Alonso team

iainf72

Sounding more and more like it's not going to happen

Been quiet for a while, the agents are hearing nothing etc etc. Bettini saying nothing either.

Yellow Peril

It's not happening is it? Do you think it was ever a runner?

argyllflyer

Saw Daniel Friebe say earlier that Sagan's off to Tinkoff Saxo with no Alonso word.

iainf72

argyllflyer wrote:

Saw Daniel Friebe say earlier that Sagan's off to Tinkoff Saxo with no Alonso word.

Yeah, I asked him what the word on the street is, and he said (effectively) the silence is deafening.

TMR

Wonder what the issue was? Couldn't have been money could it?

ozzzyosborn206

TMR wrote:

Wonder what the issue was? Couldn't have been money could it?

Probably is money, could be wrong but i though Alonso bought the licence but wasn't ever going to be the main sponsor, so if they haven't found a sponsor then this could be the reason why. Lets hope it is just gone quite while they get things together, lots of teams folded last year meaning many good riders had to take a step down a level. Would be nice to see a few new teams pop up

argyllflyer

Were Emirates not supposed to be the sponsor? Deep pockets if they'd got involved.

frenchfighter

There was an article on cyclingnews this morning. Alonso is very busy racing.

frenchfighter

According to Gazzetta dello Sport, a decision by the UCI in the next two weeks is expected to influence if the team is created for the 2015 season

Formula 1 driver Fernando Alonso is still keen to create his own team but has apparently asked the UCI for special guarantees and concessions that go above and beyond the rules that apply to all the other teams that apply for a UCI WorldTour licence.

The Dubai government has reportedly signed a pre-contractual agreement to sponsor the team for 20 million Euro a year for five years

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report- ... guarantees

Party Weirdo

From a business standpoint it makes sense to guarantee participation. But then who misses out just because someone new wants to play? Granted there are a couple of WT teams who shouldn't be there (sorry Cofidis, Europcar) and 3 teams are without sponsors (Cannondale & Giant plus Trek will go the way of Cervelo and/or Leopard soon enough) but if their houses are in order and sporting results have been decent then who has the right to throw them out?

specialgueststar

Party Weirdo wrote:

From a business standpoint it makes sense to guarantee participation. But then who misses out just because someone new wants to play? Granted there are a couple of WT teams who shouldn't be there (sorry Cofidis, Europcar) and 3 teams are without sponsors (Cannondale & Giant plus Trek will go the way of Cervelo and/or Leopard soon enough) but if their houses are in order and sporting results have been decent then who has the right to throw them out?

Cofidis are pro - conti - and Europcar squeezed into WT on a low budget - but have given plenty of entertainment

Party Weirdo

Apologies, for some reason I thought Cofidis had somehow got WT status.

As for Europcar, I stick with my statement that they are at a level above where they should really be, especially if it's at the cost of another team. They are at the bottom of this years rankings by some margin.

Pross

Party Weirdo wrote:

Apologies, for some reason I thought Cofidis had somehow got WT status.

As for Europcar, I stick with my statement that they are at a level above where they should really be, especially if it's at the cost of another team. They are at the bottom of this years rankings by some margin.

I can't see how they can be said to be less deserving of a WT licence than a team that currently doesn't even exist. What if Alonso brought in a bunch of neo pros to make up his team?

Richmond Racer

Party Weirdo wrote:

Apologies, for some reason I thought Cofidis had somehow got WT status.

As for Europcar, I stick with my statement that they are at a level above where they should really be, especially if it's at the cost of another team. They are at the bottom of this years rankings by some margin.

Lotto Belisol were lurking near the bottom of the UCI rankings for most of last season. Do you reckon a team with Griepel, Hansen, Roelandts et al should be outside WT?

mechanism

As they said on Cyclingnews

Alonso is unhappy with the UCI's system of granting WorldTour licences and has asked for guarantees. Everyone knows that the UCI has never shown an ounce of favouritism in the past so there’s little chance of a multimillionaire and his rich backers getting what they want.

Party Weirdo

Pross wrote:

Party Weirdo wrote:

Apologies, for some reason I thought Cofidis had somehow got WT status.

As for Europcar, I stick with my statement that they are at a level above where they should really be, especially if it's at the cost of another team. They are at the bottom of this years rankings by some margin.

