How would you fix how Professional cycling is run ?

[just some guy]

Rather than a blanket - get rid of Fat Pat type discussion - which would be a good start .

I thought a thread on how to fix the way professional cycling is run might be a good off season thread.

ie Should there be a World Tour ?

The points sytem

What should be required of the teams ie mens, Womens and Under 23

Who should own the licence ?

TV rights

etc etc

 

[just some guy]

it really is disgusting to see big teams just jumping their way straight to world tour status simply because they have money to hire a truckload of riders or in greenedge's case a truckload sprinters, who gain way too much points in this rankings. . . .

It's disgusting to see a team that was largely anonymous this year make top 20 by buying up Asian Tour points.

Do you really think it's a bad thing that riders who do very well on non-European Tours are now more likely to get a ride on a big European team? I'd say that's one of the few good things about the system. Other teams will pick up on Ag2r's cleverness and there will likely be a stream of riders breaking into the European scene by winning Asian or American races.

I can see your point. The problem is more that you can just "buy" points ad opposed to them being based on previous seasons performance.

It's more of a response to Parrulo's post about GE. And I don't really mean AG2R but a different team in the 16-20 bracket that is so bad that their AT transfers are 3-5 in UCI points in the team.

Don't hate the player, hate the game

Garmin will find a way they seem to have a good model.

The system is broken however. The UCI needs to look at the model and as I said earlier this year the team owns the licence which gives then security. As part of the ownership they must perform at a certain level, follow a code re PEDS, have a women's and under 23 team.

It is the only way forward for teams. If a team closes ie radioshack they sell the licence and the UCI gives final approval.

But this stupid system is another UCI control problem which may kill the sport.

In fact cyclingnews should run an editorial on this imo Susan ?

While the idea is a good one, will putting additional responsibility on sponsors help increase sponsorship in the sport?

The more fundamental problem is the fact that the teams don't get an adequate share of the revenue actual cycling races (the TdF) generate(s)...television money. Vebruggen's impatient cobbling together of the Pro Tour stuffed up any chance of that happening.

Ssshh.. Now now all this talk of media revenue is not open for discussion. If you insist on discussing it, the UCI might just find a problem or four in Garmin's World Tour license that can only be fixed by seeing Pat and Hein a little later with a suitcase full of cash.

Pat and Hein also raised fees dramatically for what broadcast rights they control. Gee, I wonder how that's going to work out....

I think it will because the team can say look we own the licence so we will ride these events and will be seen by this many people in a year etc etc

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.

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.



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).

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.


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).

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),



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.


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.

I should have been clearer, by punishment, I mean relegation and sentence a period of time in the pro conti level.

.....................

 

[just some guy]

Would be really interested to see a list of the riders that end up being bumped from the world tour as a result of teams folding / merging at the end of this transfer season.

Well, that will still always be a zero sum game. For every rider that doesn't get a further shot at the WT new riders get a chance instead. A rider who doesn't get a new contract within the WT probably had his days numbered anyway.

Yeah that is kind of what I thought, lot of people made a fuss about teams disappearing but was just wondering what the actual effect was?

riders without contracts? drop in wages? from a few comments i have seen on twitter get the feeling that things are fairly hard from some of the second tier riders who seem to be struggling to find rides.

not only that but consider team staff. Not only the riders have families to feed.

Furthermore when you get sponsors like geox pulling out abruptly we get these ridicilious precedents. After the disbanded trends we've seen this year, sponsors feeling the pressure may be more inclined to follow such footstops.

It might not be disastirous yet... but from long term sponsor views it is becoming an dangerous issue.

I see little stability in the backbone of cycling at the moment.

yeah there are others two but think that group is just too hard to track. Difficult to tell with sponsorship money as well. Has the total sponsorship of the top 18 teams gone down this year?

feels like the sport is in trouble now, wondering if anyone has done any analysis that shows this to be a fact rather than anecdotal. Did the arrival of Sky and Leopard over the last couple of years skew the market somewhat and this is a return to balance. is this a general downward trend? is it just a reflection of the global financial markets.

lots of people claim the issue is in the way the sport is run and the UCI should change but mainly anecdotal at the moment

anyway drifting way off topic for this thread now. Blaming my friday afternoon wandering mind.

my problem isn't with the financial input. I assume it is still pretty healthy, but rather the way teams are just pulling out of the sport earlier then originally planned. The fact some of these teams get WT status and then pulled out the follwoing year aka leopard is disturbing and makes the WT status a joke imo.

