What's happened to Cannondale Drapac

rick_chasey

Salary cap per se isn't worth dismissing out of hand, but in terms of making the sport more popular as a spectator sport it's at least #10 on the list in terms of impact and relevance.

Route innovation is the main one. Team sizes are the other.

iainf72

Rick Chasey wrote:

Route innovation is the main one. Team sizes are the other.

What is the evidence for team size? Or is it just a theory. A lot of these things feel like changing stuff for the sake of changing it.

rick_chasey

iainf72 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Route innovation is the main one. Team sizes are the other.

What is the evidence for team size? Or is it just a theory. A lot of these things feel like changing stuff for the sake of changing it.

The smaller stage races that have 6-7 man teams seem to be much more difficult to control, and the racing seems much more exciting.

Maybe you don't watch them because they're chippers .

iainf72

Rick Chasey wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Route innovation is the main one. Team sizes are the other.

What is the evidence for team size? Or is it just a theory. A lot of these things feel like changing stuff for the sake of changing it.

The smaller stage races that have 6-7 man teams seem to be much more difficult to control, and the racing seems much more exciting.

Maybe you don't watch them because they're chippers .

I agree, they do seem more exciting. But is that because they really don't matter?

If you do that in the Tour, isn't the likely result that racing becomes even more conservative?

The Tour was more excitng with bigger teams, it could be argued.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Route innovation is the main one. Team sizes are the other.

What is the evidence for team size? Or is it just a theory. A lot of these things feel like changing stuff for the sake of changing it.

The smaller stage races that have 6-7 man teams seem to be much more difficult to control, and the racing seems much more exciting.

Maybe you don't watch them because they're chippers .

That might be because those races aren't major targets for big riders and big teams. I think it's worth a try.

On the point of competitiveness and salary caps. There have been 19 races in the World Tour and one team has won eight of them and finished on the podium in 14 of them - some domination.
But there is no-one asking for salary caps to stop Boels-Dolman and level the women's playing field.

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

The Tour was more excitng with bigger teams, it could be argued.

I think that was more down to the shallower talent pool and teams only have one big multi-purpose leader, rather than team size

iainf72

If there were smaller teams, then you could invest €50K and hire some additional help from the no-hoper teams for the Tour.

Unintended consequences.

rick_chasey

iainf72 wrote:

If there were smaller teams, then you could invest €50K and hire some additional help from the no-hoper teams for the Tour.

Unintended consequences.

So could your rival.

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

If there were smaller teams, then you could invest €50K and hire some additional help from the no-hoper teams for the Tour.

Unintended consequences.

Does that go on much these days though?

rick_chasey

iainf72 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Route innovation is the main one. Team sizes are the other.

What is the evidence for team size? Or is it just a theory. A lot of these things feel like changing stuff for the sake of changing it.

The smaller stage races that have 6-7 man teams seem to be much more difficult to control, and the racing seems much more exciting.

Maybe you don't watch them because they're chippers .

I agree, they do seem more exciting. But is that because they really don't matter?

If you do that in the Tour, isn't the likely result that racing becomes even more conservative?

The Tour was more excitng with bigger teams, it could be argued.

As Rich says, bigger performance differential between top and average riders.


And, of course, plenty more KMs to ride.

andyp

RichN95 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

If there were smaller teams, then you could invest €50K and hire some additional help from the no-hoper teams for the Tour.

Unintended consequences.

Does that go on much these days though?

UAE riding for Aru at the Tour.

salsiccia1

I think there's a case for a salary/budget cap, or possibly some sort of luxury tax. The prospect of throwing a €15m at a team, and that still not being anywhere enough to be competitive can't be encouraging to sponsors.

That said, cycling being cycling, someone would cheat it...

RichN95.

Salsiccia1 wrote:

I think there's a case for a salary/budget cap, or possibly some sort of luxury tax. The prospect of throwing a €15m at a team, and that still not being anywhere enough to be competitive can't be encouraging to sponsors.

There's no case. All it does is reduce the amount of money being brought into the sport and reducing the amount cyclists get paid. The only case is if you think your enjoyment is more important than their livelihood (hello Rick).

In sports that have a salary cap the teams own their league. They bargain collectively for TV money and competition sponsors, trying to maximise their income. This provides a central pot which is distributed between the teams. The salary cap is based on that pot and is there to provide stability . It does not effect how much money they can attract.

Cycling on the other hand does not have collective bargaining, it's every team for itself. There is no collective pot. So salary caps serve only to lower the amount that top teams needs to raise. If the cap is based lower than many teams already pay, no-one raises more. Money is lost to the sport and it grows smaller.

The solution to inequality should always be to raise the bottom not lower the top.

Vaughters wants to mimic the US sports franchise system, which some think is a socialist system to provide equitable chance of success, but is actually a protectionist system to insure against failure.



(And when the majority of income comes from sponsorship, that income can easily be split between team and individual sponsorship to bypass it)

awavey

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Route innovation is the main one. Team sizes are the other.

What is the evidence for team size? Or is it just a theory. A lot of these things feel like changing stuff for the sake of changing it.

The smaller stage races that have 6-7 man teams seem to be much more difficult to control, and the racing seems much more exciting.

Maybe you don't watch them because they're chippers .

That might be because those races aren't major targets for big riders and big teams. I think it's worth a try.

