PCutter said:
Being PT just allows teams to properly plan their year. Using your BMC example, in 2010 Cadel had to ride the Giro to prove the teams worth/because they weren't guaranteed a tour, which left him exhausted for his seasons main objective (and on another forum on this site, this would thus make Conti's win 'lucky' in 2010
).
The Tour wildcards were announced before the Giro. What hurt Evans more was having to ride the Ardennes THEN the Giro, because the team had no depth. If GreenEdge have as much money as they purport to, they should have enough depth to not force one rider to do every race for them.
As for the team possibly being weak in some races, thats the fault of the PT design, not the team, as regardless of being part of the PT, teams like Euskatel will always be weak in more races than they are strong. EE are obliged to ride the classics in the PT programme despite they would no doubt head into them with no real ambition for the race and only making up the numbers under the PT rules. Even 'big' traditional teams like QS are unable to be competitive across the whole PT season/mix of races, very few teams are truely competitive both in GT and one day races.
Which is why it would be a GOOD thing not to have to do them all. I don't think teams should be forced to ride races they don't want to. The problem is that the WT licence is made too valuable for teams not to covet it, and this results in teams of scrubs being sent to races that don't fit the team's goals. If GreenEdge have good depth, this is not a problem. But if they have poor depth, we already have too many teams only at races to make the numbers up, we don't need any more.
Will GE have a chance to win a GT (or even dominate one) - no - but neither do most of the teams in the PT. Most teams set themselves up to 'be aggressive and chase stages' and the line-up at GE should be more than capable of doing that with reigning champions of MSR, TdU, Tour of Poland and Omloop (*all rumoured).
Would it bother me if GE were ProConti year one? No (provided they received the holly grail a TdF invite) but being PT obviously brings advantages in assuring sponsors and riders programmes.
But don't you think that an established sponsor or team should be rewarded for their commitment, rather than being taken for granted with the licences dangled like a carrot in front of new teams? I personally think that the points should stay with the teams, and the riders moving from team to team should accept that. After all, if a footballer moves from one team to another the goals he's scored aren't transferred with him - if you move to another team and they get relegated, tough luck! Again, using the BMC example, Evans moved to a team that he knew wasn't guaranteed invites. They were a weaker team. They didn't get given a PT licence because of Evans - but what they did get was invited to any race they pleased, because race organisers wanted Evans at their race. Again, protecting the new teams by doling out the licences to them comes at the expense of taking the old teams for granted and exploiting their loyalty. It makes it too easy for a team with lots of money to come in, buy a bunch of people with points, and then bankrupt another team points-wise. If GreenEdge bought, say, Thomas Voeckler and Pierre Rolland (not feasible contracts wise I know), then all of a sudden all those points that Europcar gained - out the window. Or worse, say they came in last year, and they bought Cadel Evans. BMC's entire year was based around helping Evans accumulate results - then he leaves, and the rest of the team have no points, because they sacrificed their own chances for Evans and he left them in the lurch.
It's a system that's far too easy to exploit with money, in my opinion.
As for Leopard basically being Saxo, on the rider front yes, but on the management/support, not so much. Yes Saxo's PR officer moved across, but to be team manager, but thats a bit of a step up. GE will have Shane Bannen, who's run the Australian cycling programme for a decade including the Italian Jayco-AIS Conti programme which has been the starting point of a lot of the Aussies currently riding pro in Europe, and been around much longer (he was O'Grady's first coach) and has a pretty good pedigree, as does former Caisse DS Neil Stephens (and probably assume Matt White).
What makes me think the chances are greater than 90%, apart from I think they will tick all the boxes of rider talent, admin, ethics etc. I would guess the UCI sees the talk of a break-away league as its greatest threat (being the catastrophic threat, rather than lots of little threats), one way to ensure loyalty of teams would be to have teams like Sky and GE in the PT, which are closely aligned to national programmes which are also clearly focussed on Olympic gold. Olympic focussed National federations would be less likely to pick a fight with the UCI than the likes of JB and JV.
I don't understand? Having teams closely aligned to the Olympics cos they're borderline national teams helps the UCI control things? But the UCI doesn't hold the balance of power as long as the Tour de France invite is the #1 thing that talks, and the ASO aren't bothered by quasi-national teams. The Aussies already cover the TdF and will do in higher levels next year. GreenEdge may contribute to that, but nothing like as much as Evans' winning the damn thing. The ASO hold the cards, not Pat McQuaid's minions.
I'm not trying to have a crack at you, I'm just happy to see a opportunity for the young talent coming through from Australia to be fully supported in their professional ambitions. And Im not as concerned about an Aussie team cutting off opportunities for others outside "the programme". Our most successful cyclist (by wins) Robbie McEwen was actually knocked back by the Australian Institute of Sport's cycling programme, but he found his way to Europe. As have Riche Porte and others.
But the thing is - what was wrong with the current method? It's not like Australians weren't being supported in their professional ambitions. LOTS of Australians in the pro péloton. Do they really need a quasi-national team to manage that? And if they DO, then don't they need a feeder at a higher level. Or maybe not a higher level but doing a better quality of Continental races? Otherwise you just end up with the same problem Team Sky have - riders roll out of the GB Academy in Italy, not the finished article, cos you don't just go from the Academy to the ProTour. So they either take a few years to adjust or they disappear back to the UK national calendar, and seldom get out. Jayco-AIS certainly are a step up in this respect, but they primarily race Asia Tour events, against a lower calibre of opposition than they would face with more European .1 events. How many of the riders that come from Jayco-AIS are ready to go straight to the ProTour? The occasional exceptional ones, certainly (Matthews springs to mind). Others will either have to go by a circuitous route (eg McEwen) or just blindly hope somebody picks them up.
And how many of these Jayco-AIS youngsters are you expecting to see on the squad? If they're going to be an élite team justifying a WT contract, I'd expect 5 at the most, with a view to picking a few up as stagiares and into years 2 and 3. If we're talking a significant proportion of the team being unproven Australian youngsters, I feel they'd be better served with a year at ProContinental to adapt, not having the needs of a long and arduous ProTour season forced upon them, unless we want them to end up like Remmert Wielinga.