- Mar 13, 2009
- 29,060
- 2,716
- 28,180
So, can Lance/Johan sell the PT license to another team if they decide to fold after 1-2 years? Or are we to assume that LA promised UCI Team Shack would still exist to give the Trek/Livestrong guys somewhere to go once they were no longer under-23?
thehog said:
By my estimation we only have oh about 10 1/2 months tell September 5th. Can't wait for the announcement. Gonna be a good one for sure.
Hi Publicus
Hey, I can see you're annoyed so I wanted to respond. I've been blogging almost every day for six months. Hard to get the word out for a new blog as you might imagine given the giant ocean for cycling content. I've gotten some nice links to Rueters and France Daily and positive response from the San Fransico Examiner. It's hard work, I'll tell ya.
Anyway, it seems that as a daily reader of cyclingnews myself (I check in obsessively each day) that the forum would be a good place to let people know about the blog. (It's also not obvious what is and isn't approriate in the forum.)
Susan Westemeyer sent me a note suggesting I simply make a comment and provide a link instead of any commentary that highlights a particular post and that seems fair enough -- which I've done. I'm a huge fan of cyclingnews incredible coverage and have no desire to irritate people.
As far as the humor, well, that's pretty subjective, of course. I've gotten good response and people seem to enjoy having that slant and get some laughs out of it. Certainly I can understand you might not like the style. I do think there's a place for it in covering the sport.
Matt
Publicus said:
Hey, I can see you're annoyed so I wanted to respond. I've been blogging almost every day for six months. Hard to get the word out for a new blog as you might imagine given the giant ocean for cycling content. I've gotten some nice links to Rueters and France Daily and positive response from the San Fransico Examiner. It's hard work, I'll tell ya.
Anyway, it seems that as a daily reader of cyclingnews myself (I check in obsessively each day) that the forum would be a good place to let people know about the blog. (It's also not obvious what is and isn't approriate in the forum.)
Susan Westemeyer sent me a note suggesting I simply make a comment and provide a link instead of any commentary that highlights a particular post and that seems fair enough -- which I've done. I'm a huge fan of cyclingnews incredible coverage and have no desire to irritate people.
As far as the humor, well, that's pretty subjective, of course. I've gotten good response and people seem to enjoy having that slant and get some laughs out of it. Certainly I can understand you might not like the style. I do think there's a place for it in covering the sport.
Matt
Moondance said:
That's the problem with the media-based sponsorship. Armstrong was Discovery Channel's product for the duration. It is jard to sell the ADHD American viewing market on a foreign leader for the team so their motivation was nil. Note that Versus TV coverage was all Armstrong based whether focusing on what he did or what "rivalries" could be stirred up to sell add space. He is the sales "tool" for North America, unfortunately. I'm thankful Universal Sports started broadcasting most major Pro Tour races.
Discovery Communications let their CEO go. He was the Lance fan. The new CEO had (or board maybe) to make cutbacks b/c of the economy and the cycling team was one of the 1st things to go.
In July 2006 I was assigned to spend 3 days a week at Discovery HQ in Silver Spring, MD on a project. I though I was so lucky whan I got the asignment. I thought the place would be abuzz with TDF chatter. No such luck, at least in the dept I was in so one even knew it was going on. They did have a pretty rockin' Disco/Trek display case in the lobby though.
In July 2006 I was assigned to spend 3 days a week at Discovery HQ in Silver Spring, MD on a project. I though I was so lucky whan I got the asignment. I thought the place would be abuzz with TDF chatter. No such luck, at least in the dept I was in so one even knew it was going on. They did have a pretty rockin' Disco/Trek display case in the lobby though.
zoeart said:
Thanks for the background. It always seemed strange that a media company would take a big stake in a risky sports franchise based on one personality that could be injured or busted before their payoff event: TDF. It would take a CEO override to take that risk.
The United States having three ProTour teams is exciting.
The fact that American-based teams have drawn some of the most talented riders from other nations over the pasr several seasons (i.e. Cavendish, Wiggins, Contador, etc.) is also exciting.
