Garmin, the next team to die

[ramjambunath]

Nowhere near the same scale as a pro cycling team but the idea of a lot of people putting some money has been done with Ebbsfleet United i think. They are in english football's fifth tier.

http://www.myfootballclub.co.uk/ebbsfleet-united

That's the one I was thinking of, thank you.

 

[craig1985]

Just looking at these team budget estimates from the 2011 Tour and many people will have seen Kickstarter.com.

I'm sure this has been suggested before and I'm sure it was stupid then, but here goes...

OK, so we set up a .org (a real one, not a you-know-who one). We get 25,000 cycling fanatics around the world each to pay a minimum of €299 (c. $419) subscription a year. More would be welcome of course.

If all 25,000 folks paid the minimum, that would be enough to generate a team with an annual budget bigger than that of Saxo Bank even before you look for sponsors.

If and when you find sponsors (25,000 people with all their connections) and you rebate all the subscribers equally on their investment.

OK, so there's a lot more to it than that - like trusting the funding managers and committing to more than a single year and dealing with people like Fat - but surely it's the basis of something that might work, isn't it?

Count me in.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

Nowhere near the same scale as a pro cycling team but the idea of a lot of people putting some money has been done with Ebbsfleet United i think. They are in english football's fifth tier.

http://www.myfootballclub.co.uk/ebbsfleet-united

A friend of mine put money into the Ebbsfleet idea. Of all the acts that led to disillusionment, his is a standout.

 

[XlandaluzeX]

Just looking at these team budget estimates from the 2011 Tour and many people will have seen Kickstarter.com.

I'm sure this has been suggested before and I'm sure it was stupid then, but here goes...

OK, so we set up a .org (a real one, not a you-know-who one). We get 25,000 cycling fanatics around the world each to pay a minimum of €299 (c. $419) subscription a year. More would be welcome of course.

If all 25,000 folks paid the minimum, that would be enough to generate a team with an annual budget bigger than that of Saxo Bank even before you look for sponsors.

If and when you find sponsors (25,000 people with all their connections) and you rebate all the subscribers equally on their investment.

OK, so there's a lot more to it than that - like trusting the funding managers and committing to more than a single year and dealing with people like Fat - but surely it's the basis of something that might work, isn't it?

not really a new concept

http://www.fundacioneuskadi.com/pag/ca_fundacion_hazte.asp?cod=1&cod2=3&ocultar=1&ocultarp=1

 

[Frosty]

A friend of mine put money into the Ebbsfleet idea. Of all the acts that led to disillusionment, his is a standout.

Why is that? Was it a case of believing initially that it was going to be a group of people who dont know each other joining together and moving forwards only to find that you just get the same sort of politics, etc?

 

[Sophistic]

Little to do with uncertainty, there was no uncertainty at Leotrek, there is none at Garmin, these teams guarantee exposure at the Tour etc., its mainly an image problem.

 

[greenedge]

I hope Garmin can do well. They are good for cycling.

Besides now they have Haas. Next years Garmin unexpected top 10???

Martin is expected.

 

[Martin318is]

Just looking at these team budget estimates from the 2011 Tour and many people will have seen Kickstarter.com.

I'm sure this has been suggested before and I'm sure it was stupid then, but here goes...

OK, so we set up a .org (a real one, not a you-know-who one). We get 25,000 cycling fanatics around the world each to pay a minimum of €299 (c. $419) subscription a year. More would be welcome of course.

If all 25,000 folks paid the minimum, that would be enough to generate a team with an annual budget bigger than that of Saxo Bank even before you look for sponsors.

If and when you find sponsors (25,000 people with all their connections) and you rebate all the subscribers equally on their investment.

OK, so there's a lot more to it than that - like trusting the funding managers and committing to more than a single year and dealing with people like Fat - but surely it's the basis of something that might work, isn't it?

the first part is the hard part - basically you are talking about iTeamNova which only lasted about a year...

but then the wrinkle is needing to find a sponsor who would fun the program and also commit to paying out the roughly 7.5m Euro that you said you'd pay back...

its a very interesting concept though

 

[L'arriviste]

the first part is the hard part - basically you are talking about iTeamNova which only lasted about a year...

but then the wrinkle is needing to find a sponsor who would fun the program and also commit to paying out the roughly 7.5m Euro that you said you'd pay back...

its a very interesting concept though

For reference, the end of the iTeamNova (which I hadn't realise was member-funded) story is here in the CN archives.

Perhaps like XlandaluzeX points out above, other current teams might be interested in opening themselves up to donations.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

My Football Club was fairly disastrous for Ebbsfleet United. High initial interest levels, lots of publicity, people owning a tiny share-holding in the club thinking they ought to have a say on what colour cones they use for training (well, not quite, but...), investor boredom leading to enormous drop off in funding in second and third years, so no capital.

Cycling already has too much of a history of teams with a very short lifespan...

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

We should start a dead pool.

The team has to run back to its rich backer to fill a 3.5 - 5.0 million dollar hole in its budget.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/garmin-moves-on-after-bigmat-sponsorship-deal-collapses

It is rumored that another two or three teams narrowly escaped financial collapse this year. The Pro Tour/World Tour plan of giant teams has been a disaster.

the world tour isn't a disaster, globaly economy is a disaster football has been hurt way harder but they can keep spending in debts

 

[Ferminal]

My Football Club was fairly disastrous for Ebbsfleet United. High initial interest levels, lots of publicity, people owning a tiny share-holding in the club thinking they ought to have a say on what colour cones they use for training (well, not quite, but...), investor boredom leading to enormous drop off in funding in second and third years, so no capital.

Not so surprising when the members are trying to run the team. Sponsors in cycling don't get too involved in the management of a team, so neither the contributors to a community funded team.

If you had a cycling team in one of the top two divisions you can draw on global fans who can support their team over hundreds of race days per year. I'd put money into something like this for the love of the sport, and it would give you a team to support with all your passion - not because I want to feel like I'd have stake in a team (although maybe I'm the minority).

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Nowhere near the same scale as a pro cycling team but the idea of a lot of people putting some money has been done with Ebbsfleet United i think. They are in english football's fifth tier.

http://www.myfootballclub.co.uk/ebbsfleet-united

also with swansea city some years ago when going bankrupt. but with a smaller group of people investing 25-100.000 euros, now they are in premier league

 

[Arnout]

Just looking at these team budget estimates from the 2011 Tour and many people will have seen Kickstarter.com.

I'm sure this has been suggested before and I'm sure it was stupid then, but here goes...

OK, so we set up a .org (a real one, not a you-know-who one). We get 25,000 cycling fanatics around the world each to pay a minimum of €299 (c. $419) subscription a year. More would be welcome of course.

If all 25,000 folks paid the minimum, that would be enough to generate a team with an annual budget bigger than that of Saxo Bank even before you look for sponsors.

If and when you find sponsors (25,000 people with all their connections) and you rebate all the subscribers equally on their investment.

OK, so there's a lot more to it than that - like trusting the funding managers and committing to more than a single year and dealing with people like Fat - but surely it's the basis of something that might work, isn't it?

I volunteer to be director sportif.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

Why is that? Was it a case of believing initially that it was going to be a group of people who dont know each other joining together and moving forwards only to find that you just get the same sort of politics, etc?

IIRC the issue was that the same people, directors etc, were running the club irrespective of any of the shareholders wishes. Essentially the same people were doing exactly the same as before but with somebody else's money.

The collapse in interest wasn't because shareholders weren't getting a say individually, it was because they weren't getting a say collectively.

 

[Dutchsmurf]

the world tour isn't a disaster, globaly economy is a disaster football has been hurt way harder but they can keep spending in debts

Football only survives so far because they don't have any rules on debts. That doesn't work in cycling anyway, because no bank would be crazy enough to allow that to happen in a minor sport like cycling.

And the idea behind the WT is flawed, simply because there just aren't that many teams that can compete in all WT races. It would work better with just 10 teams, but then nobody would care because those 10 would get automatic invites anyway.

 

[FreeWheelin]

I am not so sure about that. Garmin has never been a big budget team. They have always been mid-level, even a little below mid-level. 3.5 - 5.0 is a big number for them. They were looking for a sponsor to replace Cervelo's contribution.

I still think teams in races should be limited to seven riders and WT teams should have the option to skip a certain number of events including one GT. Team size would be smaller and budgets could be smaller. There could be twenty-five or so WT teams.

Yeah but all 18 would skip Bejing

 

[Richeypen]

Yeah but all 18 would skip Bejing

And all 25 would want to ride the Tour. Nightmare in terms of logistics. 7 riders per team is the way forward though

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

6 riders per team as in sotuh america and asia, is the best. it will also be the end of ridiculous long and big sprinters trains thank god

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It may, but will the teams bear (or try to) the additional costs of running an U23 and women's team when clearly it will not necessarily mean that they will make a gain in exposure (in these two disciplines). If the sponsors/ teams have extra money, inevitably gained mainly from the GTs and monuments, to spend on other facets of cycling, I think that many might.

Good points - and it exposes the problem of the current World Tour.

The current point system should be scrapped and the emphasis should be on a secure business ie financial, contracts, ethics.

But there should be an incentive to have these teams develop U23 &/or womens teams.
The length of your WT licence should be on what you bring to the sport - not on how rich you are:
• If you have a WT team, a womens team and a U23 team, a 7 year licence.
• If you have a WT team, and either a womens team or a U23 team, a 4 year licence.
• If you just have a WT team, then a 2 year licence.

The teams can have a separate sponsor for the U23 or womens team.

This will bring the discussion back to the point Epicycle made about sharing of TV rights among teams. The responsibility there lies (I believe) primarily with the ASO and RCS, which have most of the money spinning events in cycling. That could create a problem, though, of teams and riders turning similar to USPS (not just in the Clinic fashion) and Armstrong/ Schlecks.

