[Green Edge] Shayne Bannan, Gerry Ryan and an Aussie Pro Team for 2012?

Page 21 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
The problem is, if you live in a glass house, you shouldn't throw stones. I've been around long enough to know that Australians and Britons like to sling a lot of mud at each other, mostly about how much the other ones moan.

Often it's funny, often it's exasperating and gets in the way of discourse.
 
May 25, 2010
3,371
0
0
For sure, its an enigmatic Aussie trait, that we more we endear to someone/something the more we bag the **** out of them.

Just don't tell those sheep shagging Kiwis that. ;)

Truth be told in an old maxim, as most realise that you don't dish out what you can't take back but there's an increasing minority that haven't learnt this. It really doesn't translate well through the internet either.

There's a fine line between insults and jokes, often it just depends on your disposition.
 
May 23, 2011
977
0
0
Hairy Wheels said:
I still remember my roommates anger over the Simpsons episode in Australia. He just didn't get that it was making fun of the US many times more than it was Australia.
I remember that one. It introduced me to that quaint aussie tradition of booting wrong doers. It seemed a little uncivilized, but Singapore uses a cane and that place is not half bad.
 
Jul 20, 2011
44
0
0
I've been thinking that Qantas would be an awesome sponsor for some time. Truly global brand, staunchly Australian, streamlined fast and reliable, has the makings for an awesome kit... sounds perfect to me :)
 
May 27, 2010
868
0
0
kcbworth said:
I've been thinking that Qantas would be an awesome sponsor for some time. Truly global brand, staunchly Australian, streamlined fast and reliable, has the makings for an awesome kit... sounds perfect to me :)
And it could be a big stuff you to Virgin! :D
 
Oct 25, 2009
344
0
0
kcbworth said:
I've been thinking that Qantas would be an awesome sponsor for some time. Truly global brand, staunchly Australian, streamlined fast and reliable, has the makings for an awesome kit... sounds perfect to me :)
More likely to be Emirates or Etihad who are both very big into sports sponsorship in Australia and around the world.

Emirates even have a 30kg Economy baggage allowance which they use quite aggressively to attract the ever expanding troop of Aussie cyclists and fans heading to Europe in spring/summer to attack the bergs/passos/cols/altos and/or follow the GTs.

Qantas have excelled themselves in bending over backwards to be unhelpful towards cyclotourists over the years although lo & behold they came out as sponsor of Cadel's welcome home visit last week with orchestrated media events on the tarmac so who knows.

Virgin too may be tempted (and do a reverse Rupert).
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
0
0
kcbworth said:
I've been thinking that Qantas would be an awesome sponsor for some time. Truly global brand, staunchly Australian, streamlined fast and reliable, has the makings for an awesome kit... sounds perfect to me :)
Fast and reliable? More like faulty and has multiple delays.
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Does anyone know what the odds are that Greenedge gets a WT license? I just hope UCI is sensible enough to keep them out of the WT since it would continue the bad precedent and could possible completely alter, for the worse, the economics of cycling and its sponsorship. But I doubt that the UCI will think about this and just hand Greenedge their license
 
May 20, 2010
718
0
0
Barrus said:
Does anyone know what the odds are that Greenedge gets a WT license? I just hope UCI is sensible enough to keep them out of the WT since it would continue the bad precedent and could possible completely alter, for the worse, the economics of cycling and its sponsorship. But I doubt that the UCI will think about this and just hand Greenedge their license
My guess 90%. While a Pro-Conti licence would be no bad thing, I recon the UCI will/have bent over backwards to "ensure" an Aussie Pro-Tour team in 2012. The UCI probably, my guess, see this as good for the brand...Globalization...spreading the good word.

Just on a selfish/self centred note, I have been hoping for an Aussie Pro-Tour team for years. I now concede that the current structure of Pro-Tour may not be the best for the ongoing competitive development of the Pro-Tour. Nor for that matter, may it be of benefit to growth/development of International cycling in general.
 
Apr 14, 2010
727
0
0
My guess would be the chances are north of the 90% mark, much closer to the 100% mark. And I think its good for cycling.

They cop a fair bit of flack about being a new team and going straight to the top level, but this ignores that we're not just talking about a rich guy deciding to build a team with people with no cycling experience. Most of the support/backroom staff have been involved in running the Conti Jayco-AIS team in Italy for years, as well as running the Australian road programme including successful World Champ teams (not just Cadel's win, but Jack Bobridge U23 TT and Durbridge silver in U23TT.

As for their budget, nothing wrong with bringing money into a sport, as it supports the riders who have a short professional career, so more power to them. And globalisation of the sport is a positive in my view not a negative as the larger the audience, the more compelling the story is to bring sponsors to the sport. While many see globalisation taking away from the historic base, it can work both ways with larger audience perhaps supporting sponsors coming on board with small European races which may continue to collapse without TV and sponsor dollars.

The one thing I'm not in love with is the continued move to more national type teams like Katusha, Astana (and GE), however supporters never had a problem with Euskatel or numerous French teams with nationalistic (or regional) bias, but Anglo teams doing it seems to have rankled a few 'traditional' supporters. However Im happy to overlook this given I spent years watching super talented Australian riders ride their guts out as domestiques for 'leaders' with less ability as they were the same nationality as the sponsor.
 
Jul 7, 2010
395
0
0
PCutter said:
My guess would be the chances are north of the 90% mark, much closer to the 100% mark. And I think its good for cycling.

They cop a fair bit of flack about being a new team and going straight to the top level, but this ignores that we're not just talking about a rich guy deciding to build a team with people with no cycling experience. Most of the support/backroom staff have been involved in running the Conti Jayco-AIS team in Italy for years, as well as running the Australian road programme including successful World Champ teams (not just Cadel's win, but Jack Bobridge U23 TT and Durbridge silver in U23TT.
*AHEM* Matthews..
 
Aug 13, 2011
147
0
0
Hi guys new here, so don't won't to say anything too stupid as I'm still learning about pro cycling.

However, I do think one of the posters got close when they mentioned GE as in General Electric as a potential sponsor. They are a multinational, though largely US, company, that has a high profile in Australia. They do sponsor the Australian mens national football team (i.e soccer - socceroos), which is more of a world sport than an Aussie sport.
 
PCutter said:
My guess would be the chances are north of the 90% mark, much closer to the 100% mark. And I think its good for cycling.

They cop a fair bit of flack about being a new team and going straight to the top level, but this ignores that we're not just talking about a rich guy deciding to build a team with people with no cycling experience. Most of the support/backroom staff have been involved in running the Conti Jayco-AIS team in Italy for years, as well as running the Australian road programme including successful World Champ teams (not just Cadel's win, but Jack Bobridge U23 TT and Durbridge silver in U23TT.

As for their budget, nothing wrong with bringing money into a sport, as it supports the riders who have a short professional career, so more power to them. And globalisation of the sport is a positive in my view not a negative as the larger the audience, the more compelling the story is to bring sponsors to the sport. While many see globalisation taking away from the historic base, it can work both ways with larger audience perhaps supporting sponsors coming on board with small European races which may continue to collapse without TV and sponsor dollars.

The one thing I'm not in love with is the continued move to more national type teams like Katusha, Astana (and GE), however supporters never had a problem with Euskatel or numerous French teams with nationalistic (or regional) bias, but Anglo teams doing it seems to have rankled a few 'traditional' supporters. However Im happy to overlook this given I spent years watching super talented Australian riders ride their guts out as domestiques for 'leaders' with less ability as they were the same nationality as the sponsor.
With multiple French teams, they compete with one another. Same with the multiple Spanish teams (remember Caja Rural and Movistar are both from Navarre, right next door to the Basque Country and featuring a mixed Basque-Spanish population - both teams have their fair share of Basques).

The quasi-national team which is purely a quasi-national team is what raises suspicion. Sky is, to all intents and purposes, British cycling. Where does a British cyclist go? They either get stuck in the national calendar, not doing much outside of their home country, or they go to Sky. It can help bring through talent, but by stifling competition between teams it can also stunt growth because fewer people can be leaders.

The problem with them getting a ProTour licence from the word go is that they are totally unproven. Radioshack got one, and they were to all intents and purposes a continuation of Bruyneel's Astana (Astana themselves struggled to meet the guarantees for 2010). Leopard got one, and they were to all intents and purposes a continuation of Riis' Saxo, since a whole bunch of the big names moved across. Unless GreenEdge turn themselves into a de facto continuation of HTC, I don't see the same applying.

If their roster is strong enough, then they will get the invites to all the races they please anyway (see: Cervélo Test Team). If they have a signature star or two, they will get the invites to all the races they need anyway (see: BMC Racing Team). It's only if they have a roster that isn't good enough that they really NEED the ProTeam licence (see: Milram, Footon). It didn't hurt BMC not being ProTour in 2010, did it? If they had been ProTour they would have been overstretched for the talent pool they had available. No, far better to have an impact in 50% of the races than waste an entry at races because they could only send riders who were not ProTour standard. BMC then didn't have to pay the extra fee for being the top level, they could pick and choose which races they wanted to go to (with the exception of Dwars Door Vlaanderen, which refused their entry based on the weak level of the team, they just had to wave a couple of their marquee names at the organisers and they'd get in), not totally overwork their top riders (OK, maybe Evans at the Tour was a step too far), but it meant that they were far more effective at the races they went to - and then they could use the money they saved from the licence and the money they won in the races to strengthen the roster, and become a much bigger threat in a wider range of races once they stepped up to World Tour this year. BMC should be something for GreenEdge to aspire to. No, seriously.

I am in favour of all new teams having to spend a year at the ProContinental level to show their commitment and prove their calibre. After all, if they're big enough and have good enough names, they'll get to race anywhere they please anyway, as per Cervélo in 2009.
 
Sep 9, 2009
6,391
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
With multiple French teams, they compete with one another. Same with the multiple Spanish teams (remember Caja Rural and Movistar are both from Navarre, right next door to the Basque Country and featuring a mixed Basque-Spanish population - both teams have their fair share of Basques).

The quasi-national team which is purely a quasi-national team is what raises suspicion. Sky is, to all intents and purposes, British cycling. Where does a British cyclist go? They either get stuck in the national calendar, not doing much outside of their home country, or they go to Sky. It can help bring through talent, but by stifling competition between teams it can also stunt growth because fewer people can be leaders.

The problem with them getting a ProTour licence from the word go is that they are totally unproven. Radioshack got one, and they were to all intents and purposes a continuation of Bruyneel's Astana (Astana themselves struggled to meet the guarantees for 2010). Leopard got one, and they were to all intents and purposes a continuation of Riis' Saxo, since a whole bunch of the big names moved across. Unless GreenEdge turn themselves into a de facto continuation of HTC, I don't see the same applying.

If their roster is strong enough, then they will get the invites to all the races they please anyway (see: Cervélo Test Team). If they have a signature star or two, they will get the invites to all the races they need anyway (see: BMC Racing Team). It's only if they have a roster that isn't good enough that they really NEED the ProTeam licence (see: Milram, Footon). It didn't hurt BMC not being ProTour in 2010, did it? If they had been ProTour they would have been overstretched for the talent pool they had available. No, far better to have an impact in 50% of the races than waste an entry at races because they could only send riders who were not ProTour standard. BMC then didn't have to pay the extra fee for being the top level, they could pick and choose which races they wanted to go to (with the exception of Dwars Door Vlaanderen, which refused their entry based on the weak level of the team, they just had to wave a couple of their marquee names at the organisers and they'd get in), not totally overwork their top riders (OK, maybe Evans at the Tour was a step too far), but it meant that they were far more effective at the races they went to - and then they could use the money they saved from the licence and the money they won in the races to strengthen the roster, and become a much bigger threat in a wider range of races once they stepped up to World Tour this year. BMC should be something for GreenEdge to aspire to. No, seriously.

I am in favour of all new teams having to spend a year at the ProContinental level to show their commitment and prove their calibre. After all, if they're big enough and have good enough names, they'll get to race anywhere they please anyway, as per Cervélo in 2009.
Ironic that Cervelo is often used as an example of new teams earning their position and showing their commitment, given they folded inside 3 years.
 
Apr 14, 2010
727
0
0
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:rolleyes:).

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.

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.

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'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.
 
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:rolleyes:).
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.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
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.
The one problem with this is that there are not enough wildcards going around to make incoming teams and their prospective recruits feel at ease in the 2nd tier. There should be fewer automatic invites.
 
May 25, 2010
3,371
0
0
Gosh your quick, time stamp on here and twitter reckon you posted within 3 minutes of the announcement. :D

I wonder when we will get a "surprise" signing? With this form, they may claim Teklehaimanot as one picked from the ether. :D
 
Regarding new teams. I imagine that at some point the supply of new teams coming in must dry up in some way so that we get a little more stability. We've had three years now with first Sky, Cervelo and Radioshack, then Geox and Leopard (and Pegasus that tried) and now GreenEdge that have all basically bought a team from scratch (more or less). This can't possibly go on forever and I bet it won't. Though I guess as long as people see that it's possible to do it that way they'll keep trying.

Then again we have already heard of the plan to create a New Zealand team like this as well and I know there are people with the same ambition with regards to a norwegian team as well. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY