Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.

Page 614 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Surely the management at ISN would have known that Froome's recovery and return to former glories wasn't a given at the time they signed the deal....
cycling sponsorship is such that they are still going to get some value out of Froome...almost regardless of results the signing has already and im sure will continue to bring lots of interest and publicity to the team which in turn will likely bring about increased commercial worth when discussing new sponsor arrangements.
All well and good of course, but looking at the rest of their signings, I am not seeing a team that is planning well for the future. Certainly not in the long-term, and I would argue in the short-term as well.
 
Reactions: BlueRoads
Surely the management at ISN would have known that Froome's recovery and return to former glories wasn't a given at the time they signed the deal....
cycling sponsorship is such that they are still going to get some value out of Froome...almost regardless of results the signing has already and im sure will continue to bring lots of interest and publicity to the team which in turn will likely bring about increased commercial worth when discussing new sponsor arrangements.
The exposure they got from signing him would probably be more than they would get from spending the cash on some fit but average riders
 
We don't know for sure, as we don't have all the data. It could be more of a desperate and not so much of a ruthless move!

P.S. This will likely be judged, based on the success on the Tour. If Ineos takes the win, ruthless, if not ...
IMO there is no “if not....”. It was a good decision regardless of wether they win. I don’t even see the decision as ruthless. Numbers likely reflect what the road showed. There’s a good number of cyclist that can climb better than Froome right now. He needed to be replaced.
 
Reactions: jaylew
On his Dauphiné form (which we now know wasn’t sandbagging) it would have been a mistake to take him. There is no merit to bringing a rider like Froome to the Tour, to any 3-week Tour, if he’s going to be in the grupetto every day. Any sentimental selection taking him along to “see how he does” would have just resulted in him embarrassing himself in front of the world.

If Froome didn’t agree with the decision to leave him out, the 2nd statement would have read “...and Chris will be taking up his contract with Israel SUN effective immediately.” But it didn’t. Froome knows he hasn’t got the legs.
 
The exposure they got from signing him would probably be more than they would get from spending the cash on some fit but average riders
Exactly. It's a time-tested tactic in every pro sport, sign a Michael Jordan or Zlatan or Froome at the end of an illustrious career, get the exposure/publicity while you build for the future. I seriously doubt Froome has any sort of huge guarantee after 2021 -- but I think it would be cool if he tried to win a classic next spring in addition to a GT -- I think he's got a few more big races in him. And it would also be cool to see how he does as an underdog.
 
Depending on who else they could have signed. Froome signing and getting crushed is better than most other riders who would sign and probably still get crushed
Israel Cycling Academy or whatever their name is now do not have a normal commercial sponsor. They are a cross between the rich man‘s toy type of team and the dodgy regime type of team. Nobody really knows what their calculations are, but they probably aren’t the same as a kitchen extractor fan manufacturer or a bike company. So who the hell knows what they consider worthwhile.
 
Pretty ruthless decision, but this is what makes them successful really. Many of the infinitely more likeable but less successful teams would’ve probably gone with the romantic/cav/betancur option; bring them hoping they can find some of the old magic from the depths. The one where we are all willing someone on and they inevitably lose or turn up looking like they’ve been spent a few months sampling the local cuisine.

The carapaz thing is debatable, but the giro/vuelta has always been a non priority at sky. Bernal’s showing has raised more questions than answers, and perhaps in the back of their minds they think they need a plan B if it all goes tits up.

I’m of the opinion that froome is done and has had ISN’s pants down. All credit to him really, I think if brailsford thought he had anything left there’s no way he’s letting him go without the triumphant 5th tour attempt, the parade, the PR, the Netflix documentary, the big nationalist undertones, the inevitable Boris reflected glory attempt.

Thomas likely still has a bit to offer but I’d rather see him have a go at the classics and I think he enjoys racing them more. That tour win after every day you’d think someone shot his dog the way he was going on in interviews.
Carapaz will take advantage of being a quiet #2. He and Pogacar have some unfinished business, too.
 
The exposure they got from signing him would probably be more than they would get from spending the cash on some fit but average riders
It's not signing a rider who probably won't produce anywhere close to what he did in the past that's the problem, IMO. It's paying him according to what he did in the past. Sure, I can see signing Froome for just the publicity value alone, but how much is that publicity worth? Not the same as any rider who was perennially a very strong favorite to win the TDF would command.

Think back to 2017, when Froome won his last TDF, and added the Vuelta. If Contador hadn't decided to retire then, would a team have paid him what Froome was making at that time, on the grounds that he would bring so much publicity to them, and help attract other riders? Of course not. There's no conceivable math by which a rider who was once worth 5 million or so a year, but only several years in the past, is worth as much as a rider who is currently worth 5 million a year. You can argue that his past makes him worth more than another rider at the same current level, but without that past. So Contador in 2017 could have been worth more than another rider at the same level, because of what his fame and his history adds. But that isn't what Israel is paying. They're paying for Froome as he was several years ago, and even worse, paying for several years, in which he can only decline further.
 
It's not signing a rider who probably won't produce anywhere close to what he did in the past that's the problem, IMO. It's paying him according to what he did in the past. Sure, I can see signing Froome for just the publicity value alone, but how much is that publicity worth? Not the same as any rider who was perennially a very strong favorite to win the TDF would command.

Think back to 2017, when Froome won his last TDF, and added the Vuelta. If Contador hadn't decided to retire then, would a team have paid him what Froome was making at that time, on the grounds that he would bring so much publicity to them, and help attract other riders? Of course not. There's no conceivable math by which a rider who was once worth 5 million or so a year, but only several years in the past, is worth as much as a rider who is currently worth 5 million a year. You can argue that his past makes him worth more than another rider at the same current level, but without that past. So Contador in 2017 could have been worth more than another rider at the same level, because of what his fame and his history adds. But that isn't what Israel is paying. They're paying for Froome as he was several years ago, and even worse, paying for several years, in which he can only decline further.

I agree with this.

It never made any sense to me that they would offer him that kind of contract before any racing started up again. I thought it made more sense to wait and see what kind of form he has in actual races.

Now over paying a specific rider for results they may not be capable of anymore only works in two situations. One is a specific sponsor who is wanting a specific rider for a specific marketing purpose or a rider who has been the same team for most or all of his career and his presence in the team may actually mean more than the results he's now capable of getting. I don't see either scenario with this case with Froome. I can see the first scenario with Trek and Nibali.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY