Cookson said...

ugo.santalucia

andyrr wrote:

I'd think that it is quite feasible for organisers to have a serious attempt at this : I'd see the way that world championship car rallies went from pretty much a free-for-all from a spectator point of view to almost wholesale charging. I know that this is not a like-for-like in as much as in the UK rallies take place on private land whereas bike races are on public roads but I think it bears comparison.
Way back (lat 80's onwards) I followed guys like Colin McRae around the country on the UK World Championship rally (AKA RAC Rally, Lombard RAC etc etc). I, and sometimes a mate, drove to a location near a forest stage, park up, kip in the car if the stage was 1st thing the next day, then trudge a mile or 2 to watch the cars, then head back to the car, drive miles away to see them again. We sometimes parked on a farmer's field and had to pay £5 or so but often, even about 20 years ago, were only paying for petrol and food etc, minimal costs associated with the actual spectating.
Then the FIA etc started screwing around with the sport, made WRC rallies centre around 1 or 2 locations instead of hopping across the country, and they offered spectating 'packages' that seemed to become almost obligatory.

If some of the biggest cycling events/locations could pull in a few 10's of thousand paying spectators, even if much reduced from the numbers that would attend if no charge was levied then that would seem pretty attractive ?
Many people pay a fair premium to companies to be assured of an entry to L'Etape over and above the actual entry fee so many would still pay to spend the day on L'Alpe etc ?

Exaclty... and has Rally boomed as a sport because of that? No, infact I would say that it barely survives, it's certainly the pale shadow of what it was in the 70s and 80s and nobody gives a toss about it... so charging might not be the answer!

Paul 8v

Like Frenchie said, we would probably roll over and have our bellies tickled over here (Remember the charge for the TDF village in York that was exactly the same in Harrogate but that was free?)

The French would never have that, they'd just smash the place up. Charge for a grandstand place fair enough but pay to stand by the side of the road? No thanks. It won't stop the drunken idiots from interfering with the riders either in case they try and use that excuse...

RichN95.

ugo.santalucia wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Sport is a business. Some of you need to stop thinking that it watching for free is some sort fundamental human right.

And now you have to explain why we have been watching cycling for free for a century but in 2014 we have to start paying... and it's not capitalism, because that's not a new idea... there was capitalism and money in sport 50 years ago

Because overheads have increased exponentially over the years, for a start. And the business model of races has long been based on selling newspapers - and that's a failing industry itself. Few races make a profit.

Businesses that fail are the ones that say 'well it's been OK so far, let's not bother innovating'. Right now billionaire fanboys are making the situation look OK, but in reality cycling's business model has remained more or less unchanged since before the dawn of television. Cycling is currently in an unsustainable economic bubble and if it doesn't evolve that bubble will burst and there won't be a bail-out.

History is one of cycling's greatest assets, but tradition is it's greatest weakness.

ugo.santalucia

RichN95 wrote:

Cycling is currently in an unsustainable economic bubble and if it doesn't evolve that bubble will burst and there won't be a bail-out.

History is one of cycling's greatest assets, but tradition is it's greatest weakness.

That's true for any sport... football is in an unsustainable bubble kept together by tycoons and money laundering billionaires... Financial fair-play is a joke.... I don't mind cycling struggling for money, becuase I can see what the alternative means. I'd rather have the Dauphine Libre' cancelled for a few years for lack of funding than seeing the PRO tour as an extension of the UEFA/FA Disneyland...

If you like plastic, candy sugar and hot dogs then you might actually like more money in cycling... I don't

I think business, profit and capitalism are words that belong to the past... sustainability is a word for the future, which means less money, not more... reduce, curb, cut the un-necessary

RichN95.

ugo.santalucia wrote:

If you like plastic, candy sugar and hot dogs then you might actually like more money in cycling... I don't

I think business, profit and capitalism are words that belong to the past... sustainability is a word for the future, which means less money, not more... reduce, curb, cut the un-necessary

There's clearly a difference between you and I. I'm willing to pay for a good product, and I don't begrudge people making lots of money from it. You just want it for free. You don't care about the quality or as long as it's free, because you can rebrand it in your head as traditional and embrace its crapness as a manifestation of your soulfulness.

