Dazed and Confused said:I don't buy the concept that unless you have WT teams involved in 5 races simultaneously young talents can't develop from lower tier races. Take Australia with just 1 "real" race on the calendar (and a recent addition too). Talents keep emerging from that remote place (cycling wise).
This doesn't mean we can't have any races where WT teams are involved, but I do think the frequency needs to come down and hence the changes in the calendar.
Put in another way, you like the existing model which I understand, however I don't think its sustainable not even after an economic recovery in Spain.
I think it's a damn sight more sustainable than throwing money at races with no fans in far flung places where the fans of the sport can't get to, and letting the historic races those fans want to see and the riders want to win die off. If the fans can't see the stars they want to see, and have to tune in at stupid hours of the day to see uninspiring, tedious, insipid racing in a sterile atmosphere with no fans, then lots of them will just switch off. And we need those races that develop the young stars just as much as we need those races that those stars aspire to racing in. But both are essential.
And if all the big races are in far-off places, the cost of being World Tour is increased, because of logistics, and the benefit to companies that aren't multi-national big-bucks corporations is greatly reduced. Teams like Garmin or Sky might be happy with more races in big bucks lands, as might other quasi-national teams like GreenEdge or Astana. But what is the point for teams like FDJ, Lotto, Euskaltel, Liquigas, Cofidis and so on? These are the people who've been part of the sport for years. And what we're saying is "you need to pay more money to stay in the sport, and we will give you ever-decreasing returns on that investment, because we are moving more and more of the calendar away from places where fans who actually have access to your product can actually see it"