The Geox Paradox - Vaughters

[Barrus]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jonathan-vaughters/the-geox-paradox

This is the non-doping thread, there is thread based on the anti-doping parts of this piece. This thread however concerns the non doping aspects of his blog

 

[Race Radio]

JV misses one key point. The reason there was such a strong objection to the Protour from RCS and the ASO was because the UCI wanted to take away all their TV rights and bundle them in a package like F1.

The argument was never about how many teams are invited to races it was about who controlled the $$$$$

 

[TubularBills]

Super Bowl Model - Own a team (controlled and limited leagues) and all teams have a chance at the biggest gig (TDF)? The Team is the brand. + salary cap and free agents.

Or, buy a guaranteed spot in the events and field the best team you can. The brand is the team.

???

 

[Benotti69]

JV misses one key point. The reason there was such a strong objection to the Protour from RCS and the ASO was because the UCI wanted to take away all their TV rights and bundle them in a package like F1.

The argument was never about how many teams are invited to races it was about who controlled the $$$$$

of course it is, it's always about the $$$$s, but JV was never going to admit that.

 

[ingsve]

I think the current system could have worked if teams, riders and sponsors wasn't so goddamned hung up on the Tour, the whole Tour and nothing but the Tour.

I have no problems with teams finding a sponsor and recruiting enough riders to make sure they have a competitive team. The problem however comes when that seems to be the only way to get a sponsor and when sponsors leave if they can't get the damned Tour exposure.

The way the system is now with certain criteria that needs to be fullfilled brings with it a certain element of uncertainty if a team starts to slip in competitiveness and in that environment you can't have sponsors that only want the Tour.

I don't know who to ultimately blame but it seems clear that they way teams are pitching the sport to sponsors right now does not combine well with the uncertainty of the sport.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Well, at least as of today, there is a team registered at PC level called Geox.
Which, is more than can be said of Pegasus.
I wonder if their registration problems are also financial, born out of the failure to get that PT prize piece of paper?

 

[Kvinto]

Professional sport is money, professional sport needs money, money in the pro cycling receives from sponsors, pro cycling team depends on sponsors, pro cycling depends on sponsors.
Sponsor (Geox) is ready to invest money into the team, ready to invest money into cycling. They know, if their team will show good results in prestigious races they'll have a profit, their investment will pay. So they employ sporting director (Gianetti) to gather the team that should gain necessary result. But first of all sporting director has to secure team's participation in the main races (PT licence).
On the other hand there is UCI. They constitute the rules of the game. These rules determine, who should gain PT licence (secure participation in the main races) and who fails.
So as we know, our sporting director failed, it was his, Gianetti's mistake. As the result our sponsor (Geox) can leave cycling. Team can lose sponsor, cycling can lose money.
Why can it happen? Is only Gianetti the man to blame? Definitely NO. He made a mistake, but the main problem is he can't rectify his mistake, the rules of the game leaves no chance. Teams depends on PT status too much, UCI tells about "sporting criteria" but gives PT licence for 4 years They just parasitize on cycling, not thinking about it's progress It's sad

 

[ingsve]

So as we know, our sporting director failed, it was his, Gianetti's mistake. As the result our sponsor (Geox) can leave cycling. Team can lose sponsor, cycling can lose money.
Why can it happen? Is only Gianetti the man to blame? Definitely NO. He made a mistake, but the main problem is he can't rectify his mistake, the rules of the game leaves no chance. Teams depends on PT status too much, UCI tells about "sporting criteria" but gives PT licence for 4 years They just parasitize on cycling, not thinking about it's progress It's sad

Well, that's not exactly true. Gianetti failed to live up to the criteria this year but he will get another chance next year and the year after. The problem there comes if the sponsor is impatient enough to leave if they don't succeed right away. That could also be a mistake by Gianetti if he built a team on the promise of getting a PT license right away but it's also the responsibility of the sponsor to not be so impatient. Team leaders and sponsors need to realize that taking a year or two as pro continental is not a failure and team leaders need to be very clear when talking to sponsors that it may take a while to reach the end goal of being a PT team. Any sponsor that doesn't accept that will never be a long term partner anyway so perhaps it's for the best.

 

[Kvinto]

Well, that's not exactly true. Gianetti failed to live up to the criteria this year but he will get another chance next year and the year after. The problem there comes if the sponsor is impatient enough to leave if they don't succeed right away. That could also be a mistake by Gianetti if he built a team on the promise of getting a PT license right away but it's also the responsibility of the sponsor to not be so impatient. Team leaders and sponsors need to realize that taking a year or two as pro continental is not a failure and team leaders need to be very clear when talking to sponsors that it may take a while to reach the end goal of being a PT team. Any sponsor that doesn't accept that will never be a long term partner anyway so perhaps it's for the best.

We don't know whether Geox is going to wait a year (in fact I do not believe they'll leave the project now, but it can happen). Pro Cont status is not a failure if you can get the wild cards at the main events (like BMC and Cervelo in 2010), but due to 2011 rules it'll be much harder than this year. Geox are very likely to get the wild cards at all the GTs thanks to the strong climbing lineup and Menchov + Sastre first of all. But now they have to demonstrate their lineup with Menchov + Sastre to get those invitations. After all, lets presume, the year has gone, what teams will need a PT licence and what a new criterias UCI will request? It will be harder to get PT status at the end of 2011.
As I said before 2011 teams will depend on PT status much more than 2010 and imo it is false approach.

 

[Fester]

Super Bowl Model - Own a team (controlled and limited leagues) and all teams have a chance at the biggest gig (TDF)? The Team is the brand. + salary cap and free agents.

Or, buy a guaranteed spot in the events and field the best team you can. The brand is the team.

???

This is a very good suggestion. I don't like american sports because they seem so insular and naff, but they are the best run, best managed sports on the planet. Anything European is just riddled with corruption, look at FIFA, UCI, etc. I'm not saying American sport isn't mind. Just I think it is what is holding back cycling.

I don't approve fully of the American model though. I think medical control is important and some direct liability must be established versus people who make the money (eg ASO, UCI) to guarantee the health of the competitors long term, after career. I know that longevity is greatly affected in sports like NFL and this simply is not an option while people are making a lot of $$ and totally unnecessary.

Other things the American model has and are beginning to creep into cycling: Sometimes it matters more how much money comes behind a rider than what he can do. Riders are private enterprises ultimately.

 

[Dutchsmurf]

It makes perfectly sense for Geox to pull out. If your investment depends on access into certain races and suddenly you can't be sure you get into those races, it is probably best economically speaking to cut your losses and pull out. I can't blame them, if I were part of the board of directors of Geox I would seriously look at the costs of pulling out.

Vaughters does have a point that the current system is flawed. In my opinion he doesn't give a solution tho. In my opinion the idea of a group of teams having certain access to events all year long is flawed in itself. Simply because there is a huge difference between cycling and other sports. Football (soccer for the Americans) is played the same all over the world. Formula 1 races always have the same basics. Sure the tracks might be different, but they all require the same thing. A car being fast at track A is very likely to be fast at track B too.
Now look at cycling. For a team to be successful in the Tour, they need completely different riders than to be successful in Paris-Roubaix. Riding PR is completely different than riding the Tour. So why does a team get a guaranteed entry into both races no matter if the team is suitable for both? A 100m sprint is as similar to the marathon as PR is to the Tour. But Bolt doesn't get entry into the marathon either, does he? And that is before you consider sponsors just having no interest in participating in certain races because they are in countries they don't care about. And also before considering riders only being able to target a certain amount of races.

Basically any system that has MSR, PR, LBL, PN, the Giro, Suise and the Tour in the same entry system won't work. So how to solve this? I don't think you can. Question is tho, why does it need solving in the first place? Was it really that bad all those years before the Pro Tour? Sure at times you had the occasional (usually Italian) rider who missed out on the Tour. But I would say most times ASO did a good job selecting teams. Although the guarantee sponsors might want was missing.
Now lets look at it from the ASO and other organizers point of view. They want the strongest riders possible entering their races, combined with as many people their main public cares about. In other words, local riders combined with big stars. So they want room for wild cards. Wild cards that go to local teams, so a sponsor that didn't get into the automatic access group has something to worry about. But you can't blame the organizers for that. Their local market is more important than some random sponsor, no matter how big they might be.

