Pro tour team Licences

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 22, 2009
10,645
2
0
auscyclefan94 said:
This concept of 'earning your way in' is the biggest load of bs. Clearly teams are either good enough to be in the WT or not be. It is suppose to have the best teams in the World Tour and not the teams who have worked and tried hard over the past few years. Clearly Leopard Trek were in the top teams in the world going into this year. Who gives a **** if they bought their way in. They were clearly one of the best teams. Should be based on sporting criteria alone meaning how good their riders are.
it leaves poor values for teams, and allows teams to show little dedication. Making the PT even more of a joke, exactly what it has been over the past few years.

Oh hai I'm leopard. Team of future.

10 months later..

BAI GUYS.


very good for cycling...

Let teams show dediation to the sport, in a long tem matter and not just reap the rewards in a short period of time because you have money to your disposal.

what a joke that is.
 
Jun 22, 2009
10,645
2
0
Michele said:
Exactly.
Totally agree.
As some guys pointed out, Greenedge has some good quality riders but enoug not for a Pro Tour team.
That is fine, and I agree they appear to have good values too. I support this team.

However, not getting PT status isn't necessarilty a bad thing for a team. Quck expansion isn't always the answer.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
1
0
Timmy-loves-Rabo said:
it leaves poor values for teams, and allows teams to show little dedication. Making the PT even more of a joke, exactly what it has been over the past few years.

Oh hai I'm leopard. Team of future.

10 months later..

BAI GUYS.


very good for cycling...

Let teams show dediation to the sport, in a long tem matter and not just reap the rewards in a short period of time because you have money to your disposal.

what a joke that is.
Yes but Leopard clearly had intentions of being a team for a long period of time. They werent in it for 10 months. They were suppose to be in it for the long haul. A sponsor bailed. Same could happen to Sky soon with Murdoch in a bit of trouble.
 
Mar 26, 2009
2,534
0
0
Timmy-loves-Rabo said:
That is fine, and I agree they appear to have good values too. I support this team.

However, not getting PT status isn't necessarilty a bad thing for a team. Quck expansion isn't always the answer.
If I were managing the team, Id rather not have PT status at least for 1 year (if there was any choice..) just for have less pressure on the riders and whole team.
But according to some reports (cant remember where..) UCI already confirmed their license.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
1
0
Pegasus didnt survive because they didn't have PT status and weren't guaranteed into the Tour. If teams that are quality teams who have quality riders aren't allowed ProTour status in their first year then they may fail to get off the ground at all.
 
Mar 26, 2009
2,534
0
0
Comparing Pegasus to Greenedge is not right as Pegasus didnt have support by the Australia Federation nor UCI (at least by what I can remember - you guys know more than me about this) althought the latest seems to have supports from everyone.
 
When this whole concept of buying up top riders to get a fast track into the upper echelon of cycling appeared, quite a number of posters warned of the possibility of just such a scenario as we are now experiencing with LEOPARD.

While LEOPARD may have had the intention of sticking around, their money man clearly didn't. It's then almost impossible for a big budget superteam to find a replacement sponsor prepared to step up to this level of finance.

Basing licenses solely on the quality of a team's riders is a financial recipe for disaster. Wage bills spiral and unlike in pro football, debts will not be allowed to follow the same spiral.

Besides, who wants to follow a sport completely dominated by a handful of fantastic teams?

IMO: Remaining PT licenses should go to safe pairs of hands. i.e. Good teams that have decent results on the road, but with established, long term sponsors, or to bosses with a track record of replacing sponsors.

NO brand new team should get handed a free pass to the top.
Minimum of one year's probation served at PC level and if a wildcard or two come their way, then fine.
 
Jan 7, 2010
121
0
0
Mellow Velo said:
While LEOPARD may have had the intention of sticking around, their money man clearly didn't.
only knowing the australian side of this coin it's uncanny how similar the rhetoric from gerry ryan (greenedge's sugardaddy) is to what i recall reading from becca 12 months ago. not saying it'll be the same (as i don't know becca's history in supporting the sport), just saying is all.

for the record i reckon the immediate entry passes being handed out devalues the wt status. make it harder to get and all of a sudden the aso and pals get to say "eff off" to the teams who they just don't much like.
 
Mar 25, 2011
244
0
0
Mellow Velo said:
IMO: Remaining PT licenses should go to safe pairs of hands. i.e. Good teams that have decent results on the road, but with established, long term sponsors, or to bosses with a track record of replacing sponsors.
To play devils advocate, surely this puts a massive barrier on expansion. Riders will all want to go to the teams with guaranteed PT status and you end up with the same result, superteams of all the good riders with any teams below acting as a feeder, pretty much a franchise system.

I'm not against franchises, but they tend to work in single country sports, not worldwide.

I don't see a problem with teams changing names and sponsors etc. as this is the way cycling teams are named. If the same system was used in football you'd have teams changing their name every season.

Maybe a simple fix would be to have the team include the name of the town where they are based? That way, even with sponsors changing there will be some consistency.
 
Jun 22, 2009
10,645
2
0
auscyclefan94 said:
Pegasus didnt survive because they didn't have PT status and weren't guaranteed into the Tour. If teams that are quality teams who have quality riders aren't allowed ProTour status in their first year then they may fail to get off the ground at all.
Their fault for trying to take leaps instead of steps.

Also so poorly done on a whole.

Mellow Velo said:
When this whole concept of buying up top riders to get a fast track into the upper echelon of cycling appeared, quite a number of posters warned of the possibility of just such a scenario as we are now experiencing with LEOPARD.

While LEOPARD may have had the intention of sticking around, their money man clearly didn't. It's then almost impossible for a big budget superteam to find a replacement sponsor prepared to step up to this level of finance.

Basing licenses solely on the quality of a team's riders is a financial recipe for disaster. Wage bills spiral and unlike in pro football, debts will not be allowed to follow the same spiral.

Besides, who wants to follow a sport completely dominated by a handful of fantastic teams?

IMO: Remaining PT licenses should go to safe pairs of hands. i.e. Good teams that have decent results on the road, but with established, long term sponsors, or to bosses with a track record of replacing sponsors.

NO brand new team should get handed a free pass to the top.
Minimum of one year's probation served at PC level and if a wildcard or two come their way, then fine.
this. absolutely.

the current system encourages short ventures which in reality hurt the sport. Teams may not intend short stents, but the system and values set teams up for failure.

for the record i reckon the immediate entry passes being handed out devalues the wt status.
indeed, i view the WT status is an absolute joke.

--

but yeah, let us have an awesome super team showdown and the sake of the sports integrity. :rolleyes:
 
Timmy-loves-Rabo said:
if i had my way the PT would only be 12 teams strong, rewarded to teams who have been in the sport for at least two years and are consistant performers, and avoid non-ethical matters.
Agree for as long as the rules insist on right and obligation to participate in all WT races. It is doubtful as to whether there are even 12 teams who can sustain competitive squads in all three GTs, all the spring/early summer one-weekers plus the classics.

Such a change would surely need a reversal of this year's rule whereby only PT teams get points. If the UCI really want the rankings to be taken seriously as a ranking of the riders, they can't maintain a system that would have had 12th ranked Scarponi deleted from last year's list, two of the 2009 top 20 (Haussler and Hushovd) removed, and which is about to deny Cobo a place in the current top 20.
 
the greenedge roster generally looks quite poor - yes there are some decent signings such as goss, while weening and gerrans are ok. but there are alot of unproven riders and a few who were great 5 years ago but have seen better days - i thought they would buy more quality to be honest.

as for a TDF invite - im worried they will be another milram, BMC in 2010, skil in 2009, footon and saur and be largely annoymous
 
therealtimshady said:
the greenedge roster generally looks quite poor - yes there are some decent signings such as goss, while weening and gerrans are ok. but there are alot of unproven riders and a few who were great 5 years ago but have seen better days - i thought they would buy more quality to be honest.

as for a TDF invite - im worried they will be another milram, BMC in 2010, skil in 2009, footon and saur and be largely annoymous
While I think you're right that their team lack in certain areas and some of their riders are over the hill, I think they could do quite well at the tour. Imagine a team of:

Goss
Bobridge
C. Meyer
T. Meyer
Langeveld
O'Grady
Gerrans
Albasini
Howard

And they could do very well both in sprints, in the individual as well as the team time trial and in stages. I'm sure they would do well compared to the other teams you mentioned.

I have no idea how their actual team for the Tour would look like though, I just named the first 9 riders that came to mind :)
 

rzombie1988

BANNED
Jul 19, 2009
402
7
9,295
I have to think GEOX will get in, no problem. They should have tons of points coming in from Menchov's two tours and from Cobo. They had the points for it this year but it didn't work out.

I'd suspect GreenEdge will get in and Europcar would have a good shot at well, but they will probably lose out to New Lotto, who I could care less for.

Situations like this do show the stupidity and wrongness of this system though.
 
Mellow Velo said:
IMO: Remaining PT licenses should go to safe pairs of hands. i.e. Good teams that have decent results on the road, but with established, long term sponsors, or to bosses with a track record of replacing sponsors.

NO brand new team should get handed a free pass to the top.
Minimum of one year's probation served at PC level and if a wildcard or two come their way, then fine.
Agree with this.

No team shoud be fast-tracked to the WorldTour, least of all teams who don't even have a major sponsor (GreenEdge, Leopard). Though obviously GE will get in and get handed a 4 year contract or something.


Something I never realised until just now - we're going from 4 US teams to 2 next year.
 
Aug 12, 2010
128
0
0
rzombie1988 said:
I have to think GEOX will get in, no problem. They should have tons of points coming in from Menchov's two tours and from Cobo. They had the points for it this year but it didn't work out.

I'd suspect GreenEdge will get in and Europcar would have a good shot at well, but they will probably lose out to New Lotto, who I could care less for.

Situations like this do show the stupidity and wrongness of this system though.
I think Menchov is leaving and Geox as a sponsor might be leaving cycling all together. Not sure about Sastre, but I can imagine him leaving too, doesn't seem to very happy or motivated at Geox.

Without Menchov's points, I don't think even a Vuelta win for Cobo could get them into the top 20, so they wouldn't even be considered.

Looks like the top 20 will be the 15 remaining WT teams, Green Edge, Lotto, Europcar, FDJ and Cofidis. So those last 5 would be the ones fighting for the 3 spots.
 
Mar 10, 2009
11
0
0
I think the UCI needs to allow first year teams to enter WT events (e.g. Leopard, etc.). I say this because as we know sponsor money is rather hard to come by these days. Even HTC with I don't know how many wins this season had to fold due to lack of funds. If a company wants to throw crazy amounts of money to start a team and hire big guns then I say let them.

We all benefit because:
1. We get to continue to see top riders at the top races.
2. An infusion of new sponsors is never a bad thing (who knows...they may stick around for more than 2 years).
3. It can increase the overall reach of cycling. I work for a Fortune 500 company and believe me if we partially sponsored a team there would be a lot more people interested in cycling at our company.
4. It can increase the overall quality of riders and teams. We see that now with the inclusion of Vacansoleil and Sky in the pro ranks. There are potentially more opportunities for more riders.
5. Trickle down to Pro Conti and Conti. Why not raise the bar and give those teams something to aspire to. If other companies see successful sponsorship then perhaps that will get more companies interested in sponsoring.....at any level.
6. More kits for the rest of us to buy. Online and brick and mortar stores benefit by the frequent turnover of teams. Old kits move to clearance and new kits are offered.
7. Exposure to traditional non-cycling markets. GreenEdge will most certainly do a lot of racing in UCI Asia and UCI Oceania events. That will certainly bring more attention to the Asia and Oceania calendar.

late,
Coz
 
Jul 26, 2011
452
0
0
When CTT folded, I remember reading that Pro Conti teams could only join one GT and one classic per year. Anyone know if this is the case now?
 
Coz Boogie said:
I think the UCI needs to allow first year teams to enter WT events (e.g. Leopard, etc.). I say this because as we know sponsor money is rather hard to come by these days. Even HTC with I don't know how many wins this season had to fold due to lack of funds. If a company wants to throw crazy amounts of money to start a team and hire big guns then I say let them.
Neither Leopard nor GreenEdge had/have a sponsor though.

And GreenEdge haven't signed any big guns. Well, Goss is a good sprinter, not one of the top few though.
 
Jul 26, 2011
452
0
0
Doh, as a Taaramäe fan and Menchov sympathizer I should of course have kept that in mind.
 
Nielsa said:
When CTT folded, I remember reading that Pro Conti teams could only join one GT and one classic per year. Anyone know if this is the case now?
There was ralk of a rule where participation on WT races cost a certain number of points and each Pro Conti team would start with a point budget that they would spend to enter WT races. This was fortunately never implemented.
 
patterson_hood said:
To play devils advocate, surely this puts a massive barrier on expansion. Riders will all want to go to the teams with guaranteed PT status and you end up with the same result, superteams of all the good riders with any teams below acting as a feeder, pretty much a franchise system.

I'm not against franchises, but they tend to work in single country sports, not worldwide.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! And each nation's grassroots competitive bike racing federation becomes an impoverished feeder system for the cycling minor-leagues nothing more. It concentrates all the rider wages into the World Cup.

The consequences are broad and negative for participation in the sport. This limits the number of viewers in expansion markets. As much as Pat and Hein enjoy their power, their strategy won't grow competitive cycling. I would argue that's not the point anyway. I'd argue the point is to make money for themselves while running the federation. (ex. Tour of China)

As for sponsorship being hard to come by, the UCI has brought that upon themselves.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS