Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread

[RedheadDane]

Of course, there are no perfect solutions. My suggestion of having a team be selected at random - to give teams that wouldn't normally be selected a chance - could mean that a team that wouldn't really show much. (Of course, teams that have no interest in racing should be allowed to simply opt-out of the selection-pool).
However, a team being invited, but not showing much/anything can also happen with the more traditional Wildcard system; teams being invited 100% according to the organiser's wishes. Remember last year, when ASO got some critique for inviting B&B, which then went on to be basically invissible?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Of course, there are no perfect solutions. My suggestion of having a team be selected at random - to give teams that wouldn't normally be selected a chance - could mean that a team that wouldn't really show much. (Of course, teams that have no interest in racing should be allowed to simply opt-out of the selection-pool).
However, a team being invited, but not showing much/anything can also happen with the more traditional Wildcard system; teams being invited 100% according to the organiser's wishes. Remember last year, when ASO got some critique for inviting B&B, which then went on to be basically invissible?

This is the problem, at the moment the ProTeam level has been starved of riders at a level to be much more than break fodder, save for those teams who are WT teams in all but official status, like Lotto and IPT. Those teams can't attract any real prospects because they wouldn't have any support, and if they can't guarantee invites they aren't going to attract any current stars either, just perpetuating them as there to make the numbers up with the rest of the sport being a locked Premier League type level.

Look back at, say, 2009. Even ignoring Cervélo Test Team, who were also a ProTour team in all but name with the guys like Sastre, Hushovd, Haussler et al... you have:
- Acqua e Sapone have a genuine threat to win major classics especially in Italy in Luca Paolini, and a secondary GC contender and former Giro winner in Stefano Garzelli who finishes on the podium of Tirreno-Adriatico and in the top 10 + KOM at the Giro
- Agritubel have a sprinter who challenges in smaller races in Romain Feillu, and a veteran former GC man in Christophe Moreau
- Barloworld have a former Tour KOM in Juan Mauricio Soler and a Tour stage-winning sprinter in Robbie Hunter plus a former Vuelta stage winner and KOM in Félix Cardenas
- CSF despite being quarantined for the 2008 Giro antics have a former Giro top 10 in Domenico Pozzovivo and a guy who has just podiumed several late season Italian classics and semi-classics in Mauro Finetto
- ISD-NERI have Dario Cioni who was once on the podium of the Tour de Suisse and 4th in the Giro, and Giovanni Visconti who wore the maglia rosa for a week and threatens a wide range of classics and semi-classics, being one of Italy's most prominent riders at the time
- Landbouwkrediet have Bert de Waele who is consistently in the top 10 in classics across a broad spectrum from flat races to the Ardennes and has won a number of semi-classics and smaller one-dayers
- LPR Brakes have a recent Giro winner and major hilly classics threat in Danilo di Luca, and an elite sprinter in Alessandro Petacchi
- Diquigiovanni have Davide Rebellin, veteran superstar of the hilly classics having an (enhanced) Indian summer, the Tirreno-Adriatico winner (and future Giro winner of course) in Michele Scarponi, and a former two-time Giro winner in Gilberto Simoni
- Skil-Shimano have a sprinter who wins and podiums several of the semi-classics in Kenny van Hummel
- Vacansoleil have a sprinter who wins stages of the Vuelta and Tour de Pologne in Borut Božič, a significant classics threat in Björn Leukemans, and a former maillot vert in Baden Cooke, plus a strong supporting cast with Johnny Hoogerland, Matteo Carrara and Marco Marcato among others
- Xacobeo-Galicia have a significant GC threat with Ezequiel Mosquera