Now if I were leading the UCI, what would I suggest? I would keep the World Tour races, but drop the World Tour teams. But I would change the status of some races to better reflex their importance. Sorry Canada and China, but WT is still a bit too early. In 2-3 years they can move up to WT tho. No team will have automatic entry in any race by default. So I suggest something like this, which probably has major flaws, but still.
1) The top 10 teams at the end of the year will have right of entry to all WT races. Ranking depends on the team, not on the individual riders. Riders leaving or joining the team have no influence on this ranking. It also is right of entry, so if a team doesn't want to take part they can skip the event. I rather have a motivated local team taking part than the C choice of a top team. Of course if a team in this category wants to send their C choice, they can.
2) The top 5 teams not part of 1) at the beginning of the year will also have right of entry to all WT races. This ranking is based on the team ranking AFTER transfers.
3) The top 3 local teams not part of 1) and 2) have right of entry to all WT races in their country. If the country actually has suitable teams that is of course.
4) With up to 18 teams set, the rest can be used as wild cards. Because point 3) already gives local teams access, these wild cards can be used to give entrance to teams that have riders who did well in the event last year or can be expected to do well.

This system in my opinion solves a couple problems. Teams like Euskaltel no longer are forced to ride PR. Teams with no reason to ride at the other side of the world, no longer have to. The really big sponsors can still buy themselves into the Tour if they want to. Building a team around 1 star mostly likely isn't going to do it tho, but the sponsors will know what they will need to do. The organizers don't have to worry about having enough wild cards left for local teams.

Either way I think the most important change I want to see is going back to right of entry, instead of being forced to take part.

 

[ingsve]

This system in my opinion solves a couple problems. Teams like Euskaltel no longer are forced to ride PR. Teams with no reason to ride at the other side of the world, no longer have to. The really big sponsors can still buy themselves into the Tour if they want to. Building a team around 1 star mostly likely isn't going to do it tho, but the sponsors will know what they will need to do. The organizers don't have to worry about having enough wild cards left for local teams.

Either way I think the most important change I want to see is going back to right of entry, instead of being forced to take part.

Yes, that system is more in line with how it used to be but in a few more steps.

The big problem for that will still be with the sponsors however. You could never ever guarantee to a sponsor that the team will ride the Tour or Giro or whatever race the sponsor wants exposure in and that is a major drawback. When you really look at it I think that most people can handle Euskaltel riding Roubaix. With 25 teams normally it's not like we're ever missing any of the top riders. There is nothing that says replacing Euskaltel with some random Pro Conti team that is currently missing out would improve the race in any noticable way.

Having good long term sponsors is however very important and when sponsors are hard to get that certainly does effect the sport and is very noticeable. The problem is that I don't really see a solution where this problem can be solved in a good way.

 

[Dutchsmurf]

You could never ever guarantee to a sponsor that the team will ride the Tour or Giro or whatever race the sponsor wants exposure in and that is a major drawback.

You can, by taking over the sponsoring of an established team. If Geox had taken over Radioshack instead of Footon, they wouldn't be having problems now. Or they could have made an alliance with Lampre for a Geox-Lampre Italian powerhouse. Or sponsor a French team, that gets you into the Tour easily too usually. Problems is sponsors are taking over weak teams and are trying to make them into strong teams in a few months time. No matter the system you can never guarantee that will work. Actually, in my opinion you should build your system in a way that can almost guarantee it won't work.

 

[ingsve]

You can, by taking over the sponsoring of an established team. If Geox had taken over Radioshack instead of Footon, they wouldn't be having problems now. Or they could have made an alliance with Lampre for a Geox-Lampre Italian powerhouse. Or sponsor a French team, that gets you into the Tour easily too usually. Problems is sponsors are taking over weak teams and are trying to make them into strong teams in a few months time. No matter the system you can never guarantee that will work. Actually, in my opinion you should build your system in a way that can almost guarantee it won't work.

That would still not be a guarantee. With participation being based on getting top 10 the previous year it would always be very fragile. Also even if the risk is smaller if you are a top team that still only helps a handful of teams while there are dozens of teams that need sponsors.

Also you're looking at the team/sponsor relationship the wrong way around. It's not the sponsor that is going around looking for a team to support, it's the teams that are trying to find a new sponsors. What we need is an environment where it's possible for most teams to have a good selling point so that their existence can be secured. Right now however the Tour has become so big and important that everyone wants a piece of that pie.

It has come to a point where you are either part of a select group that gets to ride the Tour or you are left out in the cold and risk collapsing altogether. That's not a system that is sustainable in the long run.