Another reason dedicated long term sponsors should be rewarded Wt status before these big budget bullies who only want to have a dip in the pool rather then long term commitment ( I realize this isn't always the case, but if a sponsor is serious a year or two in PC isn't not so bad).

I agree with the sentiment - there needs to be some way of increasing the degree of financial certainty for teams and riders - but I'm not sure how it can be done without decreasing the number or the size of investments, and I'm not sure making them start pro-conti is the answer (as they could easily just buy an existing WT team and then dump them a year later).

The UCI could demand that sponsors sign up for a minimum of two years, and pay in advance. Or they could demand that the following years sponsorship money is paid by the end of the preceding June so that teams know if they will exist or not the following year before they start negotiating rider contracts.

The problem here is that both of these will scare off some sponsors, the former probably more so than the latter.

The system is broken but what would a better model be ?

 

[Kvinto]

1. World Tour is evil, so no WT should be.
2. The only pro licence without any limitation of the amount of pro teams.
3. The point system similar to CQ ranking - every race counts.
4. TOP-12 teams in the ranking get invitations to big races, others - wild cards.

i would be happy then

 

[just some guy]

1. World Tour is evil, so no WT should be.
2. The only pro licence without any limitation of the amount of pro teams.
3. The point system similar to CQ ranking - every race counts.
4. TOP-12 teams in the ranking get invitations to big races, others - wild cards.

i would be happy then

How would you sell this to a sponsor ?

ie we don´t know what races we are going to ride till December if we make the top 12 if we don´t then we don´t know until a month before but can we have 15million to sponsor the team?

 

[AussieGoddess]

Anyone who wants to learn a bit more about some of the issues involved, and some information about revenue sharing .... this is great

Part 1 - The Man Who Sold the Tour
Part 2 - The rise of the Amaurys
Part 3 - The Tour's Wicked Step-Mother
Part 4 - An Empire at the Crossroads
Part 5 - The Man Who Would Be King
Part 6 - Whats in it for the Amaury's
Part 7 - The Bonfire of the Blazers
Part 8 - Where do you hide a tree?
Part 9 - Measuring the UCI's cholesterol levels
Part 10 - Revenue Sharing as it exists today
Part 11 - Sharing the Wealth at the World Tour
Part 12 - Sharing the Cost of Policing Cyclings Doping Problem
Part 13 - Licensed to Thrill
Part 14 - Calculating the Tours TV Revenues
Part 15 - Salary Caps and the practicalities of Revenue Sharing
Part 16 - Paris

It will take a fair while to get through it as its fairly in-depth .... but is a great look at some of the issues and some facts and actual information rather than just 'I think what happens is crap'

 

[just some guy]

I do think a World tour is a way forward but probably only 15 team.

I think the team should own the licence and if they reach certain levels ie PEDS sporting they keep the licence.

This would mean greater security to teams, riders may sign longer contracts by having 15 teams races will have more wild cards.

The UCI would still get money through yearly few payed by teams, TV rights but a % of these must go to the teams.

Teams must also be involved in which races are part of the WT and get money if a new race is used.

I also think there should be some of the older races brought back into the WT and teams be 35 riders if you have 3 Neo-pro

Each team must have a womens with pay so they can be truly professional and Under 23 team and if a rider in the senior team is injured a under 23 can take the spot until the rider is back to racing again.

To get greater investment in cycling running a cycling team needs to be a profitable venture.

All 1 day races in the WT must have a Womens race preferably run on the same day or weekend and stage race a womens stage race - money must be found for this.

 

[Kvinto]

How would you sell this to a sponsor ?

ie we don´t know what races we are going to ride till December if we make the top 12 if we don´t then we don´t know until a month before but can we have 15million to sponsor the team?

