Bakala's new breakaway league

Richmond Racer

http://road.cc/content/news/70186-uci-c ... ns-cycling

OK, so what are peeps' thoughts on the proposal?

Seems that discussions have been going on between Bakala and many major teams for about 9 months including Sky and Garmin. UCI have signed a memo of understanding, but Bakala's warned that it will proceed with or without their involvement. Bakala and his partner Kok (how much fun are we going to have with THAT name) havent yet started discussions with RCS or ASO - without doubt the latter's going to be the tougher nut to crack, the family wont be wild about sharing TV revenues...

Does anyone see any potential conflict of interest re the sponsor of a major team, being at the head of the breakaway league?

sherer

Richmond Racer wrote:

http://road.cc/content/news/70186-uci-confirms-involvement-champions-league’-plans-cycling

OK, so what are peeps' thoughts on the proposal?

Seems that discussions have been going on between Bakala and many major teams for about 9 months including Sky and Garmin. UCI have signed a memo of understanding, but Bakala's warned that it will proceed with or without their involvement. Bakala and his partner Kok (how much fun are we going to have with THAT name) havent yet started discussions with RCS or ASO - without doubt the latter's going to be the tougher nut to crack, the family wont be wild about sharing TV revenues...

Does anyone see any potential conflict of interest re the sponsor of a major team, being at the head of the breakaway league?

The idea sounds ok but it all depends on if the race organisers will give up their TV money to share it around the teams

greasedscotsman

Not keen on the idea of a series or a league. It's not F1 or soccerball! Does anyone care who won the UCI World Tour?

Paul 8v

I think it's a bit weird that no-one cares who wins it, their must be some merit in being the most consistent road cyclist. The world champion only has to win one race but the World tour champion has to win/be consistent throughout the season.

Richmond Racer

Paul 8v wrote:

I think it's a bit weird that no-one cares who wins it, their must be some merit in being the most consistent road cyclist. The world champion only has to win one race but the World tour champion has to win/be consistent throughout the season.

Perhaps it mean something special to a rider if they havent won any of the really big races that year. I doubt Wiggins or Boonen were bothered, given the season they've both had, whereas J-Rod was probably Mr Happy. And tbh the UCI points system in terms of points awarded to different races, is shoot. No, scratch that, the UCI points system is shoot altogether.

nathancom

I like how some older sports have maintained their less organized sporting calendars that are based around marquee events rather than a league - horseracing, cycling, cricket(if you just follow tests), tennis (mostly) are all based on a set of major events that have a legacy and meaning that can't really be calculated as worth x number of points.

prawny

Paul 8v wrote:

I think it's a bit weird that no-one cares who wins it, their must be some merit in being the most consistent road cyclist. The world champion only has to win one race but the World tour champion has to win/be consistent throughout the season.

They're not all racing with the same aims though are they. A teams championship would work as long as the number of points available worked out fairly for all teams irrespective of their goals for the season. I'd certainly root for certain teams over others.

At the moment it's a bit like having an individual footballers championship, it wouldn't work based purely on goals.

rebs

That's the trick of it. to get all teams on board with the aim on winning as much as possible as opposed to what presently happens. some teams will only really want to focus on certain regional races to generate coverage.

A franchise system for cycling Would really do it wonders. It'll annoy the hell out of traditionalists but it'll give more security to teams and actual races.

sherer

rebs wrote:

That's the trick of it. to get all teams on board with the aim on winning as much as possible as opposed to what presently happens. some teams will only really want to focus on certain regional races to generate coverage.

A franchise system for cycling Would really do it wonders. It'll annoy the hell out of traditionalists but it'll give more security to teams and actual races.

This is the whole chicken \ egg thing though. A lot of the sponsors are only reagional and so don't care about racing in China and Australia. Not sure what needs to happen first, get the global sponsors on board first then grow the sport or try and grow the sport with regional sponsors, which they seems to be trying at the moment but without much luck

Richmond Racer

so...are we going to discuss this now they've stumped up some more detail?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/how-wor ... -the-sport


if it were to happen, end of cycling as we know it?

Cycling 'too confusing' for us fans? Cant work out what kind of riders the likes of Wiggins and Cav are?

Oooh, 10 4-day GPs to decide a 'world champion' (thought we already had a well established championship for that). Sprint, rouleur, mountain and TT stages (5 of which would be TTTs - cant see Vaughters influence in that at all)

Cant see RCS or ASO going for it myself.

frenchfighter

Depends if it has regulations producing:

prawny

To be fair, it all seems very sanitary.

Like F1 used to be the F1 drivers racing in other championships at the same time, teams dipping in and out. There's no romance any more, but at the end of the day it's racing and it's racing that we enjoy.

I don't care one way or another really, the history is nice and all that but races and teams are struggling to survive, maybe this new format will make cycling more attractive to sponsors and it'll flourish, maybe it'll kill of the smaller races once and for all.

I'll be watching whatever the format.

prawny

Actually reading the CN article, I'm thinking about a Grand Am style unrestricted no dope testing series for Ricco and Co. Who wants to fund it? I'll organise it'll be hilarious!

greasedscotsman

a state-of-the art anti-doping program would eradicate doping

Oh really? :shock:

LangerDan

prawny wrote:

To be fair, it all seems very sanitary.