Hell, even lesser teams like Andalucía-CajaSur have riders who can present a threat, like Xavier Tondó, and PSK Whirlpool have Patrik Sinkewitz and Danilo Hondo. The highest-ranked rider on CQ on a ProConti team is Thor Hushovd in 14th, but even if we discount Cervélo Test Team you have Garzelli 25th, Petacchi 26th, Visconti 33rd, Rebellin 44th (and remember he could only score until the end of April when he got suspended), Paolini 47th, Božič 51st, Hoogerland 52nd, Feillu 53rd, Tondó 54th, Lelay 56th, Scarponi 57th, Mosquera 64th, van Hummel 69th, Caruso 85th, de Waele 87th, Carrara 88th, and Bertagnolli 97th, plus Jimmy Casper 61st on a Continental team (Bessons Chaussures, who would later become Saur-Sojasun), likewise Rubén Plaza 67th (on Liberty Seguros Continental) and Grega Bole 78th (on Adria Mobil). That is - excluding the best team at that level - 17 Pro Conti riders and 3 Conti riders in the top 100. Including Cervélo, you can add a further five (Hushovd 14th, Haussler 16th, Gerrans 41st, Sastre 63rd and Hammond 92nd. And remember, this is with all of Danilo di Luca's points from the Giro and afterward expunged from the record. With two stage wins, the points jersey, 2nd on GC and countless other high placements, he would have easily been there too.

The number of ProTeams have reduced considerably, and the quality of them have dropped pretty significantly, especially with the promotion of Alpecin and Arkéa, two of the only ones that fit into the mould of the generation I mention above. Arkéa's 2022 team with Quintana is a perfect example of that older style of ProConti, a veteran GC hand who has worn out his welcome at the top level but still has name value. It's why IPT don't need to be WT and would actually be better served not being there - with almost all their top names being the wrong side of 35, focusing on being competitive at a smaller number of races where they can hit good form rather than having to make up numbers at all the WT races will be better. I guess you could argue TotalEnergies too, since Sagan fills that mould for one day races too, although his drop-off has been more considerable than might have been expected. But back in 2009, apart from a couple like Team Vorarlberg, pre-Evans BMC and Amica Chips-Knauf, there are no 'passenger' wildcard teams. Nowadays you look at the ProTeam level and the majority of the teams there are like that. On the 2023 CQ Rankings (and I appreciate the season is still ongoing so is incomplete data), at time of writing, ProTeam riders in the top 100 are:
- Arnaud de Lie 17th (on a team with guaranteed invite to WT races)
- Michael Woods 48th (on a team with guaranteed invite to WT races)
- Milan Menten 54th (on a team with guaranteed invite to WT races)
- Henok Mulubrhan 57th
- Søren Wærenskjold 60th
- Caleb Ewan 62nd (on a team with guaranteed invite to WT races)
- Florian Vermeersch 63rd (on a team with guaranteed invite to WT races)
- Rasmus Tiller 78th
- Derek Gee 80th (on a team with guaranteed invite to WT races)
- Alexander Kristoff 88th

There's also Miguel Ángel López in 82nd as the only Conti rider there.

So from 22 total in 2009 it's down to 10 - and if you take out the two teams who are in effect WT teams in all but name because they have automatic invites, there's... four. Three of whom are on the same team. And crucially, they're mainly below 50th too. The lack of variety in invites really shows as well - the 22 riders in 2009 are across 10 teams. The 10 riders in 2023 are across 4.

The falling away of the domestic calendars as a product of the financial crisis cannot be underestimated as a factor, of course, but those domestic calendars rely on a strong second tier and access to the elite teams from their area to survive, so the withering away of the lower levels really hurts those races - and those are also some of the most important races for developing riders to compete at too.

Of course, those teams also used to rely pretty heavily on getting hold of young talents before they made it to the top tier, whereas recent success stories from riders hitting the ground running has led the WT teams to pursue riders straight from juniors or espoirs. And of course the lack of significant level riders coming off doping bans - if you look at those top names on ProContis in 2009, there's a good few coming off suspensions, like Sinkewitz, Petacchi and Scarponi, riding under a cloud like Rebellin, or with previous history like di Luca.

 

[RedheadDane]

@Libertine Seguros, even if your system got introduced, how do you know it wouldn't still be the same small handfull of teams getting all the invites?

 

[Devil's Elbow]

Some people would like to watch a 1-0 game between Barcelona and Real Madrid than a 4-3 game between Espanyol and Rayo Vallecano, because the standard will be higher with the stars. Some people would like to watch the more entertaining game with lesser names.

