Make the Vuelta more spectator-friendly?

[ultimobici]

So you don't think bringing Cycling to a wider audience is a good thing? You can't have your cake and eat it all as well. I don't see how it really worked. The Vuelta would been on around the classics just before the giro. Better to space it out so riders can do compete in more different races. Bringin the sport toa wider international where more people can enjoy it can only be a good thing. Who sayss it should just stay in Europe?

No, far from it. What I object to is the overly rapid expansion of the season both in time and geographically. The TDU is an excellent example of how it should be done, gradually and sustainably. It helps that the organisers recognise that their place in the grand scheme of things is an hors d'oeuvre for the regular season. Contrast that with California, Georgia & Missouri that almost from the off were touted as something more than they were. Well of the three two are dead & buried. i wonder why?

Cycling has always had a long season as well as being perhaps the most demanding endurance sport there is. By stretching the races ever further around the globe and ultimately into the current off season is only detrimental to the sport overall. Specialisation is not a choice but an necessity. Gone are the all-rounders and in their place are Tour riders or Classics riders or sprinters and so on.

 

[ramjambunath]

The globalisation of cyclilng isn't doing too well. The Vuelta isn't being telecast (live or highlights) at all. The only race I can see on the tele live is the TdF and the only other races I have seen on the tele at all are the Tour of Qatar and Tour of Oman (a week or two after the race and a highlights round up) the Driedaags de Panne and de Ronde (end of May, not a week or two later) and even the Mumbai and Nashik race (my country's only proper race) was not telecast live. I want to see the biggest races live and only if the biggest races are telecast will the sport globalise properly.

Races like the Tour of Qatar, which have been rapidly become important races are what I see as the problem (not a single Qatari in the peloton and even the Nashik Mumbai race did not have an Indian rider or team). I think that the respective national boards should have proper races and earn the right to host World Tour races. Qatar and Oman can definitely bring instant cash and sponsorship but the main targets for globalisation should be Brazil, China and India where if the UCI is willing to gamble a bit can be massive for the long term globalisation.

Another important point is not to go ott about average stage races like the ToC and USPCC by calling them the 4th GT or so. An unitiated fan turning on those races will expect Schlecks and Bassos to be at the top not fighting for 135th spot on the GC. It will definitely not attract fans from outside USA (their riders do well in those 2 races). Instead, they could show the other two stage race jewels (Giro and Vuelta) and advertise them for their strengths and prove it's not just about the Tour.

Hopefully, the race organisers (whoever controls TV rights for the Giro, La Vuelta and the monuments) can give the TV rights for free in parts of the world where it is not aired. It can only help in the long run to have a wider audience.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The problem is, races like Qatar and Oman have not become important races - as long as they are in February they are just warmup events. So you might well get a pretty good list of stars, but the races aren't treated as being especially important.

The UCI's hard-on for globalisation, in reality, is based primarily on marketing to America, under the guise of globalisation. Is the globalisation truly sustainable? In its current guise probably not - it's just extending the season and making increasing demands on the World Tour teams to travel, requiring bigger and bigger budgets, and then you see problems like HTC, where one of the top teams in the world is simply having to ask for too much money to continue.

Asking for the people who organise the Giro, the Vuelta and the monuments to give away their TV rights for free in parts of the world where it is not aired is simply crazy talk. Why would they do that? The TV rights are one of the most important ways that the event makes money, because lest we forget, one of the great things about cycling is that it's free to watch - anybody can go to the side of the road and see it. If you can't charge the fans to go to the stadium like most sports, then selling the TV rights becomes pretty much their primary means of keeping the race going. And if they're giving those rights away for free to places that don't already broadcast it, those places that do already broadcast it have every right to say "hey, why do we have to pay when you're giving it away for free? That's unfair" - and either force the races to back down and give it to EVERYBODY for free, or cause the race to no longer be aired in those countries where it already DOES have an audience.

It can only help to have a wider audience, if that audience is able to contribute to the race's good health. If the organisers are making zero money off it, the race will die. And is the potential amount of fans for a niche sport in countries that don't really have any riders or teams to support really worth potentially killing off some of the biggest races in the sport?

 

[The other McHoy]

Having lived on the Costa Blanca for the last 6 years, I think the original post has merit. I went to the start of stage 2 and two Spanish spectators collapsed in front of us with heat stroke and had to be treated in an ambulance.
I defy anyone to stand outside in 40 degrees (shade temp, so much warmer out in the sun) for a couple of hours in order to see a few minutes of a bike race - the health risk is not worth it. Hell, the temperature in my swimming pool has been over 30 degrees for the past 6 weeks.
Part of the spectating problem is quite easy to explain - Spain is a huge country with vast expanses of empty space. The race is passing through places for hours on end where hardly anyone lives. I don't understand why they don't make much more use of the areas where people actually live. All the way down the Med coast there are large towns and cities. Girona, Barcelona, Valencia, Alcoy, Gandia, Denia, Javea, Calpe, Altea, Benidorm, Alicante, Murcia, Malaga etc. Within an hour or two's riding from all of these places are ranges of hills and mountains that offer countless variations for putting together stages. It is where most of the pro teams go to train every winter and where doaens of them live.
Yet in the past 6 years there has only been a small number of stages in the area. Valencia is the third biggest city in Spain, surrounded by mountains yet hardly features except for the occasional stage finish at the Ford factory and the very occasional TT.
Small town finishes in the middle of a barren landscape equals small crowds. Makes sense to me.

 

[hrotha]

Back where it was up until 1995. Then the Worlds can go back to it's old slot, thus making it a true World Championship with a proper field packed with all the stars not just the odd one or two.

I think moving the Vuelta back to spring would be too complicated at this stage, but at the same time I see no reason why the Worlds couldn't be in August, BEFORE the Vuelta.

 

[icefire]

The Vuelta field was usually weaker in April than it is now in late Summer. There were the Belgian and Dutch sprinters, but there was no more than one or two non-Spanish teams riding for the GC. Italians were always in Giro warmup mode. And the weather was often awful in mountain stages.

 

[Descender]

Having lived on the Costa Blanca for the last 6 years, I think the original post has merit. I went to the start of stage 2 and two Spanish spectators collapsed in front of us with heat stroke and had to be treated in an ambulance.
I defy anyone to stand outside in 40 degrees (shade temp, so much warmer out in the sun) for a couple of hours in order to see a few minutes of a bike race - the health risk is not worth it. Hell, the temperature in my swimming pool has been over 30 degrees for the past 6 weeks.
Part of the spectating problem is quite easy to explain - Spain is a huge country with vast expanses of empty space. The race is passing through places for hours on end where hardly anyone lives. I don't understand why they don't make much more use of the areas where people actually live. All the way down the Med coast there are large towns and cities. Girona, Barcelona, Valencia, Alcoy, Gandia, Denia, Javea, Calpe, Altea, Benidorm, Alicante, Murcia, Malaga etc. Within an hour or two's riding from all of these places are ranges of hills and mountains that offer countless variations for putting together stages. It is where most of the pro teams go to train every winter and where doaens of them live.
Yet in the past 6 years there has only been a small number of stages in the area. Valencia is the third biggest city in Spain, surrounded by mountains yet hardly features except for the occasional stage finish at the Ford factory and the very occasional TT.
Small town finishes in the middle of a barren landscape equals small crowds. Makes sense to me.

The city of Valencia is not surrounded by mountains. Actually it lies on a plain. You´d struggle to find any sizeable hill within 20 kms of Valencia city centre.

 

[Benotti69]

Back where it was up until 1995. Then the Worlds can go back to it's old slot, thus making it a true World Championship with a proper field packed with all the stars not just the odd one or two.

The season opened on the Riviera in February, Paris Nice or Tirenno, Het Volk etc - gradually building up to the Classics in late March & early April. Then the Vuelta followed by the Giro and then the Tour. Criterium time was August with the action resuming later on that month with San Sebastian, Zurich & the Worlds. Finally you had Paris tours & Lombardia in October. Funny thing is it worked.

This idiotic obsession with globalisation is a waste of time. If I am a fan of American Football or Baseball it isn't the real thing if they play at Wembley. Nor is it the real thing if Man U play in New York. It's a facsimile of the real deal. The only reason for globalisation is making Fat Pat's pockets fatter. It does SFA to benefit Pro Cycling, if anything it undermines the true season.

if you want to watch Professional Cycling in the flesh, get on a plane & come and experience the real mccoy in France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Spain & Italy.

i agree with this as to spread such a demanding sport around the world and expect competitors to compete to the highest standards means they can only do it with 'enhancement'.

The best football is played in Europe but that has not stopped the rest of the world following their local teams and enjoying it. All the great players from around the world play in Europe,the Brazilians, Argentinians, Mexicans etc

the UCI is trying to line its pockets by trying to take the sport around the globe. The events should grow locally an evolve over time into world events instead of the other way around, which does nothing for no one except the UCI who pocket a load of cash. It ruins it for the fans as they get something for a small period which sucks up all the local money that should be plowed into the grassroots to grow the sport for the future.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Having lived on the Costa Blanca for the last 6 years, I think the original post has merit. I went to the start of stage 2 and two Spanish spectators collapsed in front of us with heat stroke and had to be treated in an ambulance.
I defy anyone to stand outside in 40 degrees (shade temp, so much warmer out in the sun) for a couple of hours in order to see a few minutes of a bike race - the health risk is not worth it. Hell, the temperature in my swimming pool has been over 30 degrees for the past 6 weeks.
Part of the spectating problem is quite easy to explain - Spain is a huge country with vast expanses of empty space. The race is passing through places for hours on end where hardly anyone lives. I don't understand why they don't make much more use of the areas where people actually live. All the way down the Med coast there are large towns and cities. Girona, Barcelona, Valencia, Alcoy, Gandia, Denia, Javea, Calpe, Altea, Benidorm, Alicante, Murcia, Malaga etc. Within an hour or two's riding from all of these places are ranges of hills and mountains that offer countless variations for putting together stages. It is where most of the pro teams go to train every winter and where doaens of them live.
Yet in the past 6 years there has only been a small number of stages in the area. Valencia is the third biggest city in Spain, surrounded by mountains yet hardly features except for the occasional stage finish at the Ford factory and the very occasional TT.
Small town finishes in the middle of a barren landscape equals small crowds. Makes sense to me.

How often do we see Córdoba, Talavera de la Reina, Ciudad Real, Jaén, Ávila and Burgos on Vuelta routes? Very, very often. The reason is, these places like having the Vuelta in. Unfortunately, linking places like Córdoba and Talavera de la Reina together entails going through a lot of these sparsely-populated areas. This is also affected by the other races in Spain; Catalunya has its own high level Volta, whereas Andalucía has the Ruta del Sol, which takes place in February and as a result can't use any of the mountains the area has to offer. Castilla-La Mancha doesn't have its own race. Extremadura only has an amateur race.

You comment on Valencia, but Comunidad Valenciana had the Grand Depart this year; 2 stages (Alcoy and Xorret del Catí) in 2010, 4 stages (Xativa, the Valencia ITT, Alto de Aitana and Xorret del Catí) in 2009 (a route which saw NOTHING of Asturias, Cantabria or Galicía) plus the departure from Alicante for the Murcía stage. Admittedly there was nothing in 2008, but 2006 and 2007 both had one stage in the region.

So if anything, the prominence of Valencía has increased in recent years in the race. What about Barcelona, how often do they use that? Very, very rarely.

Also, you talk about the big city. But how often does the Tour use Lyon, Toulouse or Marseille? Not very often. The Giro - how often does it use Roma, Torino, Napoli? Very rarely. The Vuelta is not alone in not using its biggest urban centres.

 

[ultimobici]

I think moving the Vuelta back to spring would be too complicated at this stage, but at the same time I see no reason why the Worlds couldn't be in August, BEFORE the Vuelta.

That would be a start, but I think to have it in the old order would restore the rhythm to the season. Although there have always been riders who specialised in particular events, the pre-95 order seemed to have a calming effect on that tendency.

The Vuelta has become almost a consolation event or a preparation race for the Worlds, which in either case is a shame.

Bringing the Worlds forward would remove part of that and possibly restore the full prestige to the WC jersey. I don't mean to denigrate the achievements of the winners since the change but since then it has been devoid of Tour stars actually contesting it. Part of this is because they aren't of the same mindset as Hinault, Merckx & Fignon but much is as a result of the later position in the season.

 

[ramjambunath]

The organisers can take quite a substantial part of the revenue generated by advertising from the broadcaster. If not possible to quite recoup the costs then the UCI and the broadcaster can make up the costs. This system was followed by Indian cricket (massive money making body since the 90's) up until the late noughties and they were by far the biggest revenue making body. The national broadcaster had the rights and the BCCI took a substantial part of the revenue from advertising and for long was mutually beneficial.

 

[The other McHoy]

The city of Valencia is not surrounded by mountains. Actually it lies on a plain. You´d struggle to find any sizeable hill within 20 kms of Valencia city centre.

Descender - I said within an hour or two of these places although to be fair most of them have hills a lot closer than that. I have done plenty of sportives within 30 mins drive of Valencia that involve approx. 3000 metres of climbing in stages of 160-180 kms.

With regards to some of the other comments, the Valencian and Alicante areas has seen a few stages recently but not nearly as many as they could have if an objective is to have exciting races close to where a lot of people live rather than in areas where no one will go to, especially tourists. Having the Vuelta visit these places does nothing to increase the visibility or status of La Vuelta - it just means people switch their TVs off because the stages are long and boring, Sean Kelly said exactly that yesterday on Eurosport.
The empty plains in Spain in August are too hot, too barren and there is nothing to do except hide in the shade. Contrast that with the coasts which are packed with millions of tourists - Belgians, Dutch, Swiss, French, Brits, Swedes etc. These people will come out and create an atmosphere so it makes sense to utilise this simple fact. You only have to drive 10-20kms inland from the coast to find beautiful quiet roads with hills and mountains galore.
The mountain stages in the Pyrenees and the likes of stages on the Angliru will attract plenty of fans for obvious reasons, what the Vuelta needs to do is improve the space-filler days and if that means avoiding large parts of the country then that's worth thinking about.

 

[Rouetheday]

Would it be feasible to push the Vuelta back three weeks? This year's race could have been run from Sept. 10 thru Oct. 2, for instance. They could have held the WC the week before and then you would have P-T and Lombardia the two weeks after as originally scheduled. I think this would help alleviate the problems with the heat (happy now, Cav?), but even more importantly, it would give the GT contenders seven weeks to recover and prepare between the Tour and the Vuelta instead of a measly four or five. Surely this would make it more likely that we'd see the likes of Evans and Contador and the Schlecks going for the double.

 

[icefire]

That would be a start, but I think to have it in the old order would restore the rhythm to the season. Although there have always been riders who specialised in particular events, the pre-95 order seemed to have a calming effect on that tendency.

The Vuelta has become almost a consolation event or a preparation race for the Worlds, which in either case is a shame.

Bringing the Worlds forward would remove part of that and possibly restore the full prestige to the WC jersey. I don't mean to denigrate the achievements of the winners since the change but since then it has been devoid of Tour stars actually contesting it. Part of this is because they aren't of the same mindset as Hinault, Merckx & Fignon but much is as a result of the later position in the season.

I'm afraid you are overrating what the Vuelta was when it was raced in Spring. Before 1979 the Vuelta was nothing more that a 3-week long mid-mountain race. Hard climbs were always placed away from the finish. The only strong team (KAS) moved to Belgium in 1979 after the best Spanish riders were retiring with no new riders who could keep the racing level. The Spanish peloton was made of four teams that would be the equivalent of nowadays Andalucia-Caja Granada. None of them didn't even bother trying to enter the Tour or the Giro until 1982.

1979 was the first year the Vuelta was organised by Unipublic after the former organiser quit following the barricades of Basque separatistes in the last two stages of the 1978 edition. That was the year that saw for the first time some serious mountains close enough to stage finishes to be decisive. Spanish riders neutralised a stage in the Sierra de Madrid because they considered it too hard.

1983, the second edition Hinault won, was by far the hardest edition to date of the race. The field was composed of 10 teams, 10 riders each. Apart from Hinault the only star from abroad was Saronni, in Giro warmup mode, who disconnected from the road as soon as the first mountain came in stage 4. Spanish strongest contenders were Lejarreta (winner of the 1982 edition and with no results away from Spain yet) and Alberto Fernandez (runner up in 1982 and 10th in the 1982 Tour). Hinault won being far from great with only one attack late in the race to drop a young Gorospe who had surpringly managed to lead the GC thanks to his ITT skills and his ability to stay close to the best in the mountains. Lejarreta had lost all his options in a crosswind split and an ITT.

The rest of the 80's saw the evolution of the Vuelta into the 3-week race with mountains that it is today. The number and level of Spanish teams improved but if any Tour contender showed up, he was mostly in warmup mode. Only Robert Millar did take it seriously, and later on Sean Kelly when he realised that the Vuelta was his only chance to win a GT. Not even the best Spanish riders planned their season around the Vuelta after they saw that they could be competitive at the Tour. Italians never took the race seriously with the exception of Battaglin in 1981, who won the race in front of a very weak field, going for the Vuelta-Giro double.

So even if the late Summer spot makes the race look like a WC warmup event or a consolation for those who didn't have a good Tour, the roster and the race is now better than what it was before 1995.

 

[icefire]

Would it be feasible to push the Vuelta back three weeks? This year's race could have been run from Sept. 10 thru Oct. 2, for instance. They could have held the WC the week before and then you would have P-T and Lombardia the two weeks after as originally scheduled. I think this would help alleviate the problems with the heat (happy now, Cav?), but even more importantly, it would give the GT contenders seven weeks to recover and prepare between the Tour and the Vuelta instead of a measly four or five. Surely this would make it more likely that we'd see the likes of Evans and Contador and the Schlecks going for the double.

Heat in late August and early September is only a problem in the South. If they move dates to late September they're more likely to have unpleasant weather in the North and in the mountains anywhere else.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

With regards to some of the other comments, the Valencian and Alicante areas has seen a few stages recently but not nearly as many as they could have if an objective is to have exciting races close to where a lot of people live rather than in areas where no one will go to, especially tourists. Having the Vuelta visit these places does nothing to increase the visibility or status of La Vuelta - it just means people switch their TVs off because the stages are long and boring, Sean Kelly said exactly that yesterday on Eurosport.
The empty plains in Spain in August are too hot, too barren and there is nothing to do except hide in the shade. Contrast that with the coasts which are packed with millions of tourists - Belgians, Dutch, Swiss, French, Brits, Swedes etc. These people will come out and create an atmosphere so it makes sense to utilise this simple fact. You only have to drive 10-20kms inland from the coast to find beautiful quiet roads with hills and mountains galore.
The mountain stages in the Pyrenees and the likes of stages on the Angliru will attract plenty of fans for obvious reasons, what the Vuelta needs to do is improve the space-filler days and if that means avoiding large parts of the country then that's worth thinking about.

I'd love the Vuelta to spend 21 days outside my front door too, but we have to be realistic. You can't always have half the race in the same area (4 stages beginning and ending in the region, plus another one starting there, in 2009 seriously not enough in the region for you? That's more than Andalucía got this year!).

Maybe the reason there's no Vuelta a Comunidad Valenciana anymore is that there isn't as much interest in hosting cycling races anymore? Javier Guillén will have his ideas of where he wants the race to go, but let's face it, we can all design dream GTs, but the real organisers are slaves to fiscal sense, and if places like Andalucía and this year Galicía are offering good money to host stages and Comunidad Valenciana isn't, then I can see why the race follows the course that it does. This isn't the same as the Tour, where regions pay for it and Prudhomme immediately goes straight for the well-known spots. Also, the Tour is the one that is much more financially safe and therefore has better scope to experiment and try new things.

Most of the ideas that we've had so far in the thread may make the Vuelta more spectator-friendly (free TV rights to countries not already airing it, more time near population centres, later finishes at least in the southern stages) but they also have the drawback of making it less financially viable (why should the countries currently paying for coverage continue to if it can be had for free? Why go to places not willing to pay for the privilege of hosting a stage? How much logistical trouble is closing a city down at peak time compared to at a relatively quiet time?).

 

[The other McHoy]

Libertine - it doesn't need to be the whole 21 days on my doorstep, I'll settle for 14
The Tour of Valencia stopped like so many events these days because of sponsorship problems - the financial crisis hit here hard and early. It's a real shame that instead of seeing the pro peloton here they are now spending the time on motorways in the Middle East with only a few bemused locals, camels and goat herders looking on.
You make valid points. I guess all I'm saying is that if the event is to be more attractive to the riders, the teams, the organisers and the viewing public - which in turn will make it a bigger commercial success - then they need to think beyond which town is willing to pay for us to start and finish there.
I've found the Spanish very accommodating when it comes to accepting the disruption in their centres for sports events. Be it a local bike race in Denia or F1 in Valencia City Centre they embrace it rather than moan about it. Nowhere in Spain is busier than Benidorm in August, if a stage can be run there at that time it can be run anywhere.

 

[Rouetheday]

Heat in late August and early September is only a problem in the South. If they move dates to late September they're more likely to have unpleasant weather in the North and in the mountains anywhere else.

Look on the bright side- a little rain and cold and we could be treated to another peevish bike-dismounting protest by David Millar.

 

[Descender]

Was it me or were there a lot more spectators on the roads today?

 

[ultimobici]

I'm afraid you are overrating what the Vuelta was when it was raced in Spring. Before 1979 the Vuelta was nothing more that a 3-week long mid-mountain race. Hard climbs were always placed away from the finish. The only strong team (KAS) moved to Belgium in 1979 after the best Spanish riders were retiring with no new riders who could keep the racing level. The Spanish peloton was made of four teams that would be the equivalent of nowadays Andalucia-Caja Granada. None of them didn't even bother trying to enter the Tour or the Giro until 1982.

1979 was the first year the Vuelta was organised by Unipublic after the former organiser quit following the barricades of Basque separatistes in the last two stages of the 1978 edition. That was the year that saw for the first time some serious mountains close enough to stage finishes to be decisive. Spanish riders neutralised a stage in the Sierra de Madrid because they considered it too hard.

1983, the second edition Hinault won, was by far the hardest edition to date of the race. The field was composed of 10 teams, 10 riders each. Apart from Hinault the only star from abroad was Saronni, in Giro warmup mode, who disconnected from the road as soon as the first mountain came in stage 4. Spanish strongest contenders were Lejarreta (winner of the 1982 edition and with no results away from Spain yet) and Alberto Fernandez (runner up in 1982 and 10th in the 1982 Tour). Hinault won being far from great with only one attack late in the race to drop a young Gorospe who had surpringly managed to lead the GC thanks to his ITT skills and his ability to stay close to the best in the mountains. Lejarreta had lost all his options in a crosswind split and an ITT.

The rest of the 80's saw the evolution of the Vuelta into the 3-week race with mountains that it is today. The number and level of Spanish teams improved but if any Tour contender showed up, he was mostly in warmup mode. Only Robert Millar did take it seriously, and later on Sean Kelly when he realised that the Vuelta was his only chance to win a GT. Not even the best Spanish riders planned their season around the Vuelta after they saw that they could be competitive at the Tour. Italians never took the race seriously with the exception of Battaglin in 1981, who won the race in front of a very weak field, going for the Vuelta-Giro double.

So even if the late Summer spot makes the race look like a WC warmup event or a consolation for those who didn't have a good Tour, the roster and the race is now better than what it was before 1995.

Looking down the list of winners of the Vuelta prior to 95 one sees many of the cycling world's stars, many of whom are not Spanish. The Vuelta may not have been the Tour or Giro but for a race that was born three decades after its siblings it's not done too badly. Add in the effect of the Franco years on Spain & Spanish cycling and it's even more remarkable.

To slate Kelly's achievement as targeting the Vuelta as a easier route to a GT is simplistic. He rode for a Spanish sponsor who expected him to ride it despite his reluctance. Given the choice I'm sure he'd have foregone his Vuelta victory for the Ronde.

Spain's geography and size is its strength & weakness at the same time. While it has plenty of mountainous terrain to offer, the population don't live there. Also, as has been mentioned, sitting by the side of the road in the middle of nowhere in 40 degree heat to see a bike race isn't fun.

Judging by the disparity of population density between Spain and France & Italy, it's not surprising that the Vuelta struggles to attract spectators along the roadsides.

 

[richtea]

less financially viable (why should the countries currently paying for coverage continue to if it can be had for free? Why go to places not willing to pay for the privilege of hosting a stage? How much logistical trouble is closing a city down at peak time compared to at a relatively quiet time?).

These ideas make it more attractive from a destination marketing perspective: more viewers/spectators = more vistitors = more local spending = more jobs. Your perspective is very risk averse, I would favour investment to improve the product myself.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

These ideas make it more attractive from a destination marketing perspective: more viewers/spectators = more vistitors = more local spending = more jobs. Your perspective is very risk averse, I would favour investment to improve the product myself.

The problem is the need to attract that investment in order to do so.

 

[richtea]

No. You need to take a risk, develop and sell the superior offer to attract the investment. Venture capital doesn't come before entrepreneurs have created the ideas.

 

[richtea]

For example, I would rather take your seemingly unparalleled knowledge of the climbs in Europe and likely ability to generate exciting racing, and sell that to your required host towns, than rely on towns coming forward to do so, if I was building the reputation and stature of a race.

 

[Rouetheday]

Oh Libertine and richtea with your barbed banter! I'm going to cast you two as the leads in my remake of 'His Girl Friday'.