But in that case, perhaps they would be better off doing that developing as a ProContinental team? After all, did we really need to see that much more of the "developing" BMC team in 2010? Or Footon?AussieGoddess said:to be honest, while I would like them to get a name rider .... I am ok with what they are doing.
Building a team is about more than just buying in a ready-made group. They dont have to be super successful in their first year. We are now getting used to the Sky/Leopard Trek kind of thing where we expect a new team to be immediately the best. But we shouldnt. New teams with a long term outlook SHOULD be looking at developing over time.
If you're going to be given a golden ticket straight to the top level, we should expect a new team to be immediately able to compete at that top level, and if they aren't, then there are teams outside of that top 18 who have as much talent, and much more history, who are being passed over in favour of giving GreenEdge an easy ride to the top. That's what the issue with them not being so strong is.
Of course, they may announce some names that are pretty strong now and make us eat crow, and then they may well deserve that ProTeam licence. I still come down favouring all new teams - including the likes of Sky and Leopard - having to spend a year ProContinental to prove their worth before being given a World Tour licence.
If they want to develop and build up to being a top team, then that's absolutely great - long term commitment and all. But if it's only a work in progress, they shouldn't be given priority over established teams, until that work is nearing completion.