Here's the problem with this analogy. In the biggest races, Barcelona and Real Madrid are still there. And teams like Burgos-BH and Euskaltel are not at the level of Espanyol or Rayo Vallecano, but at that of a random Tercera División team like SD Logroñés or Atletico Sanluqueño, struggling to beat the U23 teams - Real Madrid Castilla in the analogy, the Jumbo DT in practice. Nobody prefers to watch Real beat Logroñés 8-0 without even trying over and over, just like nobody prefers to see Burgos and Euskaltel be irrelevances in the Vuelta over and over.

And no matter your wildcard system in the biggest races, there will always be plenty of good .1 and .HC races where you can watch actually-decent teams like Uno-X or Lotto battle it out for a spectacular 4-3. Burgos and Euskaltel are usually irrelevant in those races as well. Just like Logroñés would usually be in a game against Espanyol.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I don't, but at least the organisers would have a factor of choice that could give the races some variety in flavour and could adapt to market needs. Sometimes a race needs to focus on its domestic scene, some sponsors are more interested in associating with certain demographics (see Lampre riding the Volta a Portugal in the early 2010s because their sponsor had interests in that country). Aqua Blue not getting an invite to the Vuelta in year 2 when they did in year 1 had in part to do with the lack of Spanish success at the race the previous year, where the only Spanish stage winner and GC top 10 was Contador, who then retired. The organisers therefore wanted to ensure good support for the race on the roads and including more home teams was a reason for that; a reason that hadn't been needed in the early 2010s when the Spanish scene dwindled badly but with the likes of Contador, Valverde, Rodríguez, Moreno and Samu Sánchez prominent, it didn't need to be and the organisers could prioritise other factors with the wildcard selections.

The other objective would be to get rid of the obvious Euskaltel-at-Roubaix or First-Year-Greenedge-At-The-Giro outliers. That could be done by just bringing back the option for WT teams to bow out of a couple of WT races per year, but the problem is that that is going to really hurt some of UCI's pet project races like Guangxi more than anything else.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Here's the problem with this analogy. In the biggest races, Barcelona and Real Madrid are still there. And teams like Burgos-BH and Euskaltel are not at the level of Espanyol or Rayo Vallecano, but at that of a random Tercera División team like SD Logroñés or Atletico Sanluqueño, struggling to beat the U23 teams - Real Madrid Castilla in the analogy, the Jumbo DT in practice. Nobody prefers to watch Real beat Logroñés 8-0 without even trying over and over, just like nobody prefers to see Burgos and Euskaltel be irrelevances in the Vuelta over and over.

And no matter your wildcard system in the biggest races, there will always be plenty of good .1 and .HC races where you can watch actually-decent teams like Uno-X or Lotto battle it out for a spectacular 4-3. Burgos and Euskaltel are usually irrelevant in those races as well. Just like Logroñés would usually be in a game against Espanyol.

Euskaltel weren't in the top 40 last year, so they wouldn't be wildcard eligible in my system.

A danger of my proposal would be a proliferation of pop-up races designed with little goal in mind but to artificially bump up the rankings of those teams that the national federations wished to save.

The Conti teams that got up ahead of Euskaltel last season and into the top 40 (Euskaltel were 41st) would need to be biopassport compliant to be eligible anyway, we know this is possible because Black Spoke did it, and they're basically an overpriced Conti team for the joy they've had sourcing invites given the lack of flexibility afforded to organisers by the number of WT licences and the false wildcards to Lotto and IPT - a team like Black Spoke therefore haven't stood much chance of picking up any joy with the small number of available actual wildcard selections. Even some of the most 'meh' ProConti teams of all time managed a few ProTour/WorldTour invites back in the days of more variety, and the level sustained a wider number of teams than it currently does as well.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

The organisers therefore wanted to ensure good support for the race on the roads and including more home teams was a reason for that; a reason that hadn't been needed in the early 2010s when the Spanish scene dwindled badly but with the likes of Contador, Valverde, Rodríguez, Moreno and Samu Sánchez prominent, it didn't need to be and the organisers could prioritise other factors with the wildcard selections.