As for claims that the decision was political, they are probably right. But the fact remains that the US based teams have shown they can place riders on the podium the classics, individual stages, and GC's of tours throughout the season.
The license is deserved for RadioShack based on the palmares of the riders on the squad.
The fact that American-based teams have drawn some of the most talented riders from other nations over the pasr several seasons (i.e. Cavendish, Wiggins, Contador, etc.) is also exciting.
As for claims that the decision was political, they are probably right. But the fact remains that the US based teams have shown they can place riders on the podium the classics, individual stages, and GC's of tours throughout the season.
The license is deserved for RadioShack based on the palmares of the riders on the squad.
Can't say I am suprised that they have or will get their licence.
While there has been some reporting about the team looking for younger riders, most of the reporting has been about senior riders going to the shack.
I don't think they will have issues getting invites to the GT's.
But whether they can survive more than a couple of years will remain to be seen. And really that situation no different to any new team entering pro-cycling.
While there has been some reporting about the team looking for younger riders, most of the reporting has been about senior riders going to the shack.
I don't think they will have issues getting invites to the GT's.
But whether they can survive more than a couple of years will remain to be seen. And really that situation no different to any new team entering pro-cycling.
- Jun 16, 2009
- 19,654
- 2
- 0
auscyclefan94 said:
I know Columbia are a US company and director Stapelton is from the US also, but I do not consider them a US team. They have very few US riders, Craig Lewis and Tejay Van Garderen for next season, thats it. I consider Columbia an international team with a US sponsor.
US company Gatorade sponsored a team early 90s but it was an Italian team with Bugno, Fignon as team leaders. Now Columbia have more US connections but are not a US team, to me anyway.
Garmin are definitely a US team, I actually expected RadioShack to have more US riders but they are an American team, undoubtedly. People marvel at 3 US teams but there were also 3 American sponsored teams in 92/93. Motorola, Subaru-Montgomery & Gatorade.
I am not surprised in the slightest that RadioShack received a ProTour berth but 4 years. WTF. I just cannot see RadioShack hanging around that long. How can you give a 4 year licence to a team with 2 year contract. Maybe the licence was awarded to Bruyneel in case he wishes to continue after Lance but there Is no obvious long term plan at RadioShack unless they have presented something different to the UCI.
Looking at the awardinfg of ProTour slots, there is simply no clear logical or consistent decisions. ProTour is a sham and the UCI know it, a ProTour licence means very little. Just ask Fuji-Servetto.
- Mar 10, 2009
- 1,318
- 0
- 0
Just reading the first page of responses, I see that the anti-lance fanboys are being... so typically anti-lance fanboys.
What difference does it make four years or two? If they quit sponsorship when Lance re-retires, at least a potential new sponsor wouldn't have to sweat out getting a licence.
Mellow Velo said:
This is simply not true. Armstrong never agreed to ride for Disco for three years. For any additional proof one might need, look at the fact that when he retired Disco did not use that clause in their contract to get out of the deal. Despite this alleged breach of contract and loss of the world's most well known cyclist, they remained as sponsors.
Mellow Velo said:
Simply not true. Armstrong never agreed to ride for three years. If you're still looking for proof of such, look no further than a consideration of how quickly Discovery would have exited the contract if he had made that obligation and backed out - especially after the first post-lance Tour fiasco.
Moondance said:
Yes, when the leadership at Discovery Channel changed hands and the new president had no interest in cycling, they decided not to renew the sponsorship.
By this logic, one would have to conclude that CSC and T-Mobile were not "successful" cycling teams.
- May 6, 2009
- 8,522
- 1
- 0
Armstrong had a two year deal and in that contract it said he had to ride the Tour at least once. That's what the man himself said. The only good thing about have a PT licence is that Armstrong gets to ride the Tour Down Under to collect his multi-million dollar appearance fee, but the UCI/SA Government would let Radio Shack in, even if they were a Pro Continental team.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 22K
-
Teams & Riders Alberto Contador Discussion Thread- Started by LaFlorecita
- Replies: 51K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 8K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 9K
-
Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.- Started by Miburo
- Replies: 20K
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 14K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram