gets people who might never have thought about cycling out to watch it. Because you take cycling to THEM you don't ask them to travel to the back of beyond to go see it.
Where are all the major crowds on the tour stages (other than die hard fans on mountainsides) they are in the town and cities as the race passes through.

Crits in the USA have been bringing in crowds for years.

Why wouldn't a partenrship with F1 work?
Triathlon has a race around the abu dabhi and it is full not because people want to go and race there it is full because you get to ride around the grand prix circuit.

Why not ask the riders if they would like to ride a one day race that finishes on a grand prix circuit.
Have you ever been to monaco? I for one would love to see the pro peleton ride around the grand prix circuit there with the altitude changes and the twisty track it would actually be an interesting race between the sprinters and the strong men. Strangely enough much like a spring classic.

You are sounding very much like the old school formula one fans who all shuddered at a Bahrain grand prix or a malysian grand prix because they weren't "Classics" And like the test match cricket fans who doom mongered about the game when 20: 20 was born. Cycling fans need to stop hankering for the world to revolve around them and realise they need to change with the world and so does the sport

Sport has to evolve and has to move on and as long as it sits in a corner with die hard fans watching the classics, then within a generation or two from now it will be dead.

Yes it has survived until now but the world is changing faster than it has ever done and right now cycling is standing still in the hope it will still be here in 20 years once the world stops changing and things go back to how they were. And with that attitude it will become a dead sport because it will not instill any new or relevant way of projecting itself onto the generations to come.

I am not saying I don't love the classics and I'm not saying that the major races shouldn't be revered or appreciated but lets realise where the power is in cycling and stop ignoring the people holding the sport back and denigrating those with fresh ideas just because they don't happen to be english.

Or perhaps because we may be a little green with envy because someone actually has made enough money for him to own a cycling team and have a seat at the table while you sit on the sidelines and watch.
 
I see your points and you are misled my friend. You (and Oleg) can't speak from both sides of your mouth. On one hand complain that it takes too much money to run a team, and at the same time try to deny the right for, say, a small Belgian team to race year round within driving distance for a reasonable budget. The arms race has killed the small pro teams. Look at the name of the sponsors over the years, and see how small regional businesses have disappeared. The deep pockets are taking over. This, is harming cycling.

The desire to grow the sport cannot be made at the expense of things that work. Some would also ask: why even grow worldwide? We are doing just fine. Some would add: ratings in the US nose dive when American riders are not in contention. Heck, a Spud (his name) on the Froome thread confessed that he quit watching the '14 TdF once Dawg abandoned...well, ratings in Belgium didn't drop when Eddy retired.

And, unlike F1, you can't keep a rider's body performing at 100% year-round. Ain't gonna happen. So if I'm Krystoff or Degenkolb, for example, I really don't give a rat's a$$ about your race in Abu Dhabi if it interferes with my training for Milan San Remo. Traditions. Also kids dreams, watching TV, going on the curb of a race with your grand father (for free) and swearing that one day you'll race it. BTW, to respond to a thing (or two)that you wrote, I know crits, I was racing in my younger days. Climbed the Col de la Faucille (cat 2) at age 11 on a rental bike. The same year, I got in the riders' shower room after Blois Chaville with my autograph book. Yep, I saw the Badger without his tight suit pants and tie :) Monaco? 'been there.

I understand the idea of growing the sport. But no one can do it by coercing teams and riders. Your golf example is flawed. How many times has Tiger Woods played in Europe, for example?

There's a potential for globalization, UCI knows it since the days of LeMond, Bauer, Alcala, Herrera. There's money, plenty of it coming since the T-Mobile and Armstrong days, now Sky, and UCI has been willing to do anything to make the big money happy, including covering up doping. Because the big money guys are not in the charity business. With so much invested, having the guys show their face on TV is not enough: you need to win. Ask Bjarne :)

Doctors, weeks of training in Tenerife: gosh, it is so expensive to run a team...
 
Sep 20, 2009
263
0
9,030
Great post! I would argue that cycling has been damaged by this flawed dream of globalization. Unlike many sports road cycling is an endurance sport and requires peaks in performance. You cannot peak for 365 days. The historical calendar grew because athletic peaks were able to occur. I would argue that the UCI change from a World Cup for one day races to today's ranking system that has no logic is detrimental to the sport and to the riders. A tour rider like Contador is vastly different to a one day spring classic rider like vanmarcke. How do you truly compare them? and do you really need to? In the old days before globalization you had many small sponsors but these are going and I cannot see major global companies sponsoring cycling teams when there are so many other options. The Tour Down Under was a great race initially but the payoff to Turtur was World Tour and the riders are suffering from the lack of a decent break. I think the current business model is great if idiots like Tinkoff, Rhis and Bakala don't think you can by success with inflated salaries.
 
Re:

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
I don´t get the point of the clinic anymore. If they catch high profile dopers it´s unjust. If they don´t catch them, they don´t do their job (or protect certain riders).

I mean the whole thing is basically for free if you endure commercial breaks. It´s fantastic action... All good. Humans arn´t getting better. So Benotti etc. can wait for heaven in cycling... it won´t happen. It´s the real world with good guys and bad guys.

From now on it could only get worse if the profit-max guys take over...
First, IMO, you are misinterpreting the clinic. Some riders get sanctioned, others do not and very little of all of it makes any sense.

Second, the sport is doing great. How do we know? The amount of money the UCI is taking in. Riders will race for free. They already do at the national level. The recent changes mean more money for the people that count, the UCI.

And yes, they envy Bernie. That guy makes money. He could sell ice in the polar circle. Fans don't really matter. Media revenue matters.
 
Mar 27, 2014
202
0
0
Well I am afraid for the sport if the rest of the cycling community think the way you do TonTon because like it or not the world has changed and if cycling didn't change to what it is today and doesn't change further it will go the way of other sports that refuse to change and have no sponsorship and no money behind it and there will not be races for kids to go see because no-one will put them on

There are a host of reasons why small companies don't sponsor bike teams anymore - Cost of bikes? cost of Travel (you cant race in just one or two countries anymore if you want to be successful) Cost of race entry? cost of facilities? Cost of licenses?
So the larger firms got involved - and the riders benefit with larger salaries and bigger prize money (which most cycling fans would agree is a good thing)

So we then have superstars in the sport which means it grows further and brings in more money etc etc etc.

So yes please do hold out for the days that the local bike shop has a team racing paris roubaix again, but i think you will be waiting a long time.

And if you think the likes of tinkoff and sky are bad for the sport - wait until the Arabian countries get involved. Because to them sport is nothing and money can secure any entry to any race and any win in any tournament.

Maybe it will be interesting to come back and look at this thread in 5 years time to see where the sport is

I am not trying to be antagonistic or contrary and as I said before the classics and the GT's are great and deserve respect and reverence and no-one in their right mind would suggest removing them.
But as the thread is suggesting to move the sport forward and develop it for the better a business model for the 22nd century needs to be determined and that has got to include the now generation as well as the older generation (of which i am one) and that business model will not arrive while the sport is run by two or three self serving organisations. UCI and ASO
 
Re:

robertmooreheadlane said:
Well I am afraid for the sport if the rest of the cycling community think the way you do TonTon because like it or not the world has changed and if cycling didn't change to what it is today and doesn't change further it will go the way of other sports that refuse to change and have no sponsorship and no money behind it and there will not be races for kids to go see because no-one will put them on

There are a host of reasons why small companies don't sponsor bike teams anymore - Cost of bikes? cost of Travel (you cant race in just one or two countries anymore if you want to be successful) Cost of race entry? cost of facilities? Cost of licenses?
So the larger firms got involved - and the riders benefit with larger salaries and bigger prize money (which most cycling fans would agree is a good thing)

So we then have superstars in the sport which means it grows further and brings in more money etc etc etc.

So yes please do hold out for the days that the local bike shop has a team racing paris roubaix again, but i think you will be waiting a long time.

And if you think the likes of tinkoff and sky are bad for the sport - wait until the Arabian countries get involved. Because to them sport is nothing and money can secure any entry to any race and any win in any tournament.

Maybe it will be interesting to come back and look at this thread in 5 years time to see where the sport is

I am not trying to be antagonistic or contrary and as I said before the classics and the GT's are great and deserve respect and reverence and no-one in their right mind would suggest removing them.
But as the thread is suggesting to move the sport forward and develop it for the better a business model for the 22nd century needs to be determined and that has got to include the now generation as well as the older generation (of which i am one) and that business model will not arrive while the sport is run by two or three self serving organisations. UCI and ASO
Points taken. I'm not antagonistic either. Let me answer to the bolded points:

Cycling will not die. People who intend on lining their pockets are using scare tactics. And dismissing any doubter with the "you stand on the wrong side of history" talk. Like in the old days with the supermarket vs. town butcher, baker, hardware store debate. Cycling is doing well, thank you very much. That's not what the "globalists" are arguing, really. What they want is growth worldwide and line their pocket. Not in the riders pocket. They don't really care about the product either: can anyone tell me with a straight face that F1 is more thrilling to watch now than it was 20-30-40 years ago? Money...