TV rights should not go to the teams - they should go to the UCI to develop the sport.

If TV rights go to teams it will only go on (inflated) wages for just a few riders.

A few very small teams in football run a system similar to this and it could easily work, if as Christian pointed out a stakeholder has a very small upper limit of shares.

The problem though is the inflexibility of the system (as it is a .org, it basically is a trust not a commercial entity). To increase the budget there may have to be something like an IPO and if that isn't successful, then there may be a few problems with team planning which would need a fixed budget months in advance and if the IPO does succeed and investers may look for immediate gains in the level of success which is never a guarantee.

With the current system, it's hard to see the UCI invite such an innovative team into the World tour (regardless of success).

I don't agree with the football model - people usually invest in their football team because of an association with that team.

The business and sporting side should be separate.
As an example - Quickstep had a nightmare season, while I would assume the sponsor is not best pleased I would doubt that they are threatening to pull.
But QS were in danger of being removed from the WT - so they brought in guys with points - ie they bought their way out of trouble.

 

[ramjambunath]

TV rights should not go to the teams - they should go to the UCI to develop the sport.

If TV rights go to teams it will only go on (inflated) wages for just a few riders.


I don't agree with the football model - people usually invest in their football team because of an association with that team.

The business and sporting side should be separate.
As an example - Quickstep had a nightmare season, while I would assume the sponsor is not best pleased I would doubt that they are threatening to pull.
But QS were in danger of being removed from the WT - so they brought in guys with points - ie they bought their way out of trouble.

I'm not saying TV rights should only go to the teams, but a part of it should. That is, after all, the single biggest revenue puller in sport. Again, I wouldn't want this to just be given for the presence of a team in a race but for performance in various categories and their viewability in the field (ie breakaways, attacks) Later, I also posted what the problems may be. The fact is that other than Le Tour, the viewing figures for every other race pales in comparison and if the money from the rights are distributed event by event, then there's a huge problem (a hegemony amongst the few teams that race the GTs).

About the football bit, I was definitely not talking about Barca or other major teams but Ebsfleet Utd as was pointed out in the next post. Of course, football fans have a sense of belonging to the team but in case of L'arriviste's idea, so would the investors in the team.

Also, I believe that there should be 0 weightage for riders for promotion and relegation, precisely to avoid the situation that OPQS have found themselves in now. If Gilbert had signed for QS and they hadn't received WT status, the organisers of the Ardennes classics, MSR and RVV (I'm only talking about Gilbert's races here) would have given wild cards to the team anyway. At the moment, there isn't a punishment or sentence for failure of a team (especially a high budget one).

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Besides now they have Haas. Next years Garmin unexpected top 10???

Martin is expected.

Not on that parcours he's not. Unless they borrow Fabian's motorised bike for the TTs.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm not saying TV rights should only go to the teams, but a part of it should.

Agree - but it should be only a small part of w WorldTour team.

And when I say that it should go to the UCI, I am of course talking in a perfect world sense - that the UCI would then distribute proceeds to all areas to promote the sport. (not line their pockets),

That is, after all, the single biggest revenue puller in sport. Again, I wouldn't want this to just be given for the presence of a team in a race but for performance in various categories and their viewability in the field (ie breakaways, attacks) Later, I also posted what the problems may be. The fact is that other than Le Tour, the viewing figures for every other race pales in comparison and if the money from the rights are distributed event by event, then there's a huge problem (a hegemony amongst the few teams that race the GTs).

Again, this goes to the point that teams should be self sufficient on contributions from sponsors - what they win on prize-money and TV rights are a bonus.


The big problem is that the major source of revenue - TV rights - ends up in a companies (ASO,RCS etc) who do not develop the sport.

About the football bit, I was definitely not talking about Barca or other major teams but Ebsfleet Utd as was pointed out in the next post. Of course, football fans have a sense of belonging to the team but in case of L'arriviste's idea, so would the investors in the team.

Also, I believe that there should be 0 weightage for riders for promotion and relegation, precisely to avoid the situation that OPQS have found themselves in now. If Gilbert had signed for QS and they hadn't received WT status, the organisers of the Ardennes classics, MSR and RVV (I'm only talking about Gilbert's races here) would have given wild cards to the team anyway. At the moment, there isn't a punishment or sentence for failure of a team (especially a high budget one).

I don't think there should be a 'punishment' for teams.
If you fulfill your finances/contracts etc you should be in the race (or WT) - after that, its a race. If a team is not successful the team will be punished by not receiving prize-money.

 

[greatking88]

Not on that parcours he's not. Unless they borrow Fabian's motorised bike for the TTs.

Yeah I'm pretty sure Martin won't be going anywhere near the TdF next year, no point with all the TT.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Yeah I'm pretty sure Martin won't be going anywhere near the TdF next year, no point with all the TT.

Yeah already in this years Vuelta 1 TT he lost so much time he was immediately out of contention