Pro Tour DEAD. Properly.
Comments
-
I'm stunned. Unity within the teams? How long will that last?!
I'm sure the demise of the ProTour will only be mourned in Aigle.0 -
Oooh, Pat's gonna ban em !
Bet they're bricking it.0 -
Very interesting but surely that is just half of the story. Do we still not need to know what events they will be riding next year or will we just see teams racing any events they are invited to with no overall or season long contest ?? Come to think of it is any season long competition really of much interest to anyone ??0
-
0
-
Sorry, I said "more here", I should have said "exactly the same here"... CN appear to have just copy-pasted the Reuters release0
-
ASO keeps claiming they're not starting their own league, but I don't buy it. They definitely had input in this.
The cyclists are idiots for letting all this happen. They need to form a union. If ASO is basically running 90% of the races they're in, you really think they'll get fair treatment? You think ASO's real main concern is for fairness and not their own business interests?0 -
donrhummy wrote:ASO keeps claiming they're not starting their own league, but I don't buy it. They definitely had input in this.
The cyclists are idiots for letting all this happen. They need to form a union. If ASO is basically running 90% of the races they're in, you really think they'll get fair treatment? You think ASO's real main concern is for fairness and not their own business interests?
+10 -
A bit more here
http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/other/ ... 95334.htmlCycling faces crisis split
Cycling was split between its governing body and private organisers today after the ProTour teams said they were leaving the International Cycling Union's (UCI) elite series.
"It has been decided unanimously not to renew the ProTour licences for the 2009 season," the 17 ProTour teams on the Tour de France said in a joint statement.
The UCI has been at odds with the three big Tour organisers - the Tour de France, Vuelta and Giro - since they refused to be part of the ProTour series, which guarantees top teams a place in the prestigious races.
The Astana team, who were not invited to take part in the Tour de France because of their past doping record, are also set to join the move away from the elite series.
"If everybody decides so, I can't imagine Astana will not follow," said the team's chief press officer Philippe Maertens.
Quick Step manager Patrick Lefevere added: "I'm very happy. I hope the UCI will talk to the teams and organisers".
Bouygues Telecom manager Jean-Rene Berneaudea said: "The problem is that we were sold a product (the ProTour) which is not the one we got.
"That's the origin of the conflict. What matters today for my sponsors is a participation in the three big Tours."
UCI president Pat McQuaid said Tour de France organisers Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO) wanted to create their own private league outside the governing body's regulations.
"It is obvious they are going to join ASO's dissident federation," said McQuaid.
"We'll deal with that according to the regulations - they face exclusion from the international federation. It is something we are going to discuss."
Vuelta and Giro d'Italia organisers, Unipublic and RCS, also refused to be part of the ProTour, which started in 2005 under the UCI's jurisdiction.
ASO owns the Paris-Nice stage race and Liege-Bastogne-Liege and Paris-Roubaix classics. RCS also organises the Milan-San Remo classic with Unipublic running the Tour of Murcia.
Other race organisers were worried about their events.
"If it happens, 30 per cent of the teams' staff will be without a job," said Thierry Cazeneuve, organiser of the Dauphine Libere.
"It means that the €150,000 guaranteed to the teams by their sponsors for being in the ProTour will be taken back."
Richard Chassot, the Tour of Romandie director, said: "It's bad news for cycling and teams who will have to reduce their staff.
"If the three big Tour organisers share the cake between them, they have enough races without us. We might as well die."
The situation is reminiscent of that in 1972, when the ATP was created after the top players decided to part with the international tennis federation to run the game themselves.
The difference is the ITF organises the sport's biggest events, the Grand Slams, whereas the UCI only has the world championships, which are far less popular than the Tour de France.
0 -
I don't know how McNut can talk about federation bans for riders, when the teams are the ones withdrawing.
The fact that his silence, this Tour, has been deafening, shows what a toothless monkey he's become, while Prudhomme continues to grind his organ! :shock: :oops:
Still, it means that Astana can make a clean sweep of the ENECO Tour and Poland! :roll:"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
lol @ "Grinding his Organ"
0 -
Teams, especially their sponsors, want stability and visibility. Signing up for a Pro Tour licence has proven to be a waste of money, and rather than bothering to listen the the complaints and concerns of teams and offer reform, the UCI has been using nailgun on its coffin this week, announcing a Pro Tour event in Russia. Many teams just don't want to spend a fortune flying their squads around the world to unknown events.
A rejection of the Pro Tour isn't an embrace of ASO. But once again McQuaid's instant replies are undignified and silly, talking about the teams he says "they face exclusion from the international federation". As if, and in making statements like this he risks driving the teams into the arms of ASO.