I can't see how they can be said to be less deserving of a WT licence than a team that currently doesn't even exist. What if Alonso brought in a bunch of neo pros to make up his team?

Alonso's team will go into the mix same as teams like IAM.

What I am saying is that there are limited spaces and that teams do need to prove their sporting worth to stay at WT level rather than just because they were there last year and still want to or team nationality. Alonso needs to sign riders that will show sporting worth and hope it's enough to get invites (SKY managed it) and then get into WT on merit (hopefully not because a team has folded).

DeadCalm

People have been bemoaning the dearth of decent sponsors attracted to the sport. How can you expect a company to stump up the kind of money that Emirates are being asked to invest when there is no guarantee as to what races the team will be able to ride?

Richmond Racer

DeadCalm wrote:

People have been bemoaning the dearth of decent sponsors attracted to the sport. How can you expect a company to stump up the kind of money that Emirates are being asked to invest when there is no guarantee as to what races the team will be able to ride?

Its not unique to poor' little Emirates. Same treatment as for other sponsors.

RoadPainter

DeadCalm wrote:

People have been bemoaning the dearth of decent sponsors attracted to the sport. How can you expect a company to stump up the kind of money that Emirates are being asked to invest when there is no guarantee as to what races the team will be able to ride?

But companies seem happy to sponsor football clubs that could get relegated from the Premier League. I realise cycling doesn't have sponsors battering down the door, but surely similar view applies.

As mentioned above, what if the UCI give guarantees and the team is created but signs just neo-pros, would Alonso be able to pocket the difference?

If they've got as much money available as suggested, then the points brought by decent signings would guarantee WT status, wouldn't they?

DeadCalm

RoadPainter wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

People have been bemoaning the dearth of decent sponsors attracted to the sport. How can you expect a company to stump up the kind of money that Emirates are being asked to invest when there is no guarantee as to what races the team will be able to ride?

But companies seem happy to sponsor football clubs that could get relegated from the Premier League. I realise cycling doesn't have sponsors battering down the door, but surely similar view applies.

Apart from the fact that football sponsorship is more desirable to many sponsors and that the fees are likely to be reflected in the chance of a team being relegated, relegation is down to a sporting chance. Emirates are being asked to put the value of their investment into the hands of a third party. Not the same thing at all.

RoadPainter wrote:

As mentioned above, what if the UCI give guarantees and the team is created but signs just neo-pros, would Alonso be able to pocket the difference?

If the UCI wants to ensure the investment, they should demand guarantees in return.

RoadPainter wrote:

If they've got as much money available as suggested, then the points brought by decent signings would guarantee WT status, wouldn't they?

Guaranteed by whom? If I were negotiating sponsorship on behalf of Emirates and was told that by Alonso's lawyers my position would be that if you are so confident that the money will do that, you take the risk. Return all the money if it doesn't happen.

You are asking someone to invest serious cash without any absolute certainty as to what they will get in return.

Clearly this is an issue for Emirates or they would not be demanding the guarantees.

DeadCalm

Richmond Racer wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

People have been bemoaning the dearth of decent sponsors attracted to the sport. How can you expect a company to stump up the kind of money that Emirates are being asked to invest when there is no guarantee as to what races the team will be able to ride?

Its not unique to poor' little Emirates. Same treatment as for other sponsors.

And why do you think cycling has such trouble attracting (and keeping) decent sponsors?

Isn't this the same issue that got Vaughters and some of the other teams to seriously look into the forming of a breakaway cycling league a couple of years ago?

RichN95.

RoadPainter wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

People have been bemoaning the dearth of decent sponsors attracted to the sport. How can you expect a company to stump up the kind of money that Emirates are being asked to invest when there is no guarantee as to what races the team will be able to ride?

But companies seem happy to sponsor football clubs that could get relegated from the Premier League. I realise cycling doesn't have sponsors battering down the door, but surely similar view applies.

In football the contract will have clauses to cover relegation. The sponsor will also know what league the team will be in from the beginning. And it's not the primary source of income. If cycling is going to persist on a business model wholly reliant on sponsorship money then they have to make sure that investors know what they are buying and not treat it like a lucky dip.

Really they should be getting guarantees and signing agreements with ASO rather than UCI.