Do you really think a significant number of fans is going to base their decision whether or not to attend the race in person based on the fact that Óscar Cabedo is in 20th on GC or the chance that Jesús Ezquerra might come 10th on the stage? Because that's all a team like Burgos has to offer at the Vuelta. This just smacks of making up an argument to justify the inclusion of borderline amateur teams, presumably after Unipublic being handed some money by said teams.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

Euskaltel weren't in the top 40 last year, so they wouldn't be wildcard eligible in my system.

But they are currently in the top 40, so would have become eligible next year. In any case, it really isn't much of a counterargument because there's always a number of teams inside the top-40 who get a GT invite and do absolutely nothing of note for three weeks.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

But they are currently in the top 40, so would have become eligible next year. In any case, it really isn't much of a counterargument because there's always a number of teams inside the top-40 who get a GT invite and do absolutely nothing of note for three weeks.

There's also frequently teams within the WT who get an invite to race upon race that they do absolutely nothing of note in, because their roster or their targets are based around a different part of the calendar. I'd rather replace some of those with teams that do care about those races and will enliven them. Again, even 15 years ago there were a couple of those teams that did just provide break fodder and added nothing else, like Andalucía... but they were rare and few in number. Now that's basically what 3/4 the ProTeam level is. And those breakaways don't even get allowed far enough up the road to dare to dream of a stage win 90% of the time anymore either.

 

[RedheadDane]

There's also frequently teams within the WT who get an invite to race upon race that they do absolutely nothing of note in, because their roster or their targets are based around a different part of the calendar.

Hence why I think teams should be allowed to opt out.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Do you really think a significant number of fans is going to base their decision whether or not to attend the race in person based on the fact that Óscar Cabedo is in 20th on GC or the chance that Jesús Ezquerra might come 10th on the stage? Because that's all a team like Burgos has to offer at the Vuelta. This just smacks of making up an argument to justify the inclusion of borderline amateur teams, presumably after Unipublic being handed some money by said teams.

And a WT team like Lotto at the 2022 Vuelta offered more than Burgos how?

Ultimately, the UCI deliberately weakened the ProConti level because Cervélo and BMC exploited the system, making the ProTour licence less desirable, because those teams could spend less on the licence, spend the balance on elite riders, and get invited to any race they wanted while simultaneously being able to opt out of races which the others couldn't.

I don't think they intended for it to become as weak as it has done, but this is the long term impact of the action taken to protect against the division being too strong and exploitable as it was before. And possibly the product of the lack of significant name-value doping busts meaning very few riders with significant name value being able to be signed on the cheap as used to be the modus operandi of a few of those teams like Androni Giocattoli and Vini Fantini.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

Here's what I would suggest for the wildcard system:
- The top-16 on a three-year ranking gets a WT license for 3 years, however the license is withdrawn if a team finishes outside the top-25 on the year-by-year ranking.
- WT teams may choose to skip up to three WT races each season, with a maximum of two one-day races and two stage races. However, to keep the UCI happy, no more than four teams may choose to skip the same race; if more than four teams want to skip a race, the four highest-ranked teams of this group are those allowed to do so.
- The top-4 non-WT teams (a separation between PCT and CT can be retained if desired but really isn't necessary) on the year-by-year ranking are automatically invited to every WT stage race the following year, the top-5 non-WT teams are invited to every WT one-day race. No Sylvan Adams Exemptions for recently relegated teams. This makes it easier for ambitious non-WT teams to make their way into the GTs.
- Teams that refuse the WT license are not eligible for automatic invites for the three years of the next WT cycle
- In GTs, only teams inside the top-30 on the year-by-year ranking are eligible for the remaining (2 if all automatic invites are accepted) wildcards. Teams with a roster that would have finished inside the top-30 the previous year are also eligible.
- In all other WT races, organisers may choose to invite one team from a country visited by the race ranked between 31 and 40, or a national selection. For the remaining wildcards, the same criteria apply as for the GTs.
- For teams registered in Europe, the total amount of points in the ranking is capped at 150% of the number of points scored in Europe (to prevent teams from exclusively farming cheap points in Asian races). This also applies to the score a roster would have managed last year (so that you can't simply sign the Qinghai Lake winner to stay eligible).

 

[Devil's Elbow]

And a WT team like Lotto at the 2022 Vuelta offered more than Burgos how?

Lotto offered nothing because they were sending their better riders to farm UCI points in smaller races. With GT stages being worth much more points from this year onwards, that situation will no longer arise in the future.

 

[RedheadDane]

- WT teams may choose to skip up to three WT races each season, with a maximum of two one-day races and two stage races. However, to keep the UCI happy, no more than four teams may choose to skip the same race; if more than four teams want to skip a race, the four highest-ranked teams of this group are those allowed to do so.

If a lot of WT teams want to skip a WT race, then maybe that race shouldn't be a WT race...

- In all other WT races, organisers may choose to invite one team from a country visited by the race ranked between 31 and 40

Why would it have to be from a country visted by the race?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Here's what I would suggest for the wildcard system:
- The top-16 on a three-year ranking gets a WT license for 3 years, however the license is withdrawn if a team finishes outside the top-25 on the year-by-year ranking.
- WT teams may choose to skip up to three WT races each season, with a maximum of two one-day races and two stage races. However, to keep the UCI happy, no more than four teams may choose to skip the same race; if more than four teams want to skip a race, the four highest-ranked teams of this group are those allowed to do so.
- The top-4 non-WT teams (a separation between PCT and CT can be retained if desired but really isn't necessary) on the year-by-year ranking are automatically invited to every WT stage race the following year, the top-5 non-WT teams are invited to every WT one-day race. No Sylvan Adams Exemptions for recently relegated teams. This makes it easier for ambitious non-WT teams to make their way into the GTs.
- Teams that refuse the WT license are not eligible for automatic invites for the three years of the next WT cycle
- In GTs, only teams inside the top-30 on the year-by-year ranking are eligible for the remaining (2 if all automatic invites are accepted) wildcards. Teams with a roster that would have finished inside the top-30 the previous year are also eligible.
- In all other WT races, organisers may choose to invite one team from a country visited by the race ranked between 31 and 40, or a national selection. For the remaining wildcards, the same criteria apply as for the GTs.
- For teams registered in Europe, the total amount of points in the ranking is capped at 150% of the number of points scored in Europe (to prevent teams from exclusively farming cheap points in Asian races). This also applies to the score a roster would have managed last year (so that you can't simply sign the Qinghai Lake winner to stay eligible).

This is mostly pretty reasonable but I would prefer if you're going to give compulsory "wildcards" to EVERY WT stage race, it would need to be fewer than 4 for variety otherwise it's no less rigid than what we already have which I feel to be too restrictive and makes for a lack of variety and individual character for races and scenes.

Or the difference in points between WT and PS races is heavily altered to prevent this becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

If a lot of WT teams want to skip a WT race, then maybe that race shouldn't be a WT race...

True, but that's the kind of provision the UCI would never agree to. I was trying to be realistic here.

Why would it have to be from a country visted by the race?

For the sake of ensuring you have national representation in races like TDU, Suisse, Pologne and so on. The standard there is lower than in GTs anyway so you can afford to accommodate a slightly weaker invitee team.

Or the difference in points between WT and PS races is heavily altered to prevent this becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This is definitely a potential concern and you'd need to simulate the system to see whether it would be an issue in practice, and based on that whether to tweak the number of wildcards/the points distribution/both. Alternatively you could also do the WT stage races with the stage race ranking and one-day races with the one-day race ranking, although I could see that leading to an influx of two-and three day stage races (those handing out as many GC points as an eight-day race is probably the biggest issue with the current rankings...). Or you could do automatic invites for 1st and 2nd and two invites for the group from 3rd to 6th. The bottom line is that the majority of non-WT invites should be on merit and not the whims of organisers.

 

[Anderis]

This is an interesting discussion to be had but may I suggest you start a new thread, because it has little to do with transfers and rumours?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Maybe Red Rick could split those posts off to a thread debating the wildcard system? This has come up a few times over the years, such as on the Aqua Blue Sport thread.

This is definitely a potential concern and you'd need to simulate the system to see whether it would be an issue in practice, and based on that whether to tweak the number of wildcards/the points distribution/both. Alternatively you could also do the WT stage races with the stage race ranking and one-day races with the one-day race ranking, although I could see that leading to an influx of two-and three day stage races (those handing out as many GC points as an eight-day race is probably the biggest issue with the current rankings...). Or you could do automatic invites for 1st and 2nd and two invites for the group from 3rd to 6th. The bottom line is that the majority of non-WT invites should be on merit and not the whims of organisers.

Yes, I feel perhaps there ought to be separate points rankings for GCs when it comes to short stage races and week long races too, lest this be artificially affected by 2-3 stage races where realistically one stage settles it so the points are artificially skewed. Probably individual stages don't need the rankings altered, but I'd say separate GC points structures for 2-4 days, 5-7 days, and 8+ (in practice, at the pro level, this just means 8-9 with the sole exceptions of Portugal and Langkawi, plus I guess Qinghai Lake if it grows back to what it was, but you've already made a provision to avoid races like that skewing things too much). This was a major problem for the Volta a Portugal from 2011-12 onwards when the financial crisis and doping scandals reduced the number of domestic and Spanish teams to invite, but they struggled to get teams from elsewhere because they were clashing with multiple shorter stage races that paid an equal number of points once they dropped to 2.1 status. That Paris-Corrèze, a two stage race where getting in the right break or having the best form on a punchy uphill sprint would be all that was needed for the top 5 on GC, paid the same points as eleven days (actually twelve with a rest day) of a petit-GT where you'd probably be marginal to the GC because of the domestic teams treating it like their TDF, meant why would any of those teams ever pick the Volta?

 

[ManicJack]

This is an interesting discussion to be had but may I suggest you start a new thread, because it has little to do with transfers and rumours?

This. 🙄

 

[Colonel]

You are 100% correct - Faulkner has a fragile mind and is a difficult customer, but at the same time, Jayco doesn't have many good riders, so you would try to retain her - I'll also Jayco are shocking at planning their race program - They often don't take their best riders to the best races and they don't do enough smaller races when you consider the strength of their team.

I hear you, there is always a time or point where you prefer no results vs a riders personality. when they go with the latter you know it outweighs any type of result.

 

[Tim Cahill]

Brailsford back to Ineos cycling team on a free transfer. Explains the number of sudden U-turns (Foss, Verona, Rodriguez).

Ineos-Grenadiers, Rodriguez resta. E Brailsford tornerà ad essere più operativo nel team

Per il 22enne spagnolo, 5° al Tour, non si dovrebbe concretizzare il passaggio alla Movistar. Intanto il team principal è più coinvolto nella gestione

www.gazzetta.it

Hopefully he tells Tom Pidcock to either throw his mountain bike in the bin or *** off. And brings back Dr Freeman on the quiet to hook Ethan Hayter up with an asthma TUE.

 

[RedheadDane]

Hopefully he tells Tom Pidcock to either throw his mountain bike in the bin or *** off.

Why? They get a fair bit of exposure by Pidcock being World Champion.

 

[Tim Cahill]

Why? They get a fair bit of exposure by Pidcock being World Champion.

Personal preference entirely, as I don't watch MTB outside the big races.

 

[Mayomaniac]

Brailsford back to Ineos cycling team on a free transfer. Explains the number of sudden U-turns (Foss, Verona, Rodriguez).

Ineos-Grenadiers, Rodriguez resta. E Brailsford tornerà ad essere più operativo nel team

Per il 22enne spagnolo, 5° al Tour, non si dovrebbe concretizzare il passaggio alla Movistar. Intanto il team principal è più coinvolto nella gestione

www.gazzetta.it

Hopefully he tells Tom Pidcock to either throw his mountain bike in the bin or *** off. And brings back Dr Freeman on the quiet to hook Ethan Hayter up with an asthma TUE.

A few weeks ago there was talk about a meeting between Brailsford and Quickstep owner Bakala and there are some crazy rumours that Bakala already sold his shares to Ineos owner Ratcliffe and that the merger is happening.

 

[RedheadDane]

Personal preference entirely, as I don't watch MTB outside the big races.

Neither do I, but if Pidcock wants to do MTB - and CX - I don't see why he shouldn't.