You say you don't care if cycling struggles for money - of course you don't you have nothing invested in it. Your free entertainment is all that matters.

pdstsp

How would any charge work though? On a mtf the road will close maybe the early hours of the morning of the day of the stage. Until that point the road is an open public road so people are free to come and go. Likewise the mountainside round the road is open to walkers, climbers etc. So are the UCI suggesting that a little chap with a ticket machine walks round the mountain charging anyone with a view of the road, or within 5 metres of the road? Given a typical HC or Cat1 climb will be over 10km long the logistics seem very hard to imagine.

RichN95.

pdstsp wrote:

How would any charge work though? On a mtf the road will close maybe the early hours of the morning of the day of the stage. Until that point the road is an open public road so people are free to come and go. Likewise the mountainside round the road is open to walkers, climbers etc.

As I've said a couple of times, charge for vehicles not people.

ugo.santalucia

RichN95 wrote:

You say you don't care if cycling struggles for money - of course you don't you have nothing invested in it. Your free entertainment is all that matters.

Pretty much... that's the way it was... if then now people want to make big money out of it it's none of my business...
Crappy? Why crappy...? We had good races even before millions rolled in... you seem to equate money = quality... is the Champions league better than the old poorer Champions cup or whatever it was called? Not for me... I preferred it back then

pdstsp

But I don't see how it would work. Many people arrive several days before a stage, but, as the roads are public you cannot charge at the point of arrival, so you are stuck with charging people after the roads close. This would mean ticketing of some sort - placed on windscreens? IMO most people would park, walk 10 yards from their car, look nonchalant, watch guy put ticket on the car, laugh and chuck the ticket away. I just don't see it working and, personally, I don't want it to be tried.

Pross

RichN95 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

My fear is that if the idea catches on, then the price will go up following offer-demand... which means in 10 years you might have to pay 100 quid for the privilege... just in the same way as you can't really afford to go and see a Champions League match that in the 1980s was cheap as chips.... they improve the facilities to make sure they are attractive to the wealthy and they charge accordingly.

The price will only go up as long as people are willing to pay. Basic economics will dictate the price. And like football, the better the experience, the more they will be willing to pay.

Sport is a business. Some of you need to stop thinking that it watching for free is some sort fundamental human right.

I don't see how, as a business, cycling / race organisers would benefit from this though. It is more likely to put people off paying to be a host town. If you are going to get hundreds of thousands visiting your town it's worth paying for a race but if this drops due to people having to pay then the incentive goes. Also, who gets the money? The roads don't belong to the UCI or race organisers so how can they charge people to use them? If anyone makes money it would be the council etc. surely?

The_Boy

RichN95 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

If you like plastic, candy sugar and hot dogs then you might actually like more money in cycling... I don't

I think business, profit and capitalism are words that belong to the past... sustainability is a word for the future, which means less money, not more... reduce, curb, cut the un-necessary

There's clearly a difference between you and I. I'm willing to pay for a good product, and I don't begrudge people making lots of money from it. You just want it for free. You don't care about the quality or as long as it's free, because you can rebrand it in your head as traditional and embrace its crapness as a manifestation of your soulfulness.

You say you don't care if cycling struggles for money - of course you don't you have nothing invested in it. Your free entertainment is all that matters.

I have to wonder, If cycling is such a crap product, why are you arguing about it on the internet? It's a fucking great sport, and charging an admission fee would damage that, imo.

I know I'm quoting a comment directed at another, but they really do have it right in this instance. One of the main appeals of the sport is the ability to stand at the side of a public road and cheer on your heroes. For free. To become part of the spectacle.

And as for the notion that being opposed to charging for a road side view means one must be opposed to investing in the sport financially? Unmitigated bullshit, I'm afraid. The only reason I have a Eurosport subscription is for their extensive cycling coverage. If Sky ever move into the market sufficiently, I would probably hold my nose and take a subscription.

carbonclem

If you want to imagine how it might work then think back to Box Hill for the Olympic road race. Ticketed area that sold out quickly and could have probably sold as much again. Yes it was cycling silly season but tickets were sold long before Brad won the tour and we realised the games would be good

It seems inevitable that choice spots would be ticketed in time as popularity increases and the free views will be the flat 'whizz by's'.

fleshtuxedo

CarbonClem wrote:

If you want to imagine how it might work then think back to Box Hill for the Olympic road race. Ticketed area that sold out quickly and could have probably sold as much again. Yes it was cycling silly season but tickets were sold long before Brad won the tour and we realised the games would be good

It seems inevitable that choice spots would be ticketed in time as popularity increases and the free views will be the flat 'whizz by's'.

