Pro tour team Licences

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Armchair cyclist said:
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.
There should be a system whereby teams have to provide a provisional roster for races before organisers allocate places. Some of the Giro line-ups where shockingly bad and giving that place to a pro-conti team could make their season.
 
Jul 20, 2011
619
0
0
pastronef said:
when will the licenses be renewed or new licenses be given? october, november?
I am not sure when they are awarded but did read somewhere that 20th October is cut off for riders points. so that is the last date you can register a rider towards your sporting criteria.

so all the teams need to confirm their line ups by that point
 
Jul 20, 2011
619
0
0
One issue for teams that do not get World tour is the structure of invites for races. You re effectively at the organisers whim. this is a real issue for a country like Australia where they cannot rely on the nationality of the squad to get an invite to a grand tour.

I think if you want to stop new teams jumping straight to world tour you need to give the people running that team a plan for how they will get races and how they will progress to world tour. there has to be a structured plan. (you are guaranteed entry into x,y,z races if pro conti, places are chosen through a draw or are based in some way of ranking of pro conti teams?)

i still think the points scenario needs fixing so that half the points for a rider stay with their original team and only half is transferred to the new team. should then make it very difficult for a new team to buy their way in.
 
daveinzambia said:
One issue for teams that do not get World tour is the structure of invites for races. You re effectively at the organisers whim. this is a real issue for a country like Australia where they cannot rely on the nationality of the squad to get an invite to a grand tour.

I think if you want to stop new teams jumping straight to world tour you need to give the people running that team a plan for how they will get races and how they will progress to world tour. there has to be a structured plan. (you are guaranteed entry into x,y,z races if pro conti, places are chosen through a draw or are based in some way of ranking of pro conti teams?)

i still think the points scenario needs fixing so that half the points for a rider stay with their original team and only half is transferred to the new team. should then make it very difficult for a new team to buy their way in.
Yes, race selection for Pro Continental teams are a problem right now for team that don't have a lot of races in their registered country. The Belgian, Italian, French and Spanish teams do pretty well since they get invites to pretty much all x.1 and x.HC races in their own country and some occasional WT events for the top teams.

If you instead looks at teams like Unitedhealthcare, Spidertech, Team Type 1, CCC-Polasat, Colombia es Pasion etc they all have much lower number of racing days than riders on other teams. Only of you are the top star on these teams do you have a shot at getting a decent calender to ride.

The problem here is that Pro Continental teams are only allowed to race in 2.2 and 1.2 level races in their own regitered country. So while the French/Italian/Belgian etc PC teams can fill out their riders calender with some decent 1.2/2.2 races, that option doesn't exist for many of the other teams simply because those countries don't have as many races of that level if any at all.

One solution I would propose is to allow more PC teams to race 1.2/2.2 races. For example they could allow each of those races to invite 2-3 PC teams that are not from their own country. That way there is still a limit so that continental teams don't get outnumbered but at the same time it makes life easier for certain PC teams.

Another sollution would be to promote more races into 1.1 and 2.1 status so that any PC team is elligible to get invited.
 
Aug 17, 2011
42
0
0
If they are a new team why should they have to wait for a year or two? If there roster/ riders points are good enough to earn a WT spot then they deserve it. Tell me what pro conti teams deserve it more? Europecar maybe but i cant think of anyone else.

If cycling is to continue to grow then it needs to expand. Australia is one place where it could. A sporting nation that would pay to follow an aussie team. For me personally i have only ever watched the TDF but because of GE i have taken an interest in cycling.

If GE were to not get a spot then they would fold. They would not get invited to any top races and the aussie public would turn away. Just look at the TDF what pro conti teams were invited. They were all French. So with the current situation unles you are a European Pro Conti team then there is no room for expansion. Just look at all the American Pro Conti teams, they are crap and that is because they are not European.

Tell me is cycling a European Sport or a World Sport?
 
Green_&_Gold said:
If they are a new team why should they have to wait for a year or two? If there roster/ riders points are good enough to earn a WT spot then they deserve it. Tell me what pro conti teams deserve it more? Europecar maybe but i cant think of anyone else.

If cycling is to continue to grow then it needs to expand. Australia is one place where it could. A sporting nation that would pay to follow an aussie team. For me personally i have only ever watched the TDF but because of GE i have taken an interest in cycling.

If GE were to not get a spot then they would fold. They would not get invited to any top races and the aussie public would turn away. Just look at the TDF what pro conti teams were invited. They were all French. So with the current situation unles you are a European Pro Conti team then there is no room for expansion. Just look at all the American Pro Conti teams, they are crap and that is because they are not European.

Tell me is cycling a European Sport or a World Sport?
A lot of people feel that teams need to show some level of longevity and structure before being allowed in the WT. To some extent they have a point though I don't quite agree myself.

One problem I see however is when teams live or die by getting into the WT or not. That's not healthy. With the license system the way it is right now it means that no team is safe if they don't perform well so if we have teams that would disappear as soon as they dropped out of the WT for a year then that's not good. Better then with sponsors like Cofidis and FDJ that sticks with their team through thick and thin.

Also, saying that the american PC teams are crap because they're not european is not really accurate. They're not as good simply because they are brand new at the PC level while for example the french teams have a long pedigree and very solid rosters.
 
Jul 5, 2010
943
0
0
First of all, cycling isn't growing. Just look at the numbers of teams folding recently. Cycling is shrinking and basically has been shrinking since the start of the Pro Tour. Of course the economic recession didn't help either, but personally I put most blame on the Pro Tour. In my opinion it has done more harm than good. Lots of great races with lots of history have disappeared and got replaced by mostly second grade races teams only care about because the points or money they hand out.
If cycling was indeed growing, as some people seem to believe it is, we would get more and bigger sponsors entering the sport. Instead we see HTC leave, Geox rumored to leave and Leopard, even with the very marketable Schlecks and Cancellara, unable to find a sponsor. Add the teams that are more hobby of some rich guy/area than actual sponsors (Katusha, Astana) and you see cycling isn't doing that well at all. Same story with smaller teams. Bbox after having a very impressive Tour could only barely find a sponsor.

Which brings us to the new Pro Tour licenses. If a team has a solid sponsor (and not some rich guy backing them) and enough quality riders to deserve a place in most of the Pro Tour races, then I'm all for inviting them in. But the simple fact is, many Pro Tour teams have at least 5 major races in a year they just don't belong in. But the even sadder part is that the overall quality of the non Pro Tour teams is declining to the point that inviting more of them is hardly an improvement. See Saur in the Tour.

If GreenEdge needs the Pro Tour license to survive, then they obviously aren't a healthy team. That simple fact means they don't even deserve the license in the first place, because that should be only for healthy teams. Of course GE is going to get the license anyway, because the UCI will push for it. That will of course have the advantage that we will know which teams will start the Tour in November already. But them being Australian shouldn't be an argument.
Take the French teams or Skil as examples. They have been around for ages. They might not have a few big stars like the new teams often do, but their overall quality is quite decent. They have a solid structure and a solid sponsor. Having them in the Pro Tour would be an improvement. On the other hand, look at Leopard and Geox. One bought their way in, the other failed to do so. One folding, one rumored to fold. New sponsors/teams haven't exactly proven to be solid.

To answer Green_&_Gold's question. Cycling is mostly an European sport. Always has been, always will be. There is a reason all major races are in Europe. There is a reason European countries have more teams. Outside of Europe I think only Columbia is worth mentioning as cycling nation. If I was in charge of the UCI, I would be focusing on strengthening the position of cycling in Europe. If areas like Australia or America want to be a part of it, they should start by developing a healthy local scene.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
1
0
Dutchsmurf said:
If GreenEdge needs the Pro Tour license to survive, then they obviously aren't a healthy team. That simple fact means they don't even deserve the license in the first place, because that should be only for healthy teams. Of course GE is going to get the license anyway, because the UCI will push for it. That will of course have the advantage that we will know which teams will start the Tour in November already. But them being Australian shouldn't be an argument.
Take the French teams or Skil as examples. They have been around for ages. They might not have a few big stars like the new teams often do, but their overall quality is quite decent. They have a solid structure and a solid sponsor. Having them in the Pro Tour would be an improvement. On the other hand, look at Leopard and Geox. One bought their way in, the other failed to do so. One folding, one rumored to fold. New sponsors/teams haven't exactly proven to be solid.

To answer Green_&_Gold's question. Cycling is mostly an European sport. Always has been, always will be. There is a reason all major races are in Europe. There is a reason European countries have more teams. Outside of Europe I think only Columbia is worth mentioning as cycling nation. If I was in charge of the UCI, I would be focusing on strengthening the position of cycling in Europe. If areas like Australia or America want to be a part of it, they should start by developing a healthy local scene.
1. There certainly is a strong local scene in Australia. The NRC is quite strong though in saying that one team is pretty much dominating every race which is the Genesys team

2. GreenEdge does not need a PT license to survive. It is understandable that sponsor would rather sponsor a team that has a PT/WT license although Gerry Ryan will be funding it regardless if a sponsor is not found. You have to understand that Gerry Ryan (with his business being Jayco) is not just stepping into cycling out of nowhere like guys such as Becca or guys who are backing Katusha or Astana. He is invested in the AIS, the track program, a junior road team, local bike races such as the Sun Tour and sponsors the Australians pro road riders at the worlds. Just because Geox or Leopard haven't been solid does not mean GreenEdge will be the same.

3. Australia certainly is a cycling nation. The cycling scene is well and alive. Don't tell me that Colombia is the only non European cycling country. That's just crap.
 
Sep 21, 2009
2,978
0
0
Green_&_Gold said:
Tell me is cycling a European Sport or a World Sport?
Cycling is world sport, but UCI is following a wrong model. They are making cycling a travelling circus like F1 or tennis. F1 drivers go to all races because they're all equally important for their overall results. Tennis players go to almost all important tournaments because they're forced by ATP and because having more ATP points improve their chances of getting easier opponents in the first rounds of any tournament.

In cycling, once you get the points to be in the WT category you don't need to worry about anything else. You can send a third rate team to WT races you don't care about, taking the spot of a PC team that could do better in your place.

Having 18 teams with automatic entry to any WT race is a disgrace for the sport. What's the point of having Euskaltel at Flanders and Roubaix? What's the point of having BMC without Evans or a team built for the classics at the Giro or the Vuelta if they are unable to win anything or get into more breaks than a local PC team?

The current system should be modified to give special consideration to past results at every race before granting automatic entry. WT teams whose past results (or those of the riders in their roster) in race X are nil, should get a sort of penalty, whereas WT teams with good results should get some sort of bonus points. It's as simple as adding a multiplying factor to the points obtained in past editions of that race and computing a team ranking for each race on that basis.

A similar rule should apply to determine the number of riders per country at the Worlds.

Otherwise, teams will reap points at the few races they care about and will send nobodies to the rest taking the spots that would better be given to others who care about that race.
 
a few comments from me

1 - think there are too many Pro Tour teams. 15 is enough. Leave some spots in the major races available for Pro Conti teams and teams who are doing well

2 - totally agree that Pro Tour teams should be able to decline an invitation to a set number of races. That would make it so that the organisers need to make the race attractive enough to get the riders, (and UCI points structure will help) but that teams with no chance of doing anything need not go, and Pro Conti teams or other 2nd tier teams who have a chance at some exposure and racing can get a go.

3 - Australia IS a cycling nation. Certainly the sport needs more and better exposure, but look at the top 5 nations. Australia is consistantly up there. That doesnt just happen .... it takes development, juniors, a healthy local scene etc. If Greenedge is done right, and with the publicity of Cadel Evans, cycling has an amazing chance to develop and expand the sport (and create heaps of funding oppurtunities) in a way that hasnt been done before. Australians have an inexhaustable appetite for sports - especially ones we are good at!!!!

4 - the UCI is too corrupt to do this :(
 
Sep 27, 2009
1,008
0
0
aussiegoddess said:
4 - the uci is too corrupt to do this :(
+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000009
 
Jun 22, 2009
10,645
2
0
auscyclefan94 said:
1. There certainly is a strong local scene in Australia. The NRC is quite strong though in saying that one team is pretty much dominating every race which is the Genesys team

2. GreenEdge does not need a PT license to survive. It is understandable that sponsor would rather sponsor a team that has a PT/WT license although Gerry Ryan will be funding it regardless if a sponsor is not found. You have to understand that Gerry Ryan (with his business being Jayco) is not just stepping into cycling out of nowhere like guys such as Becca or guys who are backing Katusha or Astana. He is invested in the AIS, the track program, a junior road team, local bike races such as the Sun Tour and sponsors the Australians pro road riders at the worlds. Just because Geox or Leopard haven't been solid does not mean GreenEdge will be the same.

3. Australia certainly is a cycling nation. The cycling scene is well and alive. Don't tell me that Colombia is the only non European cycling country. That's just crap.
atheletically yes. But really in the public eyes it is still peanuts.
 
Fran Reyes has published an updated list of the team Sporting Value ranking.

http://twitpic.com/6l4jc8

It looks like the cut off will be somewhere in the group of french teams. As it stands right now there will be three french teams against Euskaltel and Lotto for the three spots that are determined by a committee.
 
Jun 29, 2009
589
0
0
puh that list is a bit questionable, how does Geox get 726 points?

Menchov)2010: 70 PT points + 25 for 3rd TDF /2011: 50 + 0/ +couple of UCI Europe points=~160
Cobo)2010:0 2011:50-70 WT points, 30 Vuelta bonus, 6 for stage win=106 + couple of UCI europe points.
Geox gets 40 points for winning the vuelta team classification
So thats about 320 points but the rest of the squad hasnt done much (Sastre is leaving). Duarte for example doesnt get more than 3 WT/PT ranking points for the last 2 years, same with DelaFuente.
 
Sophistic said:
puh that list is a bit questionable, how does Geox get 726 points?

Menchov)2010: 70 PT points + 25 for 3rd TDF /2011: 50 + 0/ +couple of UCI Europe points=~160
Cobo)2010:0 2011:50-70 WT points, 30 Vuelta bonus, 6 for stage win=106 + couple of UCI europe points.
Geox gets 40 points for winning the vuelta team classification
So thats about 320 points but the rest of the squad hasnt done much (Sastre is leaving). Duarte for example doesnt get more than 3 WT/PT ranking points for the last 2 years, same with DelaFuente.
Ya, I also thought it looked a little high. Perhaps he is counting some transfer that is not official. He said when he released the last update in August that he did have some transfers to some teams that were not widely known. They also get points for defending the jersey for a week in the Vuelta but that can't be more than another 20-30 points or so.
 
Felline had some good results - 10th in E3 and winning Lorraine in 2010, Arkaitz Durán got some good positions in the Dauphiné, Cheula was 4th in the .HC-rated Tour of Turkey in 2010, Daniele Ratto has picked up a few good results in Spanish .1-rated races, while Rafael Valls' great early season in 2010 plus his TDF performance helps a lot too.

The number still seems a bit high, but if .HC and .1-rated races are being included, I can see why Geox would actually appear rather better than expected (since they did pretty well in the 'pre-season').
 
Jun 29, 2009
589
0
0
"Good Results" dont help much.For example a 2nd place at a Dauphine stage brings 0 bonus points and just a 214th position in the PT 2010 ranking(=0 points). Valls 167th=1 point.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY