Lance to buy ASO?
0
Comments
-
Is ASO floated or is it privately owned?
Surely if something is to be bought, its owner have to be willing to sell it.0 -
I think that ASO is a wholly owned subsidiary of Editions Philipe Amaury, which itself, I think, is a private company - I've never seen a share listing for them.
TBH, its far more likely that AEG would buy ASO. That have far more financial muscle, already own races and are in need of organisational assistance - the Tour of California loses about $1 million per year.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
I can see why the UCI would want to buy the ASO, but what's really in it for Lance, who surely doesn't need the bother of all this, when his aim is presumably to have a successful comeback and spread the word of his charity.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0
-
The more I think about it, the less sense it makes. ASO owns a wide portfolio of events outside of cycling - tennis, motorsport, athletics, equestrian, most of which are not unique (with the possible exception of Paris Dakar) and most of which are of no particualr interest to an American audience. I would guess that the TdF is the largest grossing event in the ASO portfolio - the Dakar is now losing money. Even if the Amaury Group wanted to sell ASO, they'll want to sell the whole package - why sell the family silver and keep the "rubbish". So what benefit is there in Lance owning the Paris Open or the Tour of Qatar?
The complete ASO portfolio would match with AEG better than LA.
Perhaps Lance is a stalking horse for AEG at the moment. They benefit from the "halo" effect of Lance, he benefits from the media capacity of AEG to provide publicity. I wouldn't be surprised if AEG either take over Vesus / cycling.tv and either take over ASO or cut a deal with them - AEG "delivers" LA to ASO races with the unprecedented media coverage, ASO sign over a pay-per-view deal for TV - which may be where the whole Hein Verbruggen thing ties in.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
I really hope that the Armstrong angle on this story is nonsense. However, Verbruggen has certainly been involved in some low-profile, behind the scenes dealings with regards the TV rights to cycling with companies including the British CVC Capital Partners group, the Belgian production company Woestijnvis and The Rothschild Group. See:LangerDan wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if AEG either take over Vesus / cycling.tv and either take over ASO or cut a deal with them - AEG "delivers" LA to ASO races with the unprecedented media coverage, ASO sign over a pay-per-view deal for TV - which may be where the whole Hein Verbruggen thing ties in.
http://www.volkskrant.nl/sport/article5 ... doorbreken
The UCI`s war on the ASO was all about the UCI trying to make a grab for the money the ASO generates via the Tour de France. (Much of which goes towards subsidising other events such as the Paris-Nice, a race the UCI were happy to see go to the wall).
Not long ago I would have said that a takeover of the ASO and the transfer of the Tour to pay-per view or subscription TV could never happen, it being such a central part of French culture. However, these days most people in France see the Tour as nothing more than a meaningless sideshow, being akin to a soap opera about doping. Given this moving the Tour from free terrestrial TV would be unlikely to result in the French taking to the streets. Also, I have a feeling that Sarko`s belief in neo-liberal dogma might well over-ride any `sentimental` belief in the importance of preserving free access to the TV coverage of the Tour.0 -
0
-
I can't believe people are discussing this seriously. France selling the Tour de France to the US would be less believable than the UK selling the royal family to Walt Disney... or uhmm :roll:0
-
I agree that this story sounds very far-fetched, especially the Armstrong angle. However, the Tour does not belong to some mythical entity called `France`, it belongs to a commercial company called the ASO. What`s more this is not the 1950`s, or even the 1970`s, and most people in France couldn`t give a monkeys about the Tour, let alone who owns the TV rights to it. Even on mountain stages one might have to search far and wide to find a bar showing live coverage these days, something I never experienced 30 years ago when I first saw the Tour live.FJS wrote:I can't believe people are discussing this seriously. France selling the Tour de France to the US would be less believable than the UK selling the royal family to Walt Disney... or uhmm :roll:
In fact there appears to be something of a fashion in France at the moment to declare the Tour to be `dead`, or at least to no longer carry with it any of the meaning and significance it once did for the French people. Last year Le Monde argued that the Tour these days was no more meaningful than a pro wrestling match and other papers ran headline obituaries for the Tour. The French philosopher Robert Redeker has written about how the modern Tour, as characterised by medically-created `virtual reality` racers such as Tony Romminger and Armstrong, no longer has the sort of intimate connection with the people at the side of the road which existed in the days of riders like Poulidor and Robic. Jacques Marchand, a journalist covering the Tour for 50 years and long-standing voice of Radio Tour has also just published a book declaring the `end` of the Tour (or at least the end of the tour as `a beautiful adventure, a legend, an epic`) and suggesting that the sport of professional cycling itself is in it`s death throes, surviving on nothing more than an illusion of the past.
Personally I think that pro cycling is not so much following Pro Wrestling down the path towards meaningless sports entertainment as going the way boxing has. There was something glorious about fighters like Ali, but I couldn`t even name the current World Heavyweight Champion. Boxing has swapped the nobility of Ali for the Mike Tysons of this world, and similarly cycling has swapped the Merckx`s, Coppi`s and Poulidor`s of legend for the likes of Armstrong and Landis...0 -
aurelio wrote:[I really hope that the Armstrong angle on this story is nonsense. However, Verbruggen has certainly been involved in some low-profile, behind the scenes dealings with regards the TV rights to cycling with companies including the British CVC Capital Partners group, the Belgian production company Woestijnvis and The Rothschild Group. See:
http://www.volkskrant.nl/sport/article5 ... doorbreken
If you want to add 2 plus 2 and come up with Verbruggen on the grassy knoll, the Rothschilds themselves are keynote speakers at the Clinton Global Initiative conference in New York next week where Armstrong is due to make his announcement.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
Of course, of course, but the Tour is still part of French heritage and I do not believe selling its organization to not just any but to an American or American company will go down well with the French public. A 'the Tour is dead' storyline will instantly change into an 'americanisation and mondialisation of french history' storyline.aurelio wrote:[I agree that this story sounds very far-fetched, especially the Armstrong angle. However, the Tour does not belong to some mythical entity called `France`, it belongs to a commercial company called the ASO.
I do agree that there's a fashion to be cynical of the Tour, mixed with nostalgia, but selling it to the Americans would certainly not do that any good. I also believe that it's a post-Festina phenomenon based for a good deal on the meagre performance of French riders, and that when there will be a Frenchman in serious contention for the classement general or even win it, most of the cynicism will be suddenly forgotten, and all the 'end of Le Tour' books will lay idle and unsold on the shelves.0 -
FJS wrote:. I also believe that it's a post-Festina phenomenon based for a good deal on the meagre performance of French riders, and that when there will be a Frenchman in serious contention for the classement general or even win it, most of the cynicism will be suddenly forgotten, and all the 'end of Le Tour' books will lay idle and unsold on the shelves.
Agreed. BUT how long will the French have to wait? The top Frenchman in 2008 was 14th Sandy Casar 19 min 23 seconds behind.
I do think that pro cycling is still in pretty poor shape, sure there's been Team Garmin who seem to have convinced most, but there are other "clean" teams, which do not convince poeple, and then there are teams such as Liquigas and American Beef, teams who seem to have no real moral compass.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
FJS wrote:
Of course, of course, but the Tour is still part of French heritage and I do not believe selling its organization to not just any but to an American or American company will go down well with the French public. A 'the Tour is dead' storyline will instantly change into an 'americanisation and mondialisation of french history' storyline...aurelio wrote:[I agree that this story sounds very far-fetched, especially the Armstrong angle. However, the Tour does not belong to some mythical entity called `France`, it belongs to a commercial company called the ASO.
Personally when I first heard of Lance Armstrong's comeback, I didn't exactly rejoice at the thought. However, since the announcement, the media has already started to turn it's focus back to cycling.
When it comes to the rumors of LA and his comrades buying the Tour from ASO, there is a nationalistic angle that has not yet been dealt with.
Just like the previous writer is spot on with the claim of national success nurturing the Tours success, the French pride in the Tour might be as revived if Lance Armstrong would actually be serious about buying the Tour.
The French, no matter how opposed to the Tour, would hate the thought of losing the pride of the nation to an American company/person. I believe they would unite for a cause, and get up on the barricades to defend the Tour. In this case, any publicity, would be good publicity. (except for doping stories)
A similar phenomena can be seen regarding the French football team. They have been heroes since 1998, but with the weak performance during the last couple of years, the team's popularity has declined significantly.
At the moment, the French don't really have any big stars to be proud of, so pride is derived from the fact that Eva Longoria is married to Tony Parker, the basketball player... the Brad and Angelina have a house in southern France... that Sebastian Loeb is dominating in rally etc.
When it comes down to it, the mentality seems to be one of dismissing obvious shortcomings as "n'importe quoi" (of no actual importance) and praise the success as the truly French qualities.
This ended up being a bit off topic, but to sum up. If Lance even seriously is considering the Tour, then we are going to see a new wave of French pride in the Tour.0 -
aurelio wrote:Boxing has swapped the nobility of Ali for the Mike Tysons of this world, and similarly cycling has swapped the Merckx`s, Coppi`s and Poulidor`s of legend for the likes of Armstrong and Landis...
The nobility of Ali? The guy who had his gloves slashed by his corner when he was out on his feet again Henry Cooper? Who took victory against Sonny Liston in a fixed fight that the latter threw? That nobility? Or the nobility of taunting Ernie Terrell with "What's my name, Uncle Tom ... What's my name?" for 15 rounds?
Or who for 11 years, at the height of his fame, nobly associated himself with the virulently racist, homophobic, anti-semitic Nation of Islam?
That's the problem with the past, it's about what you remember, not what happened, and sometimes the truth of someone's past is uglier than the memory.0 -
I'm not so sure. For one the passion the French used to have for the Tour was never that dependent on a Frenchman winning. Until the Festina scandal broke and the fans became aware of the extent doping influnced who ended up on the podium, in the days when people could still `believe` in the `heroes` of the Tour and their exploits, `foreign` riders could be as popular as any home grown French rider. For example, I recall the crowd being interviewed on TV prior to the finish of a mountain stage, with the French TV crew asking largely French people who they wanted to see win. `Pantani`, `Oui, Pantani`, `Pantani pour moi aussi!` was the universal response.FJS wrote:I do agree that there's a fashion to be cynical of the Tour, mixed with nostalgia, but selling it to the Americans would certainly not do that any good. I also believe that it's a post-Festina phenomenon based for a good deal on the meagre performance of French riders, and that when there will be a Frenchman in serious contention for the classement general or even win it, most of the cynicism will be suddenly forgotten, and all the 'end of Le Tour' books will lay idle and unsold on the shelves.
Sure, a new French Tour contender would rekindle some interest in the event, but from what I have read the real reason the French are so disillusioned with the Tour are much more fundamental. Most of all, due largely to the widespread coverage and in-depth analysis the issue of doping has received in France, the French can no longer `believe` in the Tour. In countries like the USA where the doping of people like Armstrong is dismissed by many as no more than an `An anti-American conspiracy` and much material never reaches the public domain ( as with the banning of LA Confidential) it is still possible for the corporate-backed media to see Armstrong as being some sort of `hero`. In France cynicism, or rather realism rules, and not just in relation to `His Holiness`.
A while ago Le Journal de Dimanche ran a survey which found that 78% of French people did not believe that the results of the Tour were `honest`. Even more devastatingly, Pierre Ballester`s recent book Tempetes sur la Tour reports on another more recent survey which found that 90% of French people agreed with the statement `Doping has destroyed everything, I feel betrayed` and 85% agreed with the statement `Because of doping, I no longer believe in the results of the Tour de France.`
Of those who still watch the race 22% said the did so to see the scenery, 7% out of childhood nostalgia and 16% for the drama of the doping scandals themselves. On a similar theme, French academic Francois Jost, who specialises in the study of the media, has argued that the old themes of the Tour have become obsolete, with those who watch the Tour regarding it as being little more than a meaningless but entertaining soap opera.
All in all the French don`t so much want a French winner but one they can believe in.0 -
Excellent contribution.Dan0
-
The French fell out of love with the Tour when it became too technological and scientific. They cling to the Poulidor fiction that a farm boy can ride and ride and ride and ride, win a few races on an old bike and find himself in the tour in a couple of years.
All this stuff about nutrition, intervals, taper periods, watts, carbon fiber and the rest just puts the French fans off - it's all part of the city v country dynamic in France, the tour being firmly part of the old countryside, not the modern city.
There was a comment from Vaughters about Moreau that he was the most talented cyclist he'd ever seen, but that Moreau had no idea about training and he didn't want to know either, all he did was ride his bike for hours a day every day - neatly encapsulating the way that the Tour has developed away from the sort of thing French fans enjoy.
France still loves bike racing - last week my parents' discovered the 'national championships for elected parish council members' taking place in a village they were on holiday in, something which probably happens in no other country - but this is the side of the sport rural French cycling fans feel a connection to, not the Tour.0 -
I think you analyse the current perspective of the Tour in France very well, but I really don't think that this is static. Whether it is a product of poor performance of French riders or simple deepened by it, I do believe that a new French star will change that perspective. That disbelieve in results, comparisons with a soap opera, and watching the Tour for the scenery will not be so prominent if French riders stop to be crap. I can't count the number of times I've heard or read French whines about how their riders are no good because they've cleaned up after Festina and riders from other countries are winning because they dope (while the reason is that much of French cycling still has a 'the training that was good enough for Hinault is good enough for you' mentality). The cynical doping 'realism' as you put it and poor national performance is not unrelated. But I admit that how that would work out in the future is speculation, and that there is no new star on the horizon anywhere soon. But all this doesnt really matter for the original question, because whether the current perpective is fixed or context-dependent, with French nostalgia and disinterest fuelled by a doping decade, the last ASO should do when wants to hold on to its home fan base is sell the Tour to Lance Armstrong.aurelio wrote:...Most of all, due largely to the widespread coverage and in-depth analysis the issue of doping has received in France, the French can no longer `believe` in the Tour. ....A while ago Le Journal de Dimanche ran a survey which found that 78% of French people did not believe that the results of the Tour were `honest`. Even more devastatingly, Pierre Ballester`s recent book Tempetes sur la Tour reports on another more recent survey which found that 90% of French people agreed with the statement `Doping has destroyed everything, I feel betrayed` and 85% agreed with the statement `Because of doping, I no longer believe in the results of the Tour de France.` .... with those who watch the Tour regarding it as being little more than a meaningless but entertaining soap opera.All in all the French don`t so much want a French winner but one they can believe in.0 -
If I read correctly that ASO have revenues in excess of USD100m a year - even if ASO are operating on a 10% margin, Lance wouldnt be able to afford it.
He could however if he obtain highly leveraged finance: but the whole story seems far-fetched to me.
I suspect that if Lance does return to the tour next year, there will be many many angry fans lining the mountains... Maybe its me, but since his departure from the sport there appears to be growing distaste (and hate) with Armstrong. :!:**************************************************
www.dotcycling.com
***************************************************0 -
Quite true. You can get better coverage of Le Tour in The Times or The Guardian than in Le Monde or Le Figaro, several French newspapers are reducing, even dropping, coverage of the race as, rightly or wrongly, they see it as a meaningless pharmaceutical contest.aurelio wrote:On a similar theme, French academic Francois Jost, who specialises in the study of the media, has argued that the old themes of the Tour have become obsolete, with those who watch the Tour regarding it as being little more than a meaningless but entertaining soap opera.0 -
Boxing has swapped the nobility of Ali for the Mike Tysons of this world, and similarly cycling has swapped the Merckx`s, Coppi`s and Poulidor`s of legend for the likes of Armstrong and Landis...
The nobility of Ali? The guy who had his gloves slashed by his corner when he was out on his feet again Henry Cooper? Who took victory against Sonny Liston in a fixed fight that the latter threw? That nobility? Or the nobility of taunting Ernie Terrell with "What's my name, Uncle Tom ... What's my name?" for 15 rounds?
Or who for 11 years, at the height of his fame, nobly associated himself with the virulently racist, homophobic, anti-semitic Nation of Islam?
That's the problem with the past, it's about what you remember, not what happened, and sometimes the truth of someone's past is uglier than the memory.
It's a pity Nick Faldo didn't read this last week.0 -
I have also noticed the way French TV coverage of the race has changed. A major part of the `coverage` is now the daily `Village depart` program where the local wine and cheese and food is discussed, the mayor and local old timers are interviewed, local musicians perform and so on. The race itself is hardly covered at all! The development of all those panoramic helicopter shots during the live coverage and the cultural and historical background material provided by the commentators is no mistake either, as the race itself becomes less important than promoting the various regions of France as tourist destinations, especially during the `transition` stages.Kléber wrote:
Quite true. You can get better coverage of Le Tour in The Times or The Guardian than in Le Monde or Le Figaro, several French newspapers are reducing, even dropping, coverage of the race as, rightly or wrongly, they see it as a meaningless pharmaceutical contest.aurelio wrote:On a similar theme, French academic Francois Jost, who specialises in the study of the media, has argued that the old themes of the Tour have become obsolete, with those who watch the Tour regarding it as being little more than a meaningless but entertaining soap opera.0 -
I don`t deny that a new French star would raise interest in the Tour in France, but I feel this would be largely restricted to die-hard `cycling fans`, rather than the sort of people who used to be fans of the Tour because they felt that the experiences of riders like Poulidor reflected their own lives and hardships. As has been mentioned, now that the French `peasant` is a thing of the past, a whole related dimension of meaning for the Tour has been consigned to history.FJS wrote:I think you analyse the current perspective of the Tour in France very well, but I really don't think that this is static. Whether it is a product of poor performance of French riders or simple deepened by it, I do believe that a new French star will change that perspective. That disbelieve in results, comparisons with a soap opera, and watching the Tour for the scenery will not be so prominent if French riders stop to be crap....
Beyond this I would still argue that this whole `winning is everything` attitude is itself rather foreign to the traditional values placed on the Tour by the French. In fact I have read many French commentators arguing that the one of the major problems with the modern day Tour is that it too strongly reflects such a `winning is everything` ethos which is regarded as being a very `Anglo-Saxon` attitude.
If the French idolised `winners` in the way the Americans do Anquetil would have been a much greater hero than Poulidor, but the opposite is the case. Also, think about all those old prizes that used to be integral to the Tour such as `The Most generous rider`, The most elegant rider` and so on. I don`t think there is even an official `Lantern rouge `prize any more.
Again, I don`t think that the French see sporting `heroes` in quite the same way as do the `Anglo Saxon` nations. In Britain and the US it seems that when watching sports like football people always talk about how well `we` played. In my experience (as when France reached the final of the world cup) people in France are much more likely to say things like `They played well`. That sense of identification with teams or sportsmen as symbols of national pride seems to be much less important in France than in somewhere like Britain. I`m not the only one to have noticed this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/jun/1 ... l.euro2004
Now, how does that saying go from Bertholt Brecht`s Galileo, Oh, yes, `Unhappy the land that has need of heroes`.
0 -
This would seem to be especially so in the case of Armstrong who (aided by a cowed or sympathetic media) has gone to such lengths to erase those parts of his history which don`t sit well with `The Armstrong myth`.leguape wrote:That's the problem with the past, it's about what you remember, not what happened, and sometimes the truth of someone's past is uglier than the memory.
As George Orwell wrote in 1984: `He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future.` 0 -
Well, Verbruggen's just said he's resigning from the IOC and the UCI :?:LangerDan wrote:If you want to add 2 plus 2 and come up with Verbruggen on the grassy knoll, the Rothschilds themselves are keynote speakers at the Clinton Global Initiative conference in New York next week where Armstrong is due to make his announcement.0 -
I'd also like to add to the conjecture, that while it's nice and easy to focus on the acute point of attraction that is Lance and whatever may or may not be actual concerning him
(That which is "is" whether "we" percieve it or not)
For me there are far larger forces that are to be considered. And these to me are the "actual" things I believe are in fact driving the sport, more so than any doping spectacle, or published conflicts between the three bodies of the sport (riders, promoters, uci/ioc)
The biggest issue for me is the globalization of the sport. This is of course not published. It's far easier to fight golbalization via indirect means.
Patrice Clerc took the French Open from rags to riches. It's now secure in it's place in the world of Tennis.
He took over the ASO in Y2K. It along with the Tour de France had become rather ragged. This was not greatly visable to the public. But it along with the lack of assertiveness from the other european promoters had become vulnerable to the largesse and assertiveness of an agressively run UCI.
For several reasons. 1. The UCI led by Hein was globalizing the sport. Jean Marie, then in charge of the Tour seemed rather befuddled and inept to handle the power the UCI had at that time had over the sport.
2. This action had great potential to dilute the ASO/Tour Brand along with the other races on the calender. Emerging markets in US, China and now rumored Russia have the chance to dilute the Tour/ASO market share.
Based on behavior it seems that Clerc and the ASO realized that, and based on behavior chose a different tactic. Instead of being passive with the UCI, they became agressive. By battling the UCI under the pretense of doping they achieved several things.
1. Momentarily for the time being secured the ASO's market share in the world of cycling. 2. Created strategic business alliances with former competitors that helped secure not only their market share but also the market share of the Vuelta and Giro organizers. and 3. (Here's the best part) In the case that they would eventually find themselves in a buyout situation, they have greatly increased the value of their product.
I'd like to remind everyone, that at the sport level it's business. The ASO is only concerned about it's largesse and viability in the market. That they've achieved that under the pretense of fighting for a cleaner sport, in my mind makes them brilliant. Let's not forget that Christian Prudhomme was primarily a savvy journalist and pr guy before he took over from befuddled LeBlanc. Clearly he was chosen for that role because who more than he (a journalist) would know how to play the game in public in the media.
Looked at this way. If the ASO came out with a direct attack and specifically said that they were fighting for their market share and fighting against the dilution of their share....
They would not have had the adulation that comes with fighting against doping or lazy attitudes towards the policing of doping.
The above Conjecture aside, I for one hope that Clerc and Prudhomme do stay involved in some way. Hopefully the sport does not become singularly "owned" by one organization. Hopefully there will remain some checks and balances-- so that the sport does not become sullied by the greed of one singular managing ideal. As far as Lance goes---who knows.... with six billion plus chaps on the planet, I surely don't have the time 0