Wasn't Box Hill ticketed because it was National Trust land? There is a legal question about how you can charge people to use a public highway for spectating. The option to charge for parking is possible, but of course everyone will do their best to avoid it, so revenue would likely be limited versus charging everyone to view.

I don't see why the organisers and the local authorities wouldn't be able to negotiate a split of parking revenues as part of the process of bidding for stage finishes etc.

Can't see it as being the death of cycling as we know it - whenever I've been to watch a big race, there's been plenty of other costs that would dwarf a bit of car parking. I doubt there's a legal solution to charging to view (not to park) on the public highway other than in grandstands etc.

RichN95.

Pross wrote:

I don't see how, as a business, cycling / race organisers would benefit from this though. It is more likely to put people off paying to be a host town. If you are going to get hundreds of thousands visiting your town it's worth paying for a race but if this drops due to people having to pay then the incentive goes. Also, who gets the money? The roads don't belong to the UCI or race organisers so how can they charge people to use them? If anyone makes money it would be the council etc. surely?

Host towns wouldn't really suffer. I'd only advocate this for MTFs. There's not much at the top of those mountains anyway. It's the towns in the valleys that profit from spectators - anything at the top is booked up by ASO. L'Alpe d'Huez doesn't make it's money from the race anyway - it makes it from tourists going to cycle up the legendary mountain in the rest of summer.

And someone who parks a motorhome on the side of the road half way up a mountain isn't putting much into the local ecomony anyway. Which is why I advocate charging to take vehicles onto the mountain.

And who gets the cash? Well that's for the local council and the ASO to work out.

jimmythecuckoo

Its worked so well for football.

Rich players getting more detached from the clubs and supporters that idolize them. Crazy ticketing policy that has alienated all but the richest people at the top level.

Yeah let's go down that route.

Cycling's main attraction is that its a free spectacle. Let's be honest it takes a bit of resilience to spend four hours at the side of the road waiting for a five minute procession past.

The free element is that people can turn up ad hoc and watch without commitment of time and money.

I think I know what Rich is driving at regarding paying money for a better quality product and if say the last 2kms of a summit finish where there are barriers and stewarding were charged for I think that would be a compromise.

My mind keeps going to that Japanese crit the other week where part of the course was through a concert hall where loads of people were indoors waving flags having paid to see the pros nip past.

DeVlaeminck

Take Alpe D'Huez as an example.

Alpe D'Huez is about what, 6 miles long? It has a decent sized town at the foot and a decent sized ski resort at the top with probably thousands of rental rooms plus a couple of villages on the way up. There are a number of alternative access roads that allow you to get to the climb or the top without going up the classic climb itself. There are tracks and paths that access the climb. I don't think you can compare that to Box Hill. Sure maybe there is scope for charging for using the car parks (does that not happen anyway?) but I can't see that charging to stand by the road will work, sealing off the climb is just too difficult, put up barriers and people will just climb over them.

If they tried to ticket somewhere like Dutch Corner what happens when 200 drunk Dutch try to jump the barriers? They can't keep the fans off the road itself so good luck trying to keep them away from the best spots just because they haven't got a ticket.

thomthom

Once again, people are too worked up about crowds and barriers..

It's no more 'violent', aggressive or dangerous than it was 15 years ago. You just have the ability to watch the fans from 10 cameras at the same time now They have just got a different approach to watch the race, with a phone in their hand.

When there has been a problem it has been because of an organiser choosing the smallest road in Europe with a caravan of 50 motorcycles to move up the way the finish line in order to get his perverted 25% climb...

It's not something that should be ignored - and it isn't - but it's nowhere near the problem some find it to be. If it even is one.

It goes without saying: charging is obviously a laughable suggestion.

mrushton

ThomThom wrote:

It goes without saying: charging is obviously a laughable suggestion.

But you know that the 'marketing dept' are working on it

mm1

I think there was a charge to get onto the circuit at the 1982 Worlds in Goodwood, but not many paid, it was pretty easy to bunk onto the course. The ticketed viewing areas at the Tour of Flanders are an abomination, thankfully its impossible to charge for access for the full route of a classic...isn't it.

bikingjohn

Keep the crowd free of entrance charge,
Do better tv/online live programme,
Charge more from advertisement and mobile access.

ugo.santalucia

I still struggle with the idea that the sport needs more money.

Apparently the Giro and Tour organisers struggle with the pile of requests to host stages outside their own country. There are dodgy money laundering billionaires in the circus, true... like in any other sport...
Teams struggle for sponsorship and some have to give up? That's life... it's the same for other businesses, get over it...

Bring the wages up? Good idea... like in football, where the third keeper on a premier league team earns a million per year or so without ever playing... that's what we want to see: mediocre riders getting paid hundreds of thousands, that increases the profile of the sport, innit?

greasedscotsman

Isn't this already happening at the Tour of Flanders?

slowbike

RichN95 wrote:

And someone who parks a motorhome on the side of the road half way up a mountain isn't putting much into the local ecomony anyway. Which is why I advocate charging to take vehicles onto the mountain.

how much should a motorhomer put into the local economy?

They have to fill up with fuel somewhere, they have to get food/drink somewhere? Many will be booked on camp sites - as we were - so whilst you may think they could contribute more, they're still contributing. There were thousands on the cat1 climb we went to - and hundreds of motorhomes.

For many, watching a road race isn't free - you just don't have to pay the organisers. You get to see the riders for a few seconds then they're all gone.
IMHO, it's the public that make the race - without them the TV shots would be less interesting and there'd be less interest from the sponsors. Charging for someone to watch the race on the side of the road will kill it. Charging for parking of motorhomes less so - but the local councils could do that already if they thought it worth while.

andyp

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I still struggle with the idea that the sport needs more money.

There might be enough money in the sport, but the way teams are funded is something that can clearly be improved, as so many of them live hand to mouth and have budgets that are at the whim of one or two people in a large company's marketing department. The fact that most of the top teams rely on the munificence of a rich benefactor (BMC, OPQS, Orica-GreenEdge, Katusha, Astana and Sky) for their income is also an issue.

Ultimately, a fairer share of the revenue in the sport needs to be distributed to the teams but, for the time being, ASO are fundamentally opposed to this.

dish_dash

andyp wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I still struggle with the idea that the sport needs more money.

There might be enough money in the sport, but the way teams are funded is something that can clearly be improved, as so many of them live hand to mouth and have budgets that are at the whim of one or two people in a large company's marketing department. The fact that most of the top teams rely on the munificence of a rich benefactor (BMC, OPQS, Orica-GreenEdge, Katusha, Astana and Sky) for their income is also an issue.

Ultimately, a fairer share of the revenue in the sport needs to be distributed to the teams but, for the time being, ASO are fundamentally opposed to this.

What's wrong with the rich benefactor approach?

Also, how do you determine a fairer distribution of revenue? In F1, Ferrari get a special extra % just for showing up. Risk is that the current teams, with rich benefactors, just grab the revenue share and lock out new entrants.

RichN95.

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I still struggle with the idea that the sport needs more money.

Apparently the Giro and Tour organisers struggle with the pile of requests to host stages outside their own country. There are dodgy money laundering billionaires in the circus, true... like in any other sport...
Teams struggle for sponsorship and some have to give up? That's life... it's the same for other businesses, get over it...

Bring the wages up? Good idea... like in football, where the third keeper on a premier league team earns a million per year or so without ever playing... that's what we want to see: mediocre riders getting paid hundreds of thousands, that increases the profile of the sport, innit?

There aren't just two financial scenarios available - perpetual instability or grotesque decadence. There quite a bit of middle ground that could be occupied.

RichN95.

dish_dash wrote:

What's wrong with the rich benefactor approach?

a) It's inherently unsustainable and unpredictable
b) It inflates wages and creates an economic bubble
c) It obscures the flaws in the sport's business model
d) It distorts competition

thomthom

andyp wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I still struggle with the idea that the sport needs more money.

Ultimately, a fairer share of the revenue in the sport needs to be distributed to the teams but, for the time being, ASO are fundamentally opposed to this.

There isn't any revenue to share.

ocdupalais

RichN95 wrote:

a) It's inherently unsustainable and unpredictable
b) It inflates wages and creates an economic bubble
c) It obscures the flaws in the sport's business model
d) It distorts competition

Don't forget
e) It encourages corruption
...are we still talking about football?

andyp

ThomThom wrote:

There isn't any revenue to share.

There is some, ASO earn a lot from TV rights and sponsorship deals, but none of that makes it's way, directly, to the teams.

There could be more if someone managed to create a unified calendar of the best races, akin to the World Tour today, and then package that up and sell the TV rights for the entire series. But ASO and RCS, who own most of the races, would need convincing of the benefits of this, namely it would need to make them more money than the current arrangements.