On the point of competitiveness and salary caps. There have been 19 races in the World Tour and one team has won eight of them and finished on the podium in 14 of them - some domination.
But there is no-one asking for salary caps to stop Boels-Dolman and level the women's playing field.

do all their riders even get a salary ? lets talk about a minimum salary in womens cycling first, to level the playing field

RichN95.

awavey wrote:

do all their riders even get a salary ? lets talk about a minimum salary in womens cycling first, to level the playing field

No. That's the point. But why don't we stop paying those that are to make things more competitive. That's the salary cap argument, but at a less palatable level.

salsiccia1

RichN95 wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

I think there's a case for a salary/budget cap, or possibly some sort of luxury tax. The prospect of throwing a €15m at a team, and that still not being anywhere enough to be competitive can't be encouraging to sponsors.

There's no case. All it does is reduce the amount of money being brought into the sport and reducing the amount cyclists get paid. The only case is if you think your enjoyment is more important than their livelihood (hello Rick).

In sports that have a salary cap the teams own their league. They bargain collectively for TV money and competition sponsors, trying to maximise their income. This provides a central pot which is distributed between the teams. The salary cap is based on that pot and is there to provide stability . It does not effect how much money they can attract.

Cycling on the other hand does not have collective bargaining, it's every team for itself. There is no collective pot. So salary caps serve only to lower the amount that top teams needs to raise. If the cap is based lower than many teams already pay, no-one raises more. Money is lost to the sport and it grows smaller.

The solution to inequality should always be to raise the bottom not lower the top.

Vaughters wants to mimic the US sports franchise system, which some think is a socialist system to provide equitable chance of success, but is actually a protectionist system to insure against failure.



(And when the majority of income comes from sponsorship, that income can easily be split between team and individual sponsorship to bypass it)

All fair points.

How do we raise the bottom? The situation at the moment is a bit like football with the same few teams dominating because they have by far and away the greater resources. I understand that cycling is not like sports where there are big central sources of income, but in some ways there is even less incentive to get involved in cycling as there isn't a pie to share. The only 'pie' is exposure to non-hardcore consumers, and that comes from winning/being competitive in the big races, which costs big money.

I don't know what the answer is but having some mechanism for equalising the disparity in team quality should be a priority, IMHO.

DeVlaeminck

Simplest solution - for those that think there is a problem - is smaller teams. A rider can only do so much, if he's working to limit who gets away initially, fetching bottles and controlling the break he's less likely to be there controlling the GC men on the final climb.

Other solutions seem to me to require more fundamental reform of the sport and would be more difficult to police and therefore easier to circumvent.

Whether you'd then have a smaller peloton or more teams is open to question. More teams means more cars which isn't ideal though it'd help some smaller outfits attract sponsorship if they had an entry to a grand tour.

dish_dash

Worth noting that three US cycling teams are wanting to step up to Pro-Conti level next season, all stating they have funding in place: Rally, Holowesko-Citadel-Hincapie, and Axeon Hagens Berman. I know part of this is driven by the Tour of California stepping up to WT, but these three teams will all have to step up a funding notch and pick up more riders to meet the minimum 16 team requirements of the Pro-Conti level.

So maybe there isn't such a crisis in sponsorship in US cycling after all...

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

. The only case is if you think your enjoyment is more important than their livelihood (hello Rick).

In fairness to me, (and I like to try and be fair to me) that is one of the main reasons the US sports are regulated the way they are; because the state puts the consumer's right to a good product above the people producing it.

That's why you used to get all those mocking adverts about 'when America does football' with "MULTI BALL!!' etc.

They treat their sports much more like a show than Europeans do. The spectacle is always #1. Hence cheerleaders etc.




--
There is a separate point that the reputation cost when things go wrong is also higher because the sponsor IS the team, rather than just sponsoring the team. It's one thing Man Utd being caught doping for Chevrolet, but another if "TEAM CHEVROLET" is caught doping, for example.

RichN95.

Some leaked footage from the last contract meeting between Vaughters and Talansky (maybe)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5YW4qKOAVM

jimmythecuckoo

Its looks as though they will fall short with whole #saveargyle thing at the moment.

Shame.

bobmcstuff

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Its looks as though they will fall short with whole #saveargyle thing at the moment.

Shame.

There's a rumour that they have found the cash and may be announcing something soon.

m.r.m.

Also there is a lot less parity in the leagues and sports with salary cap than people think.

salsiccia1

bobmcstuff wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Its looks as though they will fall short with whole #saveargyle thing at the moment.

Shame.

There's a rumour that they have found the cash and may be announcing something soon.

According to CN, formal announcement tomorrow.

RichN95.

bobmcstuff wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Its looks as though they will fall short with whole #saveargyle thing at the moment.

Shame.

There's a rumour that they have found the cash and may be announcing something soon.

They're just waiting for the Sony Ericsson executive to e-mail back to them via his Hotmail account.

Pross

RichN95 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Its looks as though they will fall short with whole #saveargyle thing at the moment.

Shame.

There's a rumour that they have found the cash and may be announcing something soon.

They're just waiting for the Sony Ericsson executive to e-mail back to them via his Hotmail account.

Or that Nigerian prince to release the money he promised in return for the cash Vaughters sent.

rick_chasey

On the topic of wage caps & quality, NFL is knee deep in a debate about declining quality and rules around wages; veteran players having to earn more than younger players, so they're forgoing experience to keep within the rules.



Apparently.

Sun Dodger

Looks like it might be some good news for the folks at Cannondale, but still a sport with big issues. Maybe three big organizers making lots of cash on a sustainable basis (ASO, RCS and Flanders), then the Teams and other races living a hand to mouth existence.

blazing_saddles

Contracts good for next year, he says:

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

andyp

Sun Dodger wrote:

Looks like it might be some good news for the folks at Cannondale, but still a sport with big issues. Maybe three big organizers making lots of cash on a sustainable basis (ASO, RCS and Flanders), then the Teams and other races living a hand to mouth existence.

Show your workings.