Like F1 used to be the F1 drivers racing in other championships at the same time, teams dipping in and out. There's no romance any more, but at the end of the day it's racing and it's racing that we enjoy.

I don't care one way or another really, the history is nice and all that but races and teams are struggling to survive, maybe this new format will make cycling more attractive to sponsors and it'll flourish, maybe it'll kill of the smaller races once and for all.

I'll be watching whatever the format.

I don't believe there is any "maybe" about it. The intent seems to be to steamroller any race that isn't part of their own package.

Assuming that the "season" for the 10 4-day races starts late February and finishes in mid October - that gives around 250 days for the whole year. Take out the 3 GTs - plus the "down-time" either side - say 28 days each and now you're down to 166 days available. ASO and RCS will not countenance having to scrap their other stage races like Paris-Nice, Oman, Qatar or Tirreno Adriatico. When combined with the "approved" one-day events, there are probably another 50 days gone. The new league will have to fit 40 racing days (plus probably another 2 logistics days per race for riders to travel so say 60 days in total) into the remaining 100 available days. There isn't anything near that sort of space available.

If I ran a race like the Tour de Suisse or the Quatre Jours de Dunkerque I'd be more than a little worried - similarly with the smaller Italian one-day races towards the end of the season.

To take Prawny's motorsport analogy a little further, back in the 90s the world rallying calendar was full of very individual events, each with its own character. These were then wrapped up into some homogenised WRC calendar, stamped with some common corporate identity and now they are indistinguishable.

Richmond Racer

greasedscotsman wrote:

a state-of-the art anti-doping program would eradicate doping

Oh really? :shock:

Quite. Arent we always being told that there are always new drugs coming out of the labs that are undetectable? And only in some fantasyland would there never be somebody or somebodies who wouldnt try their luck anyway.

Realistically the best that we can get to, is for the penalties to be so great that they massively outweigh the reward for the vast majority of riders and teams.

prawny

LangerDan wrote:

To take Prawny's motorsport analogy a little further, back in the 90s the world rallying calendar was full of very individual events, each with its own character. These were then wrapped up into some homogenised WRC calendar, stamped with some common corporate identity and now they are indistinguishable.

But a lot of those events are still going on, they just don't attract the top tier any more. Below the WTC or whatever it's called, we could have an Intercontinental Cycling Championship or similiar. It could give more exposure and structure to the smaller teams, and make it fairer dishing out wildcards for the GTs.

I'm not sure either way, but there are some positives if you squint hard enough.

Richmond Racer

10 x 4 day races following exactly the same format. Despite what Price and Bakala say e.g. Contador vs Wiggins - top GC riders arent going to ride these instead of decent 7+ day stage races to prepare for GTs - 4 days just isnt enough. And its not just the GC guys - domestiques and the sprinters need longer races in their legs ahead of GTs. Talking of the sprinters, whats in it for them? They cant challenge for the overall win and the associated points - they lose too much time in the mountain stage.

And ultimately who cares who comes out with the highest number of points at the end? even with the UCI WT points system, do fans really care about it? from my perspective, I dont give a toot, its the winners of individual races who stick out in my mind. As for the riders if you ask Purito whether he'd rather head up the UCI points list for 2012 or have won the Giro, its no contest.

Tom Butcher

These proposals look absolute sh ite. Does anyone really want a load of 4 day stage races - especially where a quarter of the racing is time trials. There is a limit to how many races any cycling fan really cares about - I'd suggest that 3 grand tours, the classics and a couple of week long stage races is plenty. Now we are expected to care who wins another 10 4 dayers - I don't think so - you can have too much of a good thing and I don't think I'd be tuning in. If it ends up detracting from the classics, Giro or Vuelta it'd just make me watch less of the sport not more.

Look at cricket - who cares if they lose there'll be another "important" international match along next week in one form of the game or another.

squired

Part of the idea seems to be that the star riders take part in the series of races. If so, surely that means teams would reduce their rosters. Do you need 30 riders if the key racing days are focused on the same guys?

I've seen it said elsewhere that the biggest problem with sport is generating mass appeal. To do that you can often offend the hardcore fans, but that is part of becoming mainstream. Presumably the hope is that large numbers of people would start to pay more attention to cycling. If the main riders are in each race they get to know the names of the stars of the sport and then it means even more to them.

If anyone should be worried about this it is the riders, because many of them could be out of a job. If there are smaller rosters and a handful of key races, what incentive is there to perform a team role, given that you are making yourself extremely easy to replace? At the same time, wages for star riders could increase even more.

Paul 8v

frenchfighter wrote:

Depends if it has regulations producing:

Eh?

LangerDan

Paul 8v wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Depends if it has regulations producing:

Eh?

Not sure about the relevance but thats the 1983 world road champion, Marianne Berglund.

Paul 8v

LangerDan wrote:

Paul 8v wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Depends if it has regulations producing:

Eh?

Not sure about the relevance but thats the 1983 world road champion, Marianne Berglund.

Ah thankyou!

rick_chasey

Read about this last night.

Sounds sh!t.

inkyfingers

As i've been bleating about on twitter....cycling needs a lot of changes but the calendar is one thing that doesn't need messing about with too much.

Tom Butcher

squired wrote:

Part of the idea seems to be that the star riders take part in the series of races. If so, surely that means teams would reduce their rosters. Do you need 30 riders if the key racing days are focused on the same guys?

I've seen it said elsewhere that the biggest problem with sport is generating mass appeal. To do that you can often offend the hardcore fans, but that is part of becoming mainstream. Presumably the hope is that large numbers of people would start to pay more attention to cycling. If the main riders are in each race they get to know the names of the stars of the sport and then it means even more to them.

If anyone should be worried about this it is the riders, because many of them could be out of a job. If there are smaller rosters and a handful of key races, what incentive is there to perform a team role, given that you are making yourself extremely easy to replace? At the same time, wages for star riders could increase even more.

I'm not convinced that there are so many people out there who would get into watching cycling if only there was some kind of league of new 4 day races with no history. I'm sure that if these interests owned the existing major races - the classics, grand tours etc - that they wouldn't be saying what is needed for cycling to go mainstream are a load more races.

As for the main riders being in each race - well are the likes of Contador or Wiggins really going to ride these and compromise their Tour chances - is Boonen or Cancellera really going to be bothered with this over the cobbled classics. Nobody really cares about this kind of stuff because it is so obviously artificial. You can't compare Cav to Contador to Cancellera - they are different kinds of rider. Sure non cycling fans might not understand that but as soon as they start watching regularly they become part of the "hard core" and will realise what a load of bollocks it really is and then gravitate naturally towards the classics, the grand tours - all the stuff that everyone else has been attracted to on getting into cycling.

Nick Fitt

Just reading through some of the latest on this. It seems to me that when you break it down, its a group of entrepreneurs who are looking to cash in hugely on the sponsorship rights of the ultimate WCS races. These guys appear to have dodgy back grounds (below), why is this even getting considered by the UCI? Personally I cane see any value at all to cycling. The UCI will control doping yet the WCS 'guarantee' drug free cycling, how? they wont control it. These guys are just adding some races (in unknown regions/countries) that they control the TV rights too. Stinks to me.

From another forum;(http://www.malaysia-today.net/index.php ... mid=100125)
Millions paid to RM650 company (Wed, 23 Jul 2008) Byline: R. NADESWARAN and TERENCE FERNANDEZ LONDON: The Youth and Sports Ministry entered into a multi-million ringgit agreement to host a football tournament with a company with a paid up-capital of just RM650 and accumulated losses exceeding RM6.5 million. If it had carried out a due diligence test, as is required by practice and convention, before entering into an agreement involving such a big amount of money, it certainly would not have parted with RM17 million as "bidding fees" to host the Champions Youth Cup (CYC) tournament last year. And certainly, it would not have parted with RM8 million as "advance" for this year's tournament, which has since been aborted. For the record, the tournament held in four venues was a failure in terms of crowd support, gate collections and television viewership, despite promises of "Malaysia being mentioned several hundred times in international dispatches". Both the ministry and the London-based Gifted Group Ltd are now embroiled in a controversy over the now-aborted tournament after the Football Association of Malaysia (FAM) refused to sanction the tournament. Both Gifted and the ministry have threatened to sue each other for breach. All this could have been avoided if only officials in the ministry had carried out checks. Gifted Group's Jonathan James Price and former youth and sports minister Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said had always maintained that the monies paid to the company were "bidding fees" but nowhere in the world does any country "bid" to host any tournament for three consecutive years. But an examination of Gifted Group's filings with the Companies House here (the equivalent of Companies Commission of Malaysia) revealed that the RM17 million from Malaysia may have pulled Gifted Group out of fi nancial trouble. According to its accounts, it had accumulated losses of £1.044 million as of June 30, 2006. No further returns have been filed. Price holds 74% of the shares (the other 26% being held by Indigo Holdings Ltd) and has six other subsidiaries of which only one - Gifted Management Ltd - is active. It, too, incurred losses of £58,000 (RM375,000) in 2005, which was carried forward the following year although records show there was no trading or transactions. The records also show that the company has an outstanding loan of £600,000 (RM3.8 million) from an unnamed investor at an interest of 2% per annum. Interest due was £46,358 (RM299,000) and was to be settled on or before Nov 8 last year. The CYC was launched on March 16, 2007 and the tournament held in August. There have been no subsequent fi lings of company accounts. Efforts by theSun to seek comments from Gifted Group drew a blank as it is operating from an offi ce suite complex in upmarket central London, a stone's throw from Parliament House, to which access is restricted by receptionists who control access to all offices there. Reached by phone from the reception at the ground fl oor, Price's secretary, someone who gave her name as Marissa, said her boss was out of town. They have yet to return calls to theSun.

Richmond Racer

Yep.

D O D G Y

And certainly not for the health of the sport or for the benefit of the fans.