What could be the reasons why small and other companies are weary off investing in cycling? Doping is the obvious. Who would want to be the next Festina, have its name dragged through the mud? As far as the cost of bikes, they have always been prohibitive. I'm not going to cry for teams when at the same time parents have to buy new bikes when their kids outgrow their ride. At age 14, I had friends riding $700 Colnagos. My bike was a Caro at $300. That was before Fignon won his first TdF. And yes, you can sustain a team with racing only in Europe, within driving distance. I addressed this previously. Draw a 200km circle around Lille, and take a glance at the pro calendar. That could be 90% of your season right there...

Adjusted to the cost of living, riders don't make that much more nowadays. Stars do. And actually this may be an incentive to dope and get a share of the loot. Amazing how big money turned Rugby into a freak show: what an example to follow! And BTW, Rugby is not a worldwide sport per se, and it's doing just fine.

Oleg, Sky, and the Emirates. Please don't ask me to choose between the plague, cholera, and aids. How about sponsors like Coca Cola, BMW (they could even manufacture bikes), and the likes? Again, I'm afraid that doping is too much of a risk for serious sponsors to take. That's why we got Oleg :D.

In five years, yes, we'll see. Armstrong will have his ban lifted, race for Fly Emirates, beat Vino by one second at the TdF. Contador with a disappointing third place will get beat up with baseball bats by Oleg's henchmen when coming down the podium.

Don King and Bob Arum come to mind.

As a conclusion, I wonder how the same people asking about making races shorter to get them more telegenic are those who want riders wearing earpiece. Safety? Or in order to make sure the big $ teams don't lose? Someone has to explain this to me.

Changes, improvements, growth: I don't think anyone is against that. The proponents seem to want the right things for the wrong reasons, and by using the wrong methods, i.e. coercion. And they completely ignore the elephant in the room, the PR nightmare that doping is.

Doping ended in 2006. Sure.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Re: Re:

Tonton said:
What could be the reasons why small and other companies are weary off investing in cycling? Doping is the obvious. Who would want to be the next Festina, have its name dragged through the mud?
I think it's more they have to spend a lot of money, and deal with the UCI ineptitude rather than any name through mud dragging. Nike not only stuck by doper Lance, but continue to do so with other dubious sports characters.

Orica's history (Greenedge Orica) is revolting compared to any doping incident or ridiculous performance upgrade in any cyclist in the history of the sport. They are using cycling to improve their image, and only started sponsoring the team relatively recently.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
European Professional Cycling is a relatively small club. It is exclusive and not particularly responsive to outside influence. Profit and growth mean far less to its leadership than power and control. Only an alternative model can shift the paradigm.

The riders won't supply the paradigm. Time after time, they've demonstrated that they are sheep fully willing to dope themselves to death in order to serve their Directors.

The people in control won't change things. They're quite content with things as they are.

Team owners could form a rival league, but I suspect the problem is that there is not enough potential money out there to entice them.

The filthy circus will never change.
 
Mar 27, 2014
202
0
0
Re: Re:

Cycling will not die. People who intend on lining their pockets are using scare tactics. And dismissing any doubter with the "you stand on the wrong side of history" talk. Like in the old days with the supermarket vs. town butcher, baker, hardware store debate. Cycling is doing well,
. Draw a 200km circle around Lille, and take a glance at the pro calendar. That could be 90% of your season right there...

Rugby is not a worldwide sport per se, and it's doing just fine.

How about sponsors like Coca Cola, BMW (they could even manufacture bikes), and the likes?

As a conclusion, I wonder how the same people asking about making races shorter to get them more telegenic are those who want riders wearing earpiece. Safety? Or in order to make sure the big $ teams don't lose? Someone has to explain this to me.

Changes, improvements, growth: I don't think anyone is against that. The proponents seem to want the right things for the wrong reasons, and by using the wrong methods, i.e. coercion. And they completely ignore the elephant in the room, the PR nightmare that doping is.