Richmond Racer

DeadCalm wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

People have been bemoaning the dearth of decent sponsors attracted to the sport. How can you expect a company to stump up the kind of money that Emirates are being asked to invest when there is no guarantee as to what races the team will be able to ride?

Its not unique to poor' little Emirates. Same treatment as for other sponsors.

And why do you think cycling has such trouble attracting (and keeping) decent sponsors?

Isn't this the same issue that got Vaughters and some of the other teams to seriously look into the forming of a breakaway cycling league a couple of years ago?

Yes. The trouble in attracting and keeping sponsors has been all down to this.

Ok, to clarify, I'm primarily opposed to an exception being made just for El Nano

DeadCalm

Richmond Racer wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

People have been bemoaning the dearth of decent sponsors attracted to the sport. How can you expect a company to stump up the kind of money that Emirates are being asked to invest when there is no guarantee as to what races the team will be able to ride?

Its not unique to poor' little Emirates. Same treatment as for other sponsors.

And why do you think cycling has such trouble attracting (and keeping) decent sponsors?

Isn't this the same issue that got Vaughters and some of the other teams to seriously look into the forming of a breakaway cycling league a couple of years ago?

Yes. The trouble in attracting and keeping sponsors has been all down to this.

Ok, to clarify, I'm primarily opposed to an exception being made just for El Nano

It''s not the only reason but it's a significant one.

They shouldn't be making an exception for El Nano (not being an F1 fan I had to google it) but the system should be such that all potential new sponsors will know in advance at least roughly what it is they will be getting for their investment.

The_Boy

DeadCalm wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

People have been bemoaning the dearth of decent sponsors attracted to the sport. How can you expect a company to stump up the kind of money that Emirates are being asked to invest when there is no guarantee as to what races the team will be able to ride?

Its not unique to poor' little Emirates. Same treatment as for other sponsors.

And why do you think cycling has such trouble attracting (and keeping) decent sponsors?

Isn't this the same issue that got Vaughters and some of the other teams to seriously look into the forming of a breakaway cycling league a couple of years ago?

Yes. The trouble in attracting and keeping sponsors has been all down to this.

Ok, to clarify, I'm primarily opposed to an exception being made just for El Nano

It''s not the only reason but it's a significant one.

They shouldn't be making an exception for El Nano (not being an F1 fan I had to google it) but the system should be such that all potential new sponsors will know in advance at least roughly what it is they will be getting for their investment.

What exactly are you arguing in favour of here? That anyone who *might* have a high roller sponsorship deal lined up only they can guarantee a spot at the Tour should be given a spot at the Tour?

Richmond Racer

I thought it was clear from my clarification. Dont make an exception for one sponsor.

If the UCI want to review the policy in future, fine - but apply current and future policy across the board to all sponsors, not just one because they're bringing loads of shekels.

Pross

This wouldn't have been an issue if he'd managed to buy out Euskatel, there's now potentially two sets of losers here. That said, who did get Euskatel's licence? Was it Europcar?

DeadCalm

Richmond Racer wrote:

I thought it was clear from my clarification. Dont make an exception for one sponsor.

If the UCI want to review the policy in future, fine - but apply current and future policy across the board to all sponsors, not just one because they're bringing loads of shekels.

That would go against my principles too but it is probably the sensible, commercial decision given the place we are at.

I imagine some kind of franchise system would be the most apt, similar to the way most professional US team sports operate.

DeadCalm

Pross wrote:

This wouldn't have been an issue if he'd managed to buy out Euskatel, there's now potentially two sets of losers here. That said, who did get Euskatel's licence? Was it Europcar?

Euskatel had nothing really to sell. Even if he had bought them he couldn't guarantee that he'd have had a world tour team next year.

The_Boy

Pross wrote:

This wouldn't have been an issue if he'd managed to buy out Euskatel, there's now potentially two sets of losers here. That said, who did get Euskatel's licence? Was it Europcar?

Europcar got into WT as a result of so many teams going to the wall last year.

Btw, am I right in saying that a WT spot lasts for two years?

Pross

So are all the available slots taken at present or are there still some going spare due to teams folding? Also, are there still a couple of teams that are still going but the sponsor had dropped out early e.g. Giant or Trek?