I just don't know how McQuaid can run the UCI. Surely no one has any confidence in him?0 -
Apparently his mum thinks he's doing a grand job.
0 -
Will someone explain to Pat that "I'll ban you from the thing you're leaving of your own accord" rates really low on the threat-o-meter?0
-
Have all the troubles not stemmed from McQuaid being a complete arse? Are the teams just realizing thats it would be a better life getting behind ASO? They definitely run the better events, and only seem to embroiled in the one battle.... with McQuaid!
granted i don't know indepth info about the situation ASO seem the better option no?0 -
McQuaid's idea of charging a fortune of the teams, to force them to race in races they didn't want to go to, in increasingly obscure parts of the world irrelevant to the team sponsors, whilst wrapping-up the television revenues, seems to have come unstuck.
McQuaid has survived because he's been held-up by the votes of the delegates from these obscure parts of the world, but if they now realise he's not going to deliver on his promises to get them big-time races, perhaps his time will have come !0 -
Reading the article I too was thinking that (finally) McQuaid's days must be numbered. He has no leverage over any teams or riders now.
He can't really ban riders from anything other than the worlds and if he did that they would end up a bigger laughing stock than he is.
Surely no delegates will back him up now.0 -
donrhummy wrote:ASO keeps claiming they're not starting their own league, but I don't buy it. They definitely had input in this.
The cyclists are idiots for letting all this happen. They need to form a union. If ASO is basically running 90% of the races they're in, you really think they'll get fair treatment? You think ASO's real main concern is for fairness and not their own business interests?
Why would a sport being run as a business be bad for the riders? The Premier League, Indian Cricket Laegue, Tennis, Golf, Formula 1 - all run as businesses, slickly run and sold to TV. As a result the competitors get rich. As it is there are plenty of domestiques slogging their guts out all year round and risking there health with doping to earn less than I do. The teams need to make sure they get a cut of the TV rights (but not as prize money).
This is why I believe the two key races in ASO's future are the Tours of Romandie and Switzerland. This is because they are owned by IMG, the World's biggest sports agency (Woods, Federer, Nadal, Schumacher etc). They also represent a lot of cyclists (it's who Toni Rominger works for). They more or less run tennis and golf and know exactly how to package and sell sports TV and if ASO get them on board and offer good terms to them and the teams, then all riders will get more money for less racing.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:.
Why would a sport being run as a business be bad for the riders? The Premier League, Indian Cricket Laegue, Tennis, Golf, Formula 1 - all run as businesses, slickly run and sold to TV. As a result the competitors get rich. As it is there are plenty of domestiques slogging their guts out all year round and risking there health with doping to earn less than I do. The teams need to make sure they get a cut of the TV rights (but not as prize money).
This is why I believe the two key races in ASO's future are the Tours of Romandie and Switzerland. This is because they are owned by IMG, the World's biggest sports agency (Woods, Federer, Nadal, Schumacher etc). They also represent a lot of cyclists (it's who Toni Rominger works for). They more or less run tennis and golf and know exactly how to package and sell sports TV and if ASO get them on board and offer good terms to them and the teams, then all riders will get more money for less racing.
It sTrue IMG are excellent at making their clients bundles of money and act on behalf of them rather than anyone else - Mark McCormack (founder of IMG and sadly now departed) started the group with Arnold Palmer in the 50's on a handshake and stayed true to their word, the same principly happens today, If prudhomme and ASO get them in board with an objective of "cycling is the new golf" lots of people will make lots of money and poor Pat will be digging up spuds
My money is on IMG/ASO with this one - bye bye Switzerland Pat0 -
RichN95 wrote:donrhummy wrote:ASO keeps claiming they're not starting their own league, but I don't buy it. They definitely had input in this.
The cyclists are idiots for letting all this happen. They need to form a union. If ASO is basically running 90% of the races they're in, you really think they'll get fair treatment? You think ASO's real main concern is for fairness and not their own business interests?
Why would a sport being run as a business be bad for the riders? The Premier League, Indian Cricket Laegue, Tennis, Golf, Formula 1 - all run as businesses, slickly run and sold to TV. As a result the competitors get rich. As it is there are plenty of domestiques slogging their guts out all year round and risking there health with doping to earn less than I do. The teams need to make sure they get a cut of the TV rights (but not as prize money).
This is why I believe the two key races in ASO's future are the Tours of Romandie and Switzerland. This is because they are owned by IMG, the World's biggest sports agency (Woods, Federer, Nadal, Schumacher etc). They also represent a lot of cyclists (it's who Toni Rominger works for). They more or less run tennis and golf and know exactly how to package and sell sports TV and if ASO get them on board and offer good terms to them and the teams, then all riders will get more money for less racing.
Premier League - huge amount of revenue from overseas TV rights sales, which is why you see prem clubs scooting off to play in footballing backwaters like Thailand and USA to please sponsors and keep the coffers full. Arguably plays more games for less revenue than La Liga does or Serie A.
IPL - huge domestique audience which only really works in Indian and isn't applicable anywhere else
F1 - Hello Doha and Shanghai. It's exactly the F1 model that the UCI ProTour was based on - globalised sport.
Likewise tennis and golf rely on players turning up in nowheresville to play to bulk out the coffers. As far as I understood it ATP and WTP run tennis and IMG manages the sale of broadcast and image rights for them.
I honestly don't think the riders would do less riding for more money - they'd be hard pushed to do fewer racing days per year than the likes of Ullrich,Vinokourov and Armstrong did over the last few years in their pursuit of glory.
What all the sports that have globalised successfully have done is have a unified position or person guiding the direction of the sport something which simply won't happen so long as the UCI tries to control the calendar without the support of race organisers and sponsors.0 -
It's time for McQuaid to fall on his sword. He will be remembered as the man who killed off the UCI.
Cycling is heading the same way as Formula 1- commercially run, with happy and interested punters key to commercial success.0 -
leguape wrote:I honestly don't think the riders would do less riding for more money - they'd be hard pushed to do fewer racing days per year than the likes of Ullrich,Vinokourov and Armstrong did over the last few years in their pursuit of glory.
What all the sports that have globalised successfully have done is have a unified position or person guiding the direction of the sport something which simply won't happen so long as the UCI tries to control the calendar without the support of race organisers and sponsors.
I'm not talking about the likes of Armstrong and Ullrich - I'm talking about the domestiques who have to race 100+ days a year for 25K a year and are almost forced to dope to keep their jobs (there are lots of very average people in golf, tennis and football who are millionaires).
And you want one unified person controlling it - then that's Prudhomme but alongside a governing body. In F1 Ecclestone runs it, but there's still FIA to admistrate it. Similarly, the USPGA don't tell Augusta what to do, nor the ATF with Wimbledon.
As for globalization and the ProTour - if there's money in races in China or the US, why not go there instead of doing a race like the Route du Sud or Tour of Poland. A week long Tour of Beijing with appearance money for the teams and 200k for the winner is far better.
I don't think the ProTour was a bad idea, it was just mismanaged due to no consulation with the race owners and the UCI trying make money from what wasn't theirs. If you had the same system but with two changes it would work. The changes are: a) less ProTour teams - maximum 14 and b) it is compulsory to invite those 14 teams, not for them to compete - so Euskatel would be invited to Paris-Roubaix but they could and would decline it.
And you're right that IMG only control the broadcasting and image rights of tennis and golf, and they also represent most of the players - so they really have control (money is control). ATP and PGA just administrate, which is what UCI should do.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Secondo me (In my small opinion) the ProTour was Verbruggen's idea and McQuaid has got landed with it - although I think I am right in saying Verbruggen still has some sort of job at the UCI? Plus one with Olympics? How much is he on?'Google can bring back a hundred thousand answers. A librarian can bring you back the right one.'
Neil Gaiman0 -
The ProTour was actually Hein Verbruggen's legacy. McQuaid has merely championed it through to its logical conclusion.
Edit: Ms Tree beat me to it
Jeff Jones
Product manager, Sports0 -
With any luck the teams and the race organisers will reflect on whether it's time to abandon some of the UCI rules. Maybe we'll see some innovation in bike design?<hr>
<h6>What\'s the point of going out? We\'re just going to end up back here anyway</h6>0 -
Think its the sponsors pulling the strings here, what good was the pro tour to them, it didn't exactly excite anyone, and cost them a few quid having to keep larger teams & staff, had there been a promote/relegation angle like the football it may have taken off and given teams something to aim at
Not sure i want ASO in charge, that bothers me, once they have a monopoly i think the sponsors will end up paying through the nose to get into the top races
T|he UCI has survived this kind of thing before but its loosing ground & influence too quickly in the road race world this time & McQuaid does not seem to realise this0 -
RichN95 wrote:leguape wrote:I honestly don't think the riders would do less riding for more money - they'd be hard pushed to do fewer racing days per year than the likes of Ullrich,Vinokourov and Armstrong did over the last few years in their pursuit of glory.
What all the sports that have globalised successfully have done is have a unified position or person guiding the direction of the sport something which simply won't happen so long as the UCI tries to control the calendar without the support of race organisers and sponsors.
I'm not talking about the likes of Armstrong and Ullrich - I'm talking about the domestiques who have to race 100+ days a year for 25K a year and are almost forced to dope to keep their jobs (there are lots of very average people in golf, tennis and football who are millionaires).
And you want one unified person controlling it - then that's Prudhomme but alongside a governing body. In F1 Ecclestone runs it, but there's still FIA to admistrate it. Similarly, the USPGA don't tell Augusta what to do, nor the ATF with Wimbledon.
As for globalization and the ProTour - if there's money in races in China or the US, why not go there instead of doing a race like the Route du Sud or Tour of Poland. A week long Tour of Beijing with appearance money for the teams and 200k for the winner is far better.
I don't think the ProTour was a bad idea, it was just mismanaged due to no consulation with the race owners and the UCI trying make money from what wasn't theirs. If you had the same system but with two changes it would work. The changes are: a) less ProTour teams - maximum 14 and b) it is compulsory to invite those 14 teams, not for them to compete - so Euskatel would be invited to Paris-Roubaix but they could and would decline it.
And you're right that IMG only control the broadcasting and image rights of tennis and golf, and they also represent most of the players - so they really have control (money is control). ATP and PGA just administrate, which is what UCI should do.
The average people in golf tend to have to play pointless qualifier to get in and rely on their income as club pros to fund getting a shot at a game at the top table. Likewise tennis - Chris Eaton ain't getting rich quick slogging around the challenger circuits trying to get ranking points. In almost every sport there is a huge monetary divide between top tier and second tier because of the premium on the rights to the top flight. It's why the football league thought ITV Digital was such a great idea as they thought they'd be getting similar money. Yes the domestiques aren't earning much of a wage but remember wage inflation isn't necessarily the answer. Ask any Leeds football fan.
The issue of globalisation is another thorny one. The F1 teams weren't exactly chuffed to have to keep on hauling their freight to the other side of the globe for races like Australia, China and Singapore. It's why Bernie's having a night race and wants more in those 12 hour time difference countries - so that it can play in prime time Sunday afternoon slots in Europe where the sponsors primarily come from and want their name seen. It's the F1 compromise on this.
There's no money for Rabobank, Credit Agricole, Quickstep and so on in a race that's going to be barely watched and only half-seen in territories where they have absolutely no interest. Garmin only hopped on because they saw an opportunity to increase their market share in Europe where they are 3rd despite being 1st worldwide. Racing in China is going to do nothing for them or for the vast majority of sponsors who keep the sport running at a professional level.
I don't think the ProTour was a bad idea either, it was just organised by the wrong people.0 -
You can have a F1 GP anywhere. Apart from Monaco, it's often impossible to tell if the race is in Dubai or Donnington, as the cars lap a soulless circuit. Cycling is the opposite, you know where Wallers Arenberg is, the Mur de Huy, the Poggio or the Tourmalet.
It's fine setting up races in South Africa, Russia and China but they have to take time to build up. You can't put a new race on, add the word "-Classic" to its name and expect it to be a success, in terms of TV audiences, local population attending or the motivation of riders to do it. The UCI should put these races on and see if generous offers from race organisers can tempt riders and teams to take part, not force them to ride.
We see another bizarre response from the UCI, defensive to the point of absurdity, claiming the teams have "once again succumbed to pressure from the management of ASO, whose aim for the last four years has been to destroy the UCI ProTour." Not a word that they didn't get it right, that selling licences to teams meant nothing - no entry in to many races - and that many teams kept grumbling about having to send full squads to races they didn't want, eg having to do 3 Grand Tours per year, to visit Australia etc. Instead they keep putting up ASO as the straw man, attacking it.
How long can this bickering go on? Who writes the daft, anger-laden UCI press releases? Is McQuaid fast becoming a joke, a teacher who's lost the respect of his class and can't control a thing. The UCI should be meeting urgently to seek a credible replacement, someone capable of uniting the sport.0 -
I dont expect anyone on this forum to care but for anyone who does want to bother to give an answer, what will happen to the Tour Down Under?
As I understand it the teams who are breaking away from the Pro Tour want all european races
as for F1 wanting night races - its only 3 times a year and they are whining - they need to harden up0 -
sportzchick wrote:I dont expect anyone on this forum to care but for anyone who does want to bother to give an answer, what will happen to the Tour Down Under?
As I understand it the teams who are breaking away from the Pro Tour want all european races
I expect they'll align themselves with ASO. ASO have already been down to Oz and praised the race.
I understand what's being proposed is that the big 3 tours have commited to inviting at least 75% of the current PT teams to their events next year. So the Italian races can have a lot of Italian teams but there is still room for the other countries.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
I know you cant go overseas willy nilly- you need to go to where the market is - but with most teams having one Aussie in the Squad, at least you would think there is a market.
and yes we need to improve on the course itself but when we got status we didnt have time to change it0
