Why are teams complaining over losing 1 rider for Grand Tours?

rowanharley
rowanharley Posts: 76
edited June 2018 in Pro race
I'm relatively new to the sport, but I don't get what all the fuss is over losing 1 rider. Alright, it means the team's sprinter needs to use a bit more energy maybe from aerodynamics but it can't affect team's too negatively, can it? I thought they'd be happy because it means that powerhouses like Team Sky might have problems trying to defend Froome.
«13

Comments

  • salsiccia1
    salsiccia1 Posts: 3,725
    A couple of reasons, I'd say:
    - One less rider to use to implement team tactics
    - One less domestique to do the fetching, carrying, riding in the wind
    - Less resilience in the team, losing one or two riders from eight is bigger than losing one or two from nine
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    The gc riders will have one less Sky domestique to draft in the last 50km.
  • silvergrenade
    silvergrenade Posts: 79
    mrfpb wrote:
    The gc riders will have one less Sky domestique to draft in the last 50km.

    LMAO! :lol:
  • joelsim
    joelsim Posts: 7,552
    mrfpb wrote:
    The gc riders will have one less Sky domestique to draft in the last 50km.

    Nailed! :D
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,649
    Which teams are actually complaining?
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • Dorset_Boy
    Dorset_Boy Posts: 7,554
    Fewer World tour riders, so wage drops for some....
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    I wonder who will be out of the sky get team next year froooooome
  • salsiccia1
    salsiccia1 Posts: 3,725
    Vino'sGhost wrote:
    I wonder who will be out of the sky get team next year froooooome

    With no evidence other than gut feeling, I think you might be disappointed come TDF time :wink:
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    Salsiccia1 wrote:
    Vino'sGhost wrote:
    I wonder who will be out of the sky get team next year froooooome

    With no evidence other than gut feeling, I think you might be disappointed come TDF time :wink:

    You might be right. I hope he likes bottle of piss.
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    Thread resurrection.

    Did the drop to 8 man teams change anything?

    Are any of the teams/riders complaining?
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,695
    No....

    But I must say it seemed ('seemed') that this Giro was much lighter on crashes.

    How much of that is down to 1 man less I'm not so sure
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,547
    The biggest negative effect, in my view, is the lack or opportunities for newer pros to ride a GT. Taking a rookie is a big risk, as there will be days when he can contribute nothing, but the longer term benefits for the rookie are worth it. Now we're seeing fewer first and second year pros starting GTs, especially in the larger teams with realistic goals.
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    I’d have thought it would be good news for the teams,

    A more open tour means smaller budget teams have an opportunity and could potentially spread funds across more teams. It’s not a good sponsor return sport as it stands at the moment, and with roi being so poor anything that improves it is good for the sport as a whole.

    It’s not healthy to rely on rich individuals for a long term plan. Equally inequality in budget leads to some team having an embarrassment of riches (see sky and qsf) . Maybe salary caps either individual or better still team based are a good solution.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Vino'sGhost wrote:

    A more open tour means smaller budget teams have an opportunity and could potentially spread funds across more teams. It’s not a good sponsor return sport as it stands at the moment, and with roi being so poor anything that improves it is good for the sport as a whole.

    Why are you saying the ROI is poor?

    I'm not sure trying to engineer things through financial controls would end well. If you're a sponsor and additional cash = better results, that should be an option to them.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • r0bh
    r0bh Posts: 2,436
    Vino'sGhost wrote:
    I’d have thought it would be good news for the teams,

    A more open tour means smaller budget teams have an opportunity

    Giro stage wins:

    Quickstep 5
    Mitchelton Scott 5
    Bora 3
    Sky 2
    Sunweb 1
    Lotto Soudal 1
    Lotto NL Jumbo 1
    Movistar 1
    Bahrain Merida 1
    BMC 1

    Not much opportunity for the smaller teams evident there
  • phreak
    phreak Posts: 2,953
    Vino'sGhost wrote:
    I’d have thought it would be good news for the teams,

    A more open tour means smaller budget teams have an opportunity and could potentially spread funds across more teams. It’s not a good sponsor return sport as it stands at the moment, and with roi being so poor anything that improves it is good for the sport as a whole.

    It’s not healthy to rely on rich individuals for a long term plan. Equally inequality in budget leads to some team having an embarrassment of riches (see sky and qsf) . Maybe salary caps either individual or better still team based are a good solution.

    Not sure it can be attributed to smaller teams, but weren't the majority of stage wins in the GIro won by a small number of teams? QuickStep, MicheltonScott and Sky certainly won the lion's share.

    *sorry, didn't see the post above when replying
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    A good example of wage limitations being required I think.
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    Vino'sGhost wrote:
    A good example of wage limitations being required I think.
    Now this is where sporting structure gets interesting.
    The US, the global cheerleader for capitalism has a very socialist approach to sport using drafts and wage caps to keep competition incredibly well balanced.
    Europe remains totally hung up on traditional club culture and tradition to the extent that teams can buy enormous advantages over competitors.
    I'm totally for wage caps and managing of incoming talent.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    morstar wrote:
    Vino'sGhost wrote:
    A good example of wage limitations being required I think.
    Now this is where sporting structure gets interesting.
    The US, the global cheerleader for capitalism has a very socialist approach to sport using drafts and wage caps to keep competition incredibly well balanced.
    Europe remains totally hung up on traditional club culture and tradition to the extent that teams can buy enormous advantages over competitors.
    I'm totally for wage caps and managing of incoming talent.
    There's a major difference between those US sports and cycling is that earn most of their money collectively. They are franchises of the NFL, NBA etc. The teams collectively own the sport and sell it together. And then the pot they earn is distributed evenly. It's also a closed shop.

    Cycling teams on the other hand have to earn their own income. They get little from UCI or race organisers. So a wage cap suits those like Vaughters who until recently was surviving hand to mouth or Madiot who has medium sized government backing regardless of how well he does. However, it deters the companies who can invest big money in the sport. Multi-national companies like Sky and Movistar aren't going to be attracted to a sport if they're told that their investment can't be more than a lottery or kitchen company. The sport needs those big companies and they don't like to have their ambition stifled.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Nicely put Rich.

    There are already wage limitations in place in cycling. It's called the market.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    RichN95 wrote:
    morstar wrote:
    Vino'sGhost wrote:
    A good example of wage limitations being required I think.
    Now this is where sporting structure gets interesting.
    The US, the global cheerleader for capitalism has a very socialist approach to sport using drafts and wage caps to keep competition incredibly well balanced.
    Europe remains totally hung up on traditional club culture and tradition to the extent that teams can buy enormous advantages over competitors.
    I'm totally for wage caps and managing of incoming talent.
    There's a major difference between those US sports and cycling is that earn most of their money collectively. They are franchises of the NFL, NBA etc. The teams collectively own the sport and sell it together. And then the pot they earn is distributed evenly. It's also a closed shop.

    Cycling teams on the other hand have to earn their own income. They get little from UCI or race organisers. So a wage cap suits those like Vaughters who until recently was surviving hand to mouth or Madiot who has medium sized government backing regardless of how well he does. However, it deters the companies who can invest big money in the sport. Multi-national companies like Sky and Movistar aren't going to be attracted to a sport if they're told that their investment can't be more than a lottery or kitchen company. The sport needs those big companies and they don't like to have their ambition stifled.
    I agree that the synergies aren't completely aligned but...
    If you keep doing what you've always been doing, you'll keep getting the same results. Effectively, you are defending the status quo saying a more even distribution of funds won't work. I'd argue that unless you totally screwed it up, cycling has enough appeal for businesses to want to remain attached to it and invest. I'm sure lots of those NFL owners would love to have more clout to further their own personal teams but the league takes a holistic view and all owners benefit.
    Do I have a business model proposal? not really as I don't spend a lot of time pondering something I think unlikely to happen. However, there is enough money in the sport to make it work well in the interests of all stakeholders. I wouldn't say that is the case at the moment.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    morstar wrote:
    I agree that the synergies aren't completely aligned but...
    If you keep doing what you've always been doing, you'll keep getting the same results. Effectively, you are defending the status quo saying a more even distribution of funds won't work. I'd argue that unless you totally screwed it up, cycling has enough appeal for businesses to want to remain attached to it and invest. I'm sure lots of those NFL owners would love to have more clout to further their own personal teams but the league takes a holistic view and all owners benefit.
    Do I have a business model proposal? not really as I don't spend a lot of time pondering something I think unlikely to happen. However, there is enough money in the sport to make it work well in the interests of all stakeholders. I wouldn't say that is the case at the moment.
    So the question should not how do we stop the likes of Sky and Movistar from dominating, but how do we attract more companies with their sort of money?

    The Tour de France has been dominated by a succession of riders since the 50s*, regardless of the economic landscape. It always will be. The nature of Grand Tours is (accidents aside) the best rider usually wins.


    *Bobet-Anquetil-Merckx-Hinault-LeMond-Indurain-Armstrong-Contador-Froome
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    I just happen to think the European approach to professional sport is fundamentally no longer fit for purpose. Our sports structures have grown organically from club cultures that are many decades (even centuries) old and never had finances at their heart.
    We now live in a world of multi millionaire sports people and billionaire owners of teams pursuing many different agendas such as tax write offs, vicarious dreams, you name it. Many sports would be better served by an overhaul of their financing if (big if) your primary objective is sustainability and quality of competition. I'm not saying US sports are perfect but they come from a far more blank slate perspective about what is best for the sport first and foremost is what will drive revenue.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    morstar wrote:
    I just happen to think the European approach to professional sport is fundamentally no longer fit for purpose.
    I agree with you there, but wage caps aren't the answer. The sport needs to attract new money from big investors. And you don't do that by limiting their ambition. This feeds into what I've said about French cycling on another thread. What they need is a Brailsford like figure to go to Carrefour or Louis Vuitton and say back me and I'll deliver a French superteam. But instead they have a cartel of mediocrity funded by lotteries and payday loans.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • DeadCalm
    DeadCalm Posts: 4,249
    RichN95 wrote:
    morstar wrote:
    I just happen to think the European approach to professional sport is fundamentally no longer fit for purpose.
    I agree with you there, but wage caps aren't the answer. The sport needs to attract new money from big investors. And you don't do that by limiting their ambition. This feeds into what I've said about French cycling on another thread. What they need is a Brailsford like figure to go to Carrefour or Louis Vuitton and say back me and I'll deliver a French superteam. But instead they have a cartel of mediocrity funded by lotteries and payday loans.
    Those French teams are likely to be around in twenty years time. What happens when Sky decide to pull their sponsorship?
  • DeadCalm
    DeadCalm Posts: 4,249
    Back on topic, I also got the impression that there were fewer crashes in this last Giro. I've nothing to back that up though and even if there were, it could be coincidence but it'll be interesting to see if a trend emerges.
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    RichN95 wrote:
    morstar wrote:
    I just happen to think the European approach to professional sport is fundamentally no longer fit for purpose.
    I agree with you there, but wage caps aren't the answer. The sport needs to attract new money from big investors. And you don't do that by limiting their ambition. This feeds into what I've said about French cycling on another thread. What they need is a Brailsford like figure to go to Carrefour or Louis Vuitton and say back me and I'll deliver a French superteam. But instead they have a cartel of mediocrity funded by lotteries and payday loans.

    I’m not sure you’re right Rich, in principal what you’re saying is right but the practicalities aren’t.

    1 the cost of running a pro tour or pro continental team is huge. Sky’s budget is north of 20 million. The ROI is not in alignment .

    2 there are a limited number of large corporate sponsors willing or able to pay that sort of money for a white european sport when they can get more coverage from other global diverse sports like football. Fair enough if the target audience fits cyclings demographic.

    3 point two is underlined by the inclusion of various lottery funded teams, regional government, and rich enthusiasts and thank goodness those organisations and people exists.

    4 the corporate sponsors move on when they have achieved their objectives or when those objectives can be met more effectively elsewhere and there isn’t the pool of replacements.

    5 giving the one or two teams unlimited access to all the talent skews results and diminishes sporting spectacle and worse than that it forces the sport to canabalise itself. You call this allowing them to have their ambition but in return for that everyone including the enthusiasts watching pay the price. And let’s not for one moment pretend that sky or any other team has revoloutionised the sport.

    6 providing a cap on the salaries of the riders in a team means that the best riders will still be employed just not in the same team working for the same ambition.

    7 the finances, of the sport don’t lend themselves to a football tv rights deal. There aren’t enough viewers and there aren’t even tickets to most road events.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,431
    It would be interesting to compare the returns companies such as Skoda, Vittel and Carrefour who sponsor races get compared to Sky, Movistar and Quickstep
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,435
    DeadCalm wrote:
    Back on topic, I also got the impression that there were fewer crashes in this last Giro. I've nothing to back that up though and even if there were, it could be coincidence but it'll be interesting to see if a trend emerges.
    Does anyone else think the comparative lack of sprint trains might have helped as well?
  • DeadCalm
    DeadCalm Posts: 4,249
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    DeadCalm wrote:
    Back on topic, I also got the impression that there were fewer crashes in this last Giro. I've nothing to back that up though and even if there were, it could be coincidence but it'll be interesting to see if a trend emerges.
    Does anyone else think the comparative lack of sprint trains might have helped as well?
    That could well be it.

Categories