What's happened to Cannondale Drapac

1246

Comments

  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,249
    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
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784

    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.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,249
    iainf72 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
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    iainf72 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.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,137
    iainf72 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.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,137
    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
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    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.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,249
    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.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,137
    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?
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,249
    iainf72 wrote:
    iainf72 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
    andyp Posts: 10,070
    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
    salsiccia1 Posts: 3,725
    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...
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,137
    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)
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • awavey
    awavey Posts: 2,368
    RichN95 wrote:
    iainf72 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.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,137
    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.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • salsiccia1
    salsiccia1 Posts: 3,725
    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.
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • 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.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • dish_dash
    dish_dash Posts: 5,551
    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
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,249
    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.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,137
    Some leaked footage from the last contract meeting between Vaughters and Talansky (maybe)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5YW4qKOAVM
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Its looks as though they will fall short with whole #saveargyle thing at the moment.

    Shame.
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,196
    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.
    m.r.m. Posts: 3,315
    Also there is a lot less parity in the leagues and sports with salary cap than people think.
    PTP Champion 2019, 2022 & 2023
  • salsiccia1
    salsiccia1 Posts: 3,725
    bobmcstuff 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.
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,137
    bobmcstuff 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.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,218
    RichN95 wrote:
    bobmcstuff 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
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,249
    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.
  • 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.
  • Contracts good for next year, he says:

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report- ... contracts/
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,070
    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.