|
News In October
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 08-10-2013 07:30
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
I don't think a calendar adjustment is needed. The season is really long now, but I like that. Riders have to make choices where to race, how to peak. Shortening the calendar and stopping overlapping races may allow a rider like Froome to win nearly every stage race in the season.. |
| |
|
|
| ShortsNL |
Posted on 08-10-2013 10:13
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 898
Joined: 17-11-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
One thing is very unclear to me: In the proposed system, are 1st division teams allowed to compete in the 2nd division and vice versa? I assume so.
Assuming the following:
-an average of 65 race days per rider
-9 riders sent to the GT's, 7 to the TDU which would last 5 days, and 8 to everything else
-1st div teams are only allowed to compete in 1st div and 2nd div races
-no overlap between 1st div races, but some overlap between 1st div and 2nd div races,
You would get a total of ~1400 race days, meaning 22 riders to each ride ~65 days. Add to that some reserves for injuries and so on, and you're looking at a team with no more than 25 riders.
Now, if they would reduce squad size to let's say 7 riders, you would only require 19 riders in total or ~22 with overhead.
|
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 08-10-2013 10:16
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
I just fear that cycling is getting a bit too much into uphill riding. Guys like Boonen won't have a job in 10 years time. At this point he already declares a guy like him has nothing to do in a GT. Only real good climbers, TTers and sprinters have a real chance of winning a stage. Seems logical in a way, but it strikes me as a bit unfair. |
| |
|
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 08-10-2013 12:30
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6662
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
CountArach wrote:
The only thing I really dislike here is shortening the stage races and I would like some further information on the 50 race days in 2nd Division. Can you please explain exactly what else you dislike so intensely here and your reason(s) for it. From here it looks like you are just completely overreacting to an early document.
I can't say anything in bblover's behalf, but I do really, really dislike that many races will be shortened and/or moved in the calendar just because the UCI feels like it. This is possibly the one sport where history matters, or at least the one where it matters the most, and the UCI seems to do not give a shit about it.
On the other hand, the 2 divisions system looks like a good idea that I wouldn't mind if they keep it. Still as you say it's just an early document, so we don't know what's going to happen after all, plus it seems that this is still a job of McQuaid's administration, so I wouldn't be surprised if Cookson wants to leave his own mark there with some amendments/modifications.
|
| |
|
|
| ShortsNL |
Posted on 08-10-2013 12:48
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 898
Joined: 17-11-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
kumazan wrote:
I do really, really dislike that many races will be shortened and/or moved in the calendar just because the UCI feels like it.
Just to put this into a clear perspective for everyone:
The UCI is planning this in order to make sponsoring more commercially viable. By shortening race days and eliminating overlaps, you need half the equipment and staff, as well as fewer riders.
The result is less cost for equal advertising return.
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 25-11-2024 15:20
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 08-10-2013 12:59
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6662
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
No. If the races aren't economically viable, their organizers shorten them (see Murcia, AndalucÃa or Portugal), they don't need daddy UCI to come help them.
|
| |
|
|
| Blueprint |
Posted on 08-10-2013 13:03
|
Domestique
Posts: 437
Joined: 29-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
kumazan wrote:
I do really, really dislike that many races will be shortened and/or moved in the calendar just because the UCI feels like it. This is possibly the one sport where history matters, or at least the one where it matters the most, and the UCI seems to do not give a shit about it.
The UCI has come up with this after discussions with all the stakeholders, including race organisers, cyclists, sponsors and teams. |
| |
|
|
| ShortsNL |
Posted on 08-10-2013 13:03
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 898
Joined: 17-11-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
I think it's pretty evident that this shortening is done to attract team sponsors and not race sponsors/organizers.
Frankly, with so many team sponsors leaving this season, I don't think that is a bad goal.
|
| |
|
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 08-10-2013 13:09
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6662
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
So they shorten races to attract team sponsors? Huh?
|
| |
|
|
| ShortsNL |
Posted on 08-10-2013 13:18
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 898
Joined: 17-11-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Less races to ride + shorter races = Less riders needed for your team -> lower salary budget needed
No overlapping = less equipment and staff needed -> lower equipment budget and staff budget needed
Lower salary, equipment and staff budget needed = lower sponsor budget needed
Meanwhile, the amount of sponsor exposure stays practically the same as the Grand Tours and the Monuments are not impacted.
Less sponsor budget needed + Equal exposure for sponsors = More ROI for sponsors -> Sponsoring an elite cycling team becomes more attractive.
Edited by ShortsNL on 08-10-2013 13:19
|
| |
|
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 08-10-2013 13:46
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6662
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
ShortsNL wrote:
Less races to ride + shorter races = Less riders needed for your team -> lower salary budget needed
Shorter races doesn't mean less riders. Less races do, and that's why the 2 tier system looks like a potentially good idea if well managed.
ShortsNL wrote:
No overlapping = less equipment and staff needed -> lower equipment budget and staff budget needed
Again, non sequitur. Perhaps PN and Tirreno will not overlap anymore, but that doesn't mean the equipment you use in one can be used for the other because of obvious logistic problems. And I don't see how a very small staff reduction (if there's a reduction at all) can affect a team budget that much.
That not to mention that equipment is generally provided by the correspondent equipment sponsor for free.
ShortsNL wrote:
Lower salary, equipment and staff budget needed = lower sponsor budget needed
Meanwhile, the amount of sponsor exposure stays practically the same as the Grand Tours and the Monuments are not impacted.
Less sponsor budget needed + Equal exposure for sponsors = More ROI for sponsors -> Sponsoring an elite cycling team becomes more attractive.
So we are turning cycling into the nth corporate soulless sport. But, okay, that could be necessary for its survival. But is it? Would the ROI of sponsors change significantly by shortening PN or Suisse a couple of days? How much would the sponsor budget needed decrease?
|
| |
|
|
| ShortsNL |
Posted on 08-10-2013 14:31
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 898
Joined: 17-11-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Shorter races (as in fewer stages per non-GT stage race) = Less race days -> Riders can ride more races to achieve the same number of race days -> Less riders needed for the entire programme.
Never did I say that no overlapping means you can only use one bus, driver, DS, mechanic etc. However, overlapping can still reduce the need to support 2-3 'away teams' (to put it in Star Trek language) to 1-2. Streamlining is bound to reduce the operational costs one way or another.
I did some guestimates based on this: https://inrng.com/...-team-sky/
I think a reduction of costs of 20% is realistic, just by looking at the numbers and thinking how much could each expense realistically drop.
If you ask me, cycling can have soul and be more efficient & effective at the same time for sponsors. One thing is for sure, the financial security teams have is very small, with all of their revenue coming from sponsors only. Top teams can litterally come and go within 5 years.
Cycling needs a more sustainable business model, and while simply making the sport more attractive to sponsors is not it, it does certainly help.
|
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 08-10-2013 15:13
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
What I really wonder is, how can many decent enough riders have any succees or even get decent results? When big races don't overlap and overall there are much lesser races in a more compact time-frame, this will mean a even tougher competition? I think cycling is already too unforgiving. I can see that cyclists will have problem finding slots in Division 1 or even Division 2 teams, will have problems to get satisfying results in minor races because all the big guns crash everything and basically cycling becoming more and more elitist as only the very best can compete in a long-term strategy such as this.
While I like the thought of a secure financial sponsorship for cycling (but then again, who says that any sponsors won't just jump ship again as soon as the first little scandal is lifted or the sponsor just has no further interest in cycling?), I doubt that this will be really the golden solution to many of the (financial) problems. As kumazan said: Tradition matters the most at the races itself. Since team names keep changing and riders switch their teams often on a yearly basis, this is the only real connection to anything remotely such a heritage, and this something that makes this sport for me so attractive.
Messing this up hardly seems to be the solution. To put in some metaphorical words: If this is the only way (which I am sure it is not!), maybe it would be just better to let cycling finally rest in peace rather than attempting another last-minute operation to save the patient at all costs a couple of more years.
By the way, and now I might get a bit populistic: How about the UCI just supports their riders, teams and organizers rather than just dictate stuff on them as well-intentioned it might be. I don't know about the current state of affairs but the UCI could be more of a helping hand. Helping teams to find sponsors, rewarding teams only for participation (such as tv money) in races, basically trying to make the teams more independent from sponsors but not completely replacing them. Surely this is an even bigger money issue and it could be just a dreamt up fairytale but I'd prefer such a course of actions rather than just try to make cycling more lucrative for sponsors - after all, they are the sponsors and the word implies that they invest money for advertisment.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| ShortsNL |
Posted on 08-10-2013 15:38
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 898
Joined: 17-11-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
You are giving the UCI way too much credit. They can do practically nothing.
Races are not organized by the UCI. TV rights and revenues are not shared by organizers.
To quote INRNG:
The UCI continues to provide the rules and a shared calendar of events so that there’s a season of races rather than competing grand tours. But the UCI can easily be replaced in men’s pro cycling, it’s survival depends on it staying relevant.
|
| |
|
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 08-10-2013 15:55
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6662
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
ShortsNL wrote:
Shorter races (as in fewer stages per non-GT stage race) = Less race days -> Riders can ride more races to achieve the same number of race days -> Less riders needed for the entire programme.
Again, with the shorter races the number of race days barely goes down, so the number of riders needed for the entire season would remain almost unchanged. Want less riders? Perfect, limit the number of riders to 6 in one week races and classics, and 7 in GTs.
ShortsNL wrote:
Never did I say that no overlapping means you can only use one bus, driver, DS, mechanic etc. However, overlapping can still reduce the need to support 2-3 'away teams' (to put it in Star Trek language) to 1-2. Streamlining is bound to reduce the operational costs one way or another.
I did some guestimates based on this: https://inrng.com/...-team-sky/
I think a reduction of costs of 20% is realistic, just by looking at the numbers and thinking how much could each expense realistically drop.
I was arguing against cutting the races anyway, not stopping the overlapping (which still can't see as a serious problem anyway). Still a 20% cost reduction seems way too optimistic for me.
Do they really, really want a cost reduction? Then I'd rather take what is, for me, the best of all the ideas Vaughters has had amongst those to help the sport thrive: a salary cap.
ShortsNL wrote:
If you ask me, cycling can have soul and be more efficient & effective at the same time for sponsors. One thing is for sure, the financial security teams have is very small, with all of their revenue coming from sponsors only. Top teams can litterally come and go within 5 years.
Cycling needs a more sustainable business model, and while simply making the sport more attractive to sponsors is not it, it does certainly help.
Sure. But not cutting down races and macromanaging the calendar from the top, imo.
Still, this is just a draft for now. Many things could change and I very much hope that the horrendous idea of cutting down historic races is one of them.
|
| |
|
|
| Malkael |
Posted on 08-10-2013 17:17
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1697
Joined: 02-08-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Back to the topic of Europcar for a moment. Considering they have business interests in Australia, and even came on board as a sponsor of the Tour Down Under, I am surprised that Team Europcar haven't made more journeys to Australia.
I assume the financial burden of the trip to and from Australia makes for a negative "Return on Investment". Or it could always be for preparation reasons, but it isn't like they have no commercial interests in Australia. |
| |
|
|
| Atlantius |
Posted on 08-10-2013 18:02
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6795
Joined: 21-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Malkael: Europcar has commercial interests in pretty much the entire world, so there's a limit to how often the team can go to each single country...
In other news Team Saxo Bank has called a press conference thursday. In MADRID!
Picking up Alonso and Euskaltel?
|
| |
|
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 08-10-2013 18:39
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6662
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Atlantius wrote:
In other news Team Saxo Bank has called a press conference thursday. In MADRID!
Picking up Alonso and Euskaltel?
As isso said, they don't have the money, and I doubt Alonso will get involved in a project that's not purely his own. I'm guessing the location has more to do with their Tour de San Luis stage winner.
|
| |
|
|
| Bosskardo |
Posted on 08-10-2013 19:24
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1559
Joined: 07-04-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
I'll repeat: They don't want to allow non-GT races longer than 6 days
That just sux. I have always thougth that we need a 2 week race.
|
| |
|
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 08-10-2013 19:27
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6662
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
kumazan wrote:
Atlantius wrote:
In other news Team Saxo Bank has called a press conference thursday. In MADRID!
Picking up Alonso and Euskaltel?
As isso said
How dare you address me by my first name?
I demand you use my last
It won't happen again Mr.that, I promise.
|
| |
|