We lived in this (rather similar) system until 2011 season, races of HIS calendar could give invitations themselves. I guess the biggest example in this case was Cervelo.
If you can invest 15mil into the pro team, you can gather the squad for exact races you want to be invited to. On the other hand I don't believe you can't make a top-12 with a 15mil
EDIT: OK, i would be happy even with top-15, but not 18

 

[ramjambunath]

Firstly, good thread and good work on the moving of the posts, far too many threads were getting hijacked by this.

The idea of a WT isn't wrong in any way in my opinion. If invites to races were left solely to the organiser's discretion, it would be sorely misused (as we saw with a few wild cards).

I mentioned in one of the quoted posts what I feel about the points system. There's clearly a problem as QS, who were rubbish and a tad unlucky this year, shows. The team did nothing of note for most of the season yet their management and riders (who were riding this year) are rewarded with another year in the WT just because they got a financial steroid package. Where was the incentive towards the end of the season for them to go 100% every race, they have clearly been waiting for next year as a fresh start.

The team runs to the sponsors' whims (HTC, Geox) and if they pull out at an inconvenient time, the team inevitably tanks. To be fair to most sponsors, cycling isn't the sport one would go to first to advertise their products and Geox (I think) is involved with Red Bull F1, which would give them much more exposure. In this case, the organisers particularly the ASO and RCS, have to share a level of the TV rights with the teams (how much? I'm not sure).

Also after some thinking, if this system was in place and if the teams had a steady source of income, I'm sure the teams (not all) could be in a position to afford an U23 and women's team as well. In the current system, I'm not sure that is likely with most teams.

One point that hasn't been mentioned is a Professional Riders Union, or something of that sort. We've seen a merger, which temporarily left a clutch of riders unemployed and a sponsor pulling out at the very last moment. We've heard the views of individual riders, like Posthuma, but we've never heard from the riders as a unit but as adversaries only (as Contador's I fear RSNT team). All sports have Professional players unions and in some countries (WI in cricket) it is so strong that it even challenges the authority of the board. Of course, a limit should be maintained but the voices of the riders has been drowned out in the hullabaloo in the last few months. The UCI has proven itself incompetent in taking big decisions and if the Union is strong enough, then (maybe just) there is a chance of it coercing the UCI into taking the riders' and staff's rights into consideration before granting licenses (RSNT) or doing a Geox.

 

[just some guy]

Firstly, good thread and good work on the moving of the posts, far too many threads were getting hijacked by this.

The idea of a WT isn't wrong in any way in my opinion. If invites to races were left solely to the organiser's discretion, it would be sorely misused (as we saw with a few wild cards).

I mentioned in one of the quoted posts what I feel about the points system. There's clearly a problem as QS, who were rubbish and a tad unlucky this year, shows. The team did nothing of note for most of the season yet their management and riders (who were riding this year) are rewarded with another year in the WT just because they got a financial steroid package. Where was the incentive towards the end of the season for them to go 100% every race, they have clearly been waiting for next year as a fresh start.

The team runs to the sponsors' whims (HTC, Geox) and if they pull out at an inconvenient time, the team inevitably tanks. To be fair to most sponsors, cycling isn't the sport one would go to first to advertise their products and Geox (I think) is involved with Red Bull F1, which would give them much more exposure. In this case, the organisers particularly the ASO and RCS, have to share a level of the TV rights with the teams (how much? I'm not sure).

Also after some thinking, if this system was in place and if the teams had a steady source of income, I'm sure the teams (not all) could be in a position to afford an U23 and women's team as well. In the current system, I'm not sure that is likely with most teams.

One point that hasn't been mentioned is a Professional Riders Union, or something of that sort. We've seen a merger, which temporarily left a clutch of riders unemployed and a sponsor pulling out at the very last moment. We've heard the views of individual riders, like Posthuma, but we've never heard from the riders as a unit but as adversaries only (as Contador's I fear RSNT team). All sports have Professional players unions and in some countries (WI in cricket) it is so strong that it even challenges the authority of the board. Of course, a limit should be maintained but the voices of the riders has been drowned out in the hullabaloo in the last few months. The UCI has proven itself incompetent in taking big decisions and if the Union is strong enough, then (maybe just) there is a chance of it coercing the UCI into taking the riders' and staff's rights into consideration before granting licenses (RSNT) or doing a Geox.

There is a cyclist union - but is not strong at all.

Most cyclist will find a team but at a lower pay in some cases - the people who lose the most are the mechanics bus drivers etc

PS thanks for the Thanks

 

[ramjambunath]

There is a cyclist union - but is not strong at all.

Most cyclist will find a team but at a lower pay in some cases - the people who lose the most are the mechanics bus drivers etc

PS thanks for the Thanks

I stand corrected on the Union, but still it seems mute to anything happening in the world. If the riders themselves aren't united, then there's no reason for sponsors to care about their well being.

Well staff ala mechanics in cycling teams have something significant in their CVs and can easily get into bicycle maintenance (through a company or personally). I understand that it's not the case for all staff and for them the immediate aftermath of a merger or collapse is shocking.

The few riders that don't find jobs have massive problems though, don't they. Riders spend most of their life riding and don't have many skills apart from that and as Ricco's (I know it's an extreme) case shows, the guy's so lost that he wanted to become a barman. Even then he may have been problems taking correct orders.

 

[Anonymous]

1. World Tour is evil, so no WT should be.
2. The only pro licence without any limitation of the amount of pro teams.
3. The point system similar to CQ ranking - every race counts.
4. TOP-12 teams in the ranking get invitations to big races, others - wild cards.

i would be happy then

ditto

italian teams with italian sponsors should be free to concentrate their efforts on the italian race scene and not be going to random places like beijing.

I would still like to see divisions of teams, top level, mid level, and continental, but with the only impact on racing being the organisers obligation to invite x amount of teams for x rank of races. ie. GT's 16 top level 8 mid level, smaller races, 12 top level, 6 mid level, 2 lower level etc etc.

 

[auscyclefan94]

it won't be fixed, there aren't enough people in there with the want to change things for the sport. As long as the people in the top jobs wallets get fatter, that's all that matters.

 

[Fus087]

1. World Tour is evil, so no WT should be.
2. The only pro licence without any limitation of the amount of pro teams.
3. The point system similar to CQ ranking - every race counts.
4. TOP-12 teams in the ranking get invitations to big races, others - wild cards.

i would be happy then

Just what I was about to say.

This is 99,5% like the old World Cup & World Ranking system used until 2004.
Back then there were 30 division 1 teams, with a varying number of division 2 teams and also a division 3.
All D1 teams could enter all World Cup races, but as some would opt not to do so the fields weren't bigger than today. Organisers could invite D2 teams if there weren't 25 D1 teams already.
The top-10 teams in the previous year's world ranking were sure of GT participation (but could still refuse if they wanted to), the remaining places were decided by the organiser. Of course there were some debatable decisions (the Tour not inviting world champion Cipollini in 2003 is but one example), but we have these today too.
And CQ-Ranking is basically a continuation of the world ranking anyway.

Why did they fix what wasn't really broken?

How would you sell this to a sponsor ?

ie we don´t know what races we are going to ride till December if we make the top 12 if we don´t then we don´t know until a month before but can we have 15million to sponsor the team?

Isn't 15 million a bit much?
The average budget of a ProTeam right now is probably closer to 7-8 million. And before the ProTour it was lower still, as riders were spread out over a greater amount of teams.
I guess the average salary was lower too. I'm not saying everything has been good under the old system, but looking back at it now it looks better than what we have now.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

I'm not really sure I could do better, as it takes a number of people to make change.

But I wouldn't do what the UCI are doing.

For one the emphasis on WT points is a shame, too much emphasis on results. While for example a team like Vacs. might not be ranking in the wins, they animate races... the current system as far as I can tell only discourages this type of riding. Results aren't everything. And cycling wont win fans having the riders wait for the final few km to actually do something.

Another shame is the influence the new system is having on the transfers. But this has been discussed to death.

And definitely making teams like euskatel ride the cobbles is just plain stupid. If this is the case, reduce the number of teams and reward WT status to only very balanced teams (i.e sky, rabo etc). Plus the number of WT teams is a joke anyway, let organizers have more say in the teams whom participate.

 

[just some guy]

From the front page Mr G4 Speaks out.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lequatre-calls-for-change-to-worldtour-points-system

UCI WorldTour points have proved a valuable commodity for riders searching for teams in the final weeks of the season, but Geoffroy Lequatre believes that the fabric of the sport risks being irrevocably damaged unless changes are made to the current system.

Lequatre has proposed a novel solution to the paradox that often sees riders surplus to requirements at a team expressly because of the work they have done for the cause.

“Even if you help someone win the Tour de France, you don’t get any points,” he said. “I think if a leader wins a race, some of the points should go to the riders who rode for him. It’s what already happens with prize money and we need some system like that for points. We need to find balance.

When you see cycling on TV, it looks like something really human. Within cycling, it’s not human like that. It’s a real business, people look out for themselves, and it can be two-faced.”

 

[ramjambunath]

Domestiques definitely need to get their due recognition, which doesn't happen in the current system.

Of course someone was going to make a statement about this, and credit to g4 for doing it. The problem though comes with the nitty grit ties.

Hypothetically (I'm getting into this world too often), in a sprint stage if one team does all the work and sets up a proper sprint train for their sprinter and the sprinter stuffs up and another sprinter from another team pounces to take victory after not much effort from his team, do his team mates deserve domestique points.

Also, what if a team has a set of great domestiques but the leader is quite clearly second best to another rider who doesn't have a strong team to support him. Would the latter rider's team deserve points.

It's just a couple of observations, but in essence there has to be a system to reward to an extent domestiques.

 

[Jukebox]

And definitely making teams like euskatel ride the cobbles is just plain stupid. If this is the case, reduce the number of teams and reward WT status to only very balanced teams (i.e sky, rabo etc). Plus the number of WT teams is a joke anyway, let organizers have more say in the teams whom participate.

I agree with this part pretty strongly. I think there should be a small 1st division of 10 or so that have a structure similar to the current world tour teams. These teams should have riders that can (or have) score in one day races as well as stage races. Like TLR said, Rabo and Sky are good examples because of the diversity of their lineups. The advantage of this system is that it will give a few teams that likely have big money sponsors the guarantee of Tour participation among other races. It will also make the race organizers happy because they should have the ability to control about half of who is invited to their races.

This system would have to function with a fairly large 2nd division of teams that would make up the pool of wildcard teams for the current high level races. Teams like Euskaltel and Quickstep would do well in this division because they could avoid races like Roubaix in the case of the Basques or the Giro for the blue guys. These teams could operate under smaller budgets and smaller team sizes and theoretically this could lend itself to a larger number of teams with smaller rosters (20ish riders) and more specific goals.

Below that a 3rd tier would be basically the same as the current continental level that is comprised of small teams that are not allowed the the highest level races.

The 1st tier would have to race events like Beijing as a sort of penance for being guaranteed participation in all of the big races, but they are the biggest teams with the budgets that allow for that sort of travel.

The more I think about it, the harder it would be to sell sponsors on a 2nd tier team because of the lack of certainty on which races your team will ride, so I have to do a bit more work on this. However, it is also possible that the teams will begin to self select events and naturally there will only be 22 candidates interested in Liege and by that virtue most teams know more or less their schedule based on which other teams are interested in the same races as they are.

I think the bottom line to me is that the WT has too many automatic teams and not enough wildcards and would benefit from a tighter top level.

 

[hfer07]

not to bring back the old argument-but if UCI is looking for a fresh start & brand new philosophy- then they MUST get rid of Pat McQuaid why? all the arguments already discussed here come from his brilliant brain -which are:

- World Tour- is just plain BS-there is no single person- apart form Pat & UCI -that has ever supported this idea up to this day. all the races meant to be raced by a Pro-Team should be decided by "their own capabilities"- not by a mandatory regulation.
- the current amount of Pro teams should be broaden proportionally to the amount of races that have been added to the Calender. I'm even in favor of reducing the number of riders per race- so the teams can cover more competitions all year round-instead of stretching sources where teams are not interested or cannot be competitive at all.
-Stop fvck!ng around with the dates of the "historic monuments & Grand Tours" -new races "must" wait in line for their proper inclusion-& UCI should be looking to create a good set of races outside the north hemisphere between October & February-so the entire calender can be filled with the new ones.
-UCI must not be involved in Anti-doping at all- that branch must be regulated by a different entity.

 

[Fus087]

The 1st tier would have to race events like Beijing as a sort of penance for being guaranteed participation in all of the big races, but they are the biggest teams with the budgets that allow for that sort of travel.

This sounds like a good idea, but to the bolded part:
As far as I know overseas WT races have to pay air tickets for teams (accomodation during the race always has to be offered anyway). In the case of Continental races, this only is true for the ProTeams (possibly ProConti too), which led to Movistar CT (the Colombian team) not being able to participate in this year's Tour of California, and Antioquia being in some predicament in Utah/Colorado.
So the issue with Lampre, Vacansoleil or Movistar having to go to Beijing isn't so much an issue of money, but more of jet-lag/smog/not seeing any sense in going there at all.

I may be wrong regarding the money part (wouldn't really surprise me).

 

[Mambo95]

This year Mr Vaughters posted his 10 point plan to improve cycling. In response I posted my own. Here it is again, with updates in italics:



1. Centralise ownership of cycling. Bring all of the major races under one umbrella (Cycling World Tour - CWT), owned by a single company, in which the current race owners, ASO, RCS, IMG, UCI etc hold shares. IMG can do the marketing and selling. (Much easier said than done, this one). Stop under selling the product, financially support the teams and move away from the sponsor lead business plan.


2. Improve TV coverage. Have an in house production company responsible for filming all CWT races. Make it innovative and most of all embrace the 'red button' (note: British term for interactive TV). Hire Sky as consultants. Let the viewer have a choice of which camera he wants to follow. Have tactics guides for newcomers. Have a choice of audio, which leads me to....

3. Keep race radios, but let us hear them.

4. Sell races to TV as packages and do what F1 does, ensure that every part of the package is broadcast. So if you buy the Tour de France package, you also have to broadcast Paris-Nice and GP Plouay too.

5. Sell directly to the consumer. Create a subscription channel on the internet. Viewers can buy individual races or packages or a season ticket. It won't be HD, but have added content, such as all the team radio feeds, but particularly footage from old races - make the back catalogue work for you.

6. Make a bigger deal of the World Rankings - but focus on the team standings, rather than the individual ones. For the individual standings, have three separate ones - GC standings, classic standings and stage standings. Have prize money for it. And count all points - not just the top five riders. Have the top 15 get their WT licence for the next year, not the top 15 via the present system. Let new teams pitch their case against the weaker teams.


7. Abolish ProTeam licences. Instead have a wider top level licence so that current ProTour teams and ProConti with wildcard teams are all equal. However, the top 14 or 15 teams in the end of season standings get automatic invitations to all races. This will allow for more wildcard selections, but no more than 50-66% of wildcards should be given to local teams. This actually backs up my edits really.

8. Allow for an increase the number of races on the CWT calender, but don't oblige the top 14 or 15 teams to accept all invitations (they can opt out of a certain number - and be expected to). However, give relatively more ranking points to newer races to help them establish themselves.

9. Have the 'owners' of cycling (ie ASO) get involved in helping teams find sponsors - a sort of 'dating service' if you will.

10. Outsource all doping control (for top level teams) to an independent agency (eg WADA), which will allow all doping cases for the top teams to be heard by a central UCI court, not the national federations. Punish teams, as well as riders, for positives.

 

[The Hitch]

Allow races to decide for themselves who they wish to invite.

Hand rankings over to someone who know what they are talking about - cq. Make them rolling.

Admit that the Giro and Vuelta are slightly better than the US Pro cycling challenge or Tour of Cali, and perhaps should not be replaced by those 2.