Doping ended in 2006. Sure.[/quote]

Your completely hellbent on the doping angle being the only issue and while it is big it is nothing compared to the fact that cycling is a small minority sport no-one cares about.

Your point about the local butcher and the supermarkets, go to the UK or australia or germany or many developed countries or many large towns and cities in the USA - THERE ARE NO LOCAL BUTCHERS LEFT, or BAKERS, etc etc they have all gone. because of the supermarkets.

Equally cycling never died in the past - well in the past children didn't have an xbox or ps4 or phones etc etc etc and the world wasn't on the verge of an obesity pandemic that will kill more than the 1912 influenza.

Thirdly on the idea of drawing a circle around lille - Go back to the point I was making about the ASO you cant pick and chose races any longer, You are either a world tour team and race all the top races or a pro tour team and spend the 5 million to be one of those or you are not allowed in, simple. Those days are gone! You might be able to race a local crit for a couple of hundred euros but that is no pro cycling. The british road calender is not even pro cycling it is semi pro at best.

Rugby is not a worldwide sport but it is played on 5 of seven continents and the world cup has teams from all over the world and they get an average of 90,000 at twickenham for internationals and even the rugby 7's tournament (made as a shorter more globally friendly version of the game to add to revenue and allow more pro players to enter) gets 40,000 at Las Vegas when it arrives every year and visits 14 countries on a global world tour.

All large companies want to sponsor MAJOR sporting events with global coverage - Golf is the most elitist of sports with a small ish playing population but the majors and even the matchplay at wentworth are worth millions - why? because it is played all over the world and watched by millions. That is why BMW sponsor it to the tune of millions and why HSBC pump 25 million into the world golf program every year.

The people asking for earpieces are the riders!!! on safety grounds. And if the people running cycling cared about the riders then why do we have so much carnage at races in europe with their small roads and traffic furniture and dangerous racing. In any other sport not controlled by a pseudo mafia, there would have been lawsuits and those races would have been stopped or changed years ago.
Why wont the UCI bring in rules for race organisers to protect riders - because they need the race organisers to line their pockets.

If cycling wants sponsors forget doping (by the way there is doping and drugs in golf) and get with the new global society

Stop being a little club for a couple of european countries and a few men in france and switzerland and start thinking globally.

So please forget doping and start to think logically - until we remove the mafia running cycling and get the UCI and ASO to stop any progression we will be going backwards to obscurity very quickly.

Doping is a nice excuse but it is not the reason money is walking away from the sport.

Otherwise why do the olympics still get funding, why does the ski circuit get such huge amounts of money, why do NFL, NBA, MLB and other stars who are obviously doped make so much money. Doping does not equal less money - it just equals some news stories and lots of ringing of hands.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
Re: Re:

The bolded; quotes of robertmooreheadlane

"Your completely hellbent on the doping angle being the only issue and while it is big it is nothing compared to the fact that cycling is a small minority sport no-one cares about"

LOLZ. The Tinkov negative-propaganda works at its finest. But to enlighten you & cohorts who believe the (wrong) hype with facts:
1.) No one needs to change the business model of cycling. It works fine since 100+ years despite the doping problems (which are only leaked again and again in the MSM, to distract from the golden egg soccer, which has cyclings problems times 100)... Only those who want to get more of the cake shout out loud (Tinkov, JV as the worst examples) against their own sport. That alone tells you that they care zilch about cycling, but their own pockets.
2.) (Pro road) cycling is between 10th and 17th in worldwide popularity (depending on the sources, just google it). Has the biggest yearly running sports event (TdF). Pays it´s stars 2+ million of euros per year. Besides US sports leagues and some european soccer leagues that´s among the highest paid athletes in team sports.
3.) Cycling has the 2nd highest attendance in sports world wide. And it´s for free (until suckers like Tinkov or JV take over).

Guys stop listen to selfish narcissts like Tinkov and JV. Cycling works well. No need for change... Change a la them would things make bad. Tonton showed how it´s getting ugly for the fans when pure greedy assholes take over (see F-1 as prime example).

"The people asking for earpieces are the riders!!! on safety grounds"


BS. Voeckler went as far as cutting off his DS when he had enough of yelling in his ears...
Only control freaks (mostly DSes; again JV the loud-speaker for the wrong things) want it. For the fan it´s bad. How it´s ending? Again look at F-1, where races are decided by the nerds hammering away in their keyboards while starring at screens. NO single cycling fan needs that. So get rid of all the technique gadgets. Cycling works without it. Always did.

"And if the people running cycling cared about the riders then why do we have so much carnage at races in europe with their small roads and traffic furniture and dangerous racing"


How about that: Because the roads are small and high speed cycling in bunches is dangerous in itself!? :rolleyes:

"In any other sport not controlled by a pseudo mafia, there would have been lawsuits and those races would have been stopped or changed years ago"

Yep, like NFL, NHL, soccer, auto racing... all stopped :rolleyes:

"Stop being a little club for a couple of european countries and a few men in france and switzerland and start thinking globally"

Last time I checked, there are tours and races all over the world. Funny, isn´t it... :rolleyes:

Even in the poorest african countries (where no other international sport goes to make events happening)

"So please forget doping and start to think logically - until we remove the mafia running cycling and get the UCI and ASO to stop any progression we will be going backwards to obscurity very quickly"

Maybe in your own parallel universe... :rolleyes:

But in this world & reality, cycling is doing pretty well (see also my first few sentences).

Sorry to say this: You pretty much failed on every point you made. Grade F. ;)
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Your point about the local butcher and the supermarkets, go to the UK or australia or germany or many developed countries or many large towns and cities in the USA - THERE ARE NO LOCAL BUTCHERS LEFT, or BAKERS, etc etc they have all gone. because of the supermarkets.
Plenty of local butchers here in Australia. And bakers. etc. etc.
 
Re: Re:

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
The bolded; quotes of robertmooreheadlane

"Your completely hellbent on the doping angle being the only issue and while it is big it is nothing compared to the fact that cycling is a small minority sport no-one cares about"

LOLZ. The Tinkov negative-propaganda works at its finest. But to enlighten you & cohorts who believe the (wrong) hype with facts:
1.) No one needs to change the business model of cycling. It works fine since 100+ years despite the doping problems (which are only leaked again and again in the MSM, to distract from the golden egg soccer, which has cyclings problems times 100)... Only those who want to get more of the cake shout out loud (Tinkov, JV as the worst examples) against their own sport. That alone tells you that they care zilch about cycling, but their own pockets.
2.) (Pro road) cycling is between 10th and 17th in worldwide popularity (depending on the sources, just google it). Has the biggest yearly running sports event (TdF). Pays it´s stars 2+ million of euros per year. Besides US sports leagues and some european soccer leagues that´s among the highest paid athletes in team sports.
3.) Cycling has the 2nd highest attendance in sports world wide. And it´s for free (until suckers like Tinkov or JV take over).

Guys stop listen to selfish narcissts like Tinkov and JV. Cycling works well. No need for change... Change a la them would things make bad. Tonton showed how it´s getting ugly for the fans when pure greedy assholes take over (see F-1 as prime example).

"The people asking for earpieces are the riders!!! on safety grounds"


BS. Voeckler went as far as cutting off his DS when he had enough of yelling in his ears...
Only control freaks (mostly DSes; again JV the loud-speaker for the wrong things) want it. For the fan it´s bad. How it´s ending? Again look at F-1, where races are decided by the nerds hammering away in their keyboards while starring at screens. NO single cycling fan needs that. So get rid of all the technique gadgets. Cycling works without it. Always did.

"And if the people running cycling cared about the riders then why do we have so much carnage at races in europe with their small roads and traffic furniture and dangerous racing"


How about that: Because the roads are small and high speed cycling in bunches is dangerous in itself!? :rolleyes:

"In any other sport not controlled by a pseudo mafia, there would have been lawsuits and those races would have been stopped or changed years ago"

Yep, like NFL, NHL, soccer, auto racing... all stopped :rolleyes:

"Stop being a little club for a couple of european countries and a few men in france and switzerland and start thinking globally"

Last time I checked, there are tours and races all over the world. Funny, isn´t it... :rolleyes:

Even in the poorest african countries (where no other international sport goes to make events happening)

"So please forget doping and start to think logically - until we remove the mafia running cycling and get the UCI and ASO to stop any progression we will be going backwards to obscurity very quickly"

Maybe in your own parallel universe... :rolleyes:

But in this world & reality, cycling is doing pretty well (see also my first few sentences).

Sorry to say this: You pretty much failed on every point you made. Grade F. ;)
(sight of relief). +1000 on your post.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY