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

Vino'sGhost

TailWindHome wrote:

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

That’s quite interesting I shall research .....

amrushton

Sky have a big presence tho so every time the team or a rider get on a podium every network in the world is forced to advertise them. Back in the day Fassa Bortolo went from a small cement firm to a major European supplier on the back of the team.

mrfpb

Also back on topic, did the loss of a rider make it harder for teams to divide their resources when defending/promoting two riders? Most obviously Mitchelton Scott promoting Yates at the front while also towing Chaves at the back. Sky (and presumably others) who stick with the one star rider and no plan B must have had an easier three weeks.


Didn't Sunweb pick up Polka Dot and Green Jerseys at last year's TdF with a "two star rider" team - will that be possible with one less domestiques to protect a sprinter on a mountain day?

rick_chasey

Remember those monster crashes that seemed to happen once or twice a Tour not so long ago that would take out dozens of riders?

Where it was quite easy to have 3 riders caught up and out of the running?

That's when we'll hear the real moans, and not just from the riders with a broken pelvis.

Matthewfalle

amrushton wrote:

Sky have a big presence tho so every time the team or a rider get on a podium every network in the world is forced to advertise them. Back in the day Fassa Bortolo went from a small cement firm to a major European supplier on the back of the team.

Fassa also had the coolest kit ever tho...

above_the_cows

r0bh wrote:

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

But that could also be down to the fact that there were only two or so stages where the breakaway was allowed to stay away.

bobmcstuff

mrfpb wrote:

Also back on topic, did the loss of a rider make it harder for teams to divide their resources when defending/promoting two riders? Most obviously Mitchelton Scott promoting Yates at the front while also towing Chaves at the back. Sky (and presumably others) who stick with the one star rider and no plan B must have had an easier three weeks.


Didn't Sunweb pick up Polka Dot and Green Jerseys at last year's TdF with a "two star rider" team - will that be possible with one less domestiques to protect a sprinter on a mountain day?

Yes I think so. That's a big reason why there were not really any sprint teams, it is harder to have the support for a GC rider and a sprinter with only 8 riders.

larkim

Big strong teams vs small weak teams is the nature of European sport (and enough US sport too). I suppose because the tribal team alliances aren't so strong in cycling it's viewed a bit differently by "fans" when compared with the jealousies of underfunded clubs in soccerball compared to the likes of Man City, Man Utd etc.

I suspect on the ground there is more pride in the team performances taken than we really see - perhaps driven by prize money etc. I know its true in Formula 1 for example that the team owners care much, much more about the "constructors championship" than they do about the individual one, so in the F1 paddock team performance carries much more importance amongst those actually involved in it. Wonder if the same is true in the pro peloton, or at least in their management. Whilst you and I don't care about the performances of domestiques, I bet the team management spend a lot more time on them than we would imagine.

Bo Duke

Realistically the reduction in the global top professional pool of riders would be a great blow for the sport - 15%?

Surely it's in the best interest of the sport that teams don't reduce in size.

mrfpb

Bo Duke wrote:

Realistically the reduction in the global top professional pool of riders would be a great blow for the sport - 15%?

Surely it's in the best interest of the sport that teams don't reduce in size.

But cycling teams, unlike most other sports, field teams in two or more events at the same time, hence one Yates in Italy, another Yates in California both competing in team events. Sky will no doubt have teams at the Vuelta and Tour of Britain at the same time. So the chances of getting a team place in a big event is quite high, even if that event isn't a Grand Tour. Certainly when compared to getting a game if you're in Man Utd's second eleven.

No_Ta_Doctor

Smaller team rosters should be cheaper to run but might also reduce rider wages (at least at the lower end).

ShutupJens

No tA Doctor wrote:

Smaller team rosters should be cheaper to run but might also reduce rider wages (at least at the lower end).

Yep and if you're having to make the choice between a veteran with dwindling powers but higher wage expectations than a neo pro, I know which one I would choose most of the time

Vino'sGhost

larkim wrote:

Big strong teams vs small weak teams is the nature of European sport (and enough US sport too). I suppose because the tribal team alliances aren't so strong in cycling it's viewed a bit differently by "fans" when compared with the jealousies of underfunded clubs in soccerball compared to the likes of Man City, Man Utd etc.

I suspect on the ground there is more pride in the team performances taken than we really see - perhaps driven by prize money etc. I know its true in Formula 1 for example that the team owners care much, much more about the "constructors championship" than they do about the individual one, so in the F1 paddock team performance carries much more importance amongst those actually involved in it. Wonder if the same is true in the pro peloton, or at least in their management. Whilst you and I don't care about the performances of domestiques, I bet the team management spend a lot more time on them than we would imagine.

Well the formula one teams spend more on engine development than they do on the drivers, a GC contenders engine is his own but the team is more important, thats why sky have a team of riders some of which would be contenders in their own right, some of which are champions in other areas and all of whom contribute to getting the GC rider over the line.

mouth

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.

The sport of cycling is so far gone in terms of its business model that introducing a wage cap system wouldn't work. I don't think the biggest 3 or 4 teams would approve and they're basically powerful enough to set up their own model.] which could run alongside. Football would be the same. Imagine if the system came in, and someone offered Froome/Sagan/Cav 10k a week in order to fall in with their budget inside the capped business model. Murdoch would just pop down with a blank cheque and tell him to fill it out. Same would apply in football.

Several years ago a minority sport here (won't go into details, but think angry Canadians with no teeth) tried wage capping, and some teams basically circumvented it by employing the players wives as therapists.

The north American model (NFL, MLB, NBA NHL) is so old it predates any kind of major media deal but it works really quite well. Effectively athletes are guaranteed contracts and terms as they're insulated form a business collapse - their contract becomes responsibility of the League if say the Yankees were to fold. On the other hand if the Yankees decide to trade you to Toronto, guess where you're gonna be living next week.

RichN95.

Mouth wrote:

Several years ago a minority sport here (won't go into details, but think angry Canadians with no teeth) tried wage capping, and some teams basically circumvented it by employing the players wives as therapists.

This is particularly unworkable in cycling as it is based on sponsorship money and wage caps in other sports don't stop players having endorsement contracts away from the team. Some riders (e.g. Sagan) already have their salary boosted by personal sponsors and this would just become the norm. In fact riders who can bring a sponsor with them would be able to get team spots ahead of better riders who can't, much like in F1.

And for all the talk of wage caps and drafts levelling the playing field and stopping domination in US sports, half of the last 16 Superbowls have featured the Patriots.

rick_chasey

Why do cycling fans always want to change the structure of cycling?

above_the_cows

#NotAllCyclingFanz

rick_chasey

My favourite iteration of that type of fan so far was a guy who called into the cycling podcast.

To paraphrase.

“I only just got into cycling really recently, but why can’t they change it so I can watch it after work, or just move it all to the weekend.”

phreak

Rick Chasey wrote:

My favourite iteration of that type of fan so far was a guy who called into the cycling podcast.

To paraphrase.

“I only just got into cycling really recently, but why can’t they change it so I can watch it after work, or just move it all to the weekend.”

He was who criteriums and track cycling were invented for, no? The T20 crowd versus the Test Match crowd.

morstar

RichN95 wrote:

Mouth wrote:

Several years ago a minority sport here (won't go into details, but think angry Canadians with no teeth) tried wage capping, and some teams basically circumvented it by employing the players wives as therapists.

This is particularly unworkable in cycling as it is based on sponsorship money and wage caps in other sports don't stop players having endorsement contracts away from the team. Some riders (e.g. Sagan) already have their salary boosted by personal sponsors and this would just become the norm. In fact riders who can bring a sponsor with them would be able to get team spots ahead of better riders who can't, much like in F1.

And for all the talk of wage caps and drafts levelling the playing field and stopping domination in US sports, half of the last 16 Superbowls have featured the Patriots.

Couple of points. I never suggested just sticking a wage cap into the current finance model. I argued the finance model is not good and needs changing. Wage caps were just one facet from the US sports model.
Re the Patriots, what they demonstrate is that quality still shines through regardless of the finance structure and they are lauded for that. Far easier to respect how they consistently do that in such a balanced environment than see a mega budget team buy success in a European sport.

mouth

RichN95 wrote:

Mouth wrote:

Several years ago a minority sport here (won't go into details, but think angry Canadians with no teeth) tried wage capping, and some teams basically circumvented it by employing the players wives as therapists.

This is particularly unworkable in cycling as it is based on sponsorship money and wage caps in other sports don't stop players having endorsement contracts away from the team. Some riders (e.g. Sagan) already have their salary boosted by personal sponsors and this would just become the norm. In fact riders who can bring a sponsor with them would be able to get team spots ahead of better riders who can't, much like in F1.

And for all the talk of wage caps and drafts levelling the playing field and stopping domination in US sports, half of the last 16 Superbowls have featured the Patriots.

But if the personal endorsement falls outside of wages paid by the team, it isn't a part of the salary cap. Think along the lines of SKY riders who are all personally sponsored by The Times or Sun.

In their first two years Sky's budget was more that the rest of the top tier teams put together. I believe the year they had Wiggo and Cav they were each earning more than some of the other teams' whole budget purely from their Sky pay cheque. This was before Oakley and such like were taken into account.

The North American business model dictates that a franchise must make a set % in profit. This is literally deducted from the players' salaries at the end of the season. In the NHL for instance 15% of their salary is placed in escrow and in 2015-16 the players received back 2% of what they paid in after the team owners took back apportion to make up their margin. This ensures that as much as possible an organisation has to be run in a responsible manner. They may relocate, subject to approval, and be bought or sold, again subject to approval but none of them ever go bankrupt or land on the end of a winding up order. How many cycling teams fold annually?

Again, the Patriots are obviouskly doing something right if they're so dominant whilst still being inside the same rules as everyone else.

rick_chasey

what's the broke bit you want to fix mouth?

gweeds

Mouth wrote:

In their first two years Sky's budget was more that the rest of the top tier teams put together.

Really? All of them?

ShutupJens

Gweeds wrote:

Mouth wrote:

In their first two years Sky's budget was more that the rest of the top tier teams put together.

Really? All of them?

In their first year (2010 right) you had Saxobank with Cancellara, two Schlecks in their prime. As well as HTC Highroad with Cav and his beef train

I'm not convinced by this claim

RichN95.

Also at least Contador and Evans would have been paid more than Wiggins and Cavendish. Even now I think Sagan and Nibali earn more than Froome.

andyp

Mouth wrote:

In their first two years Sky's budget was more that the rest of the top tier teams put together. I believe the year they had Wiggo and Cav they were each earning more than some of the other teams' whole budget purely from their Sky pay cheque. This was before Oakley and such like were taken into account.

Citation needed.

gsk82

andyp wrote:

Mouth wrote:

In their first two years Sky's budget was more that the rest of the top tier teams put together. I believe the year they had Wiggo and Cav they were each earning more than some of the other teams' whole budget purely from their Sky pay cheque. This was before Oakley and such like were taken into account.

Citation needed.

Sky didn't even have the largest budget in their first few years. BMC and Katusha were rumoured to be a fair bit bigger. This guy is complete a fool.

morstar

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why do cycling fans always want to change the structure of cycling?

It's far from the most important thing on my mind. But considering the limited number of teams and the ever present threat of teams folding it doesn't seem healthy.
Part of the reasoning for the shift to 8 man teams is to level the competition.
Every sport should always be assessing its structure and product to ensure it is both relevant and sustainable. ASO are extremely good at this in terms of managing their races in terms of parcours, time bonuses or not etc.
Conversely, as a whole, the sport is very much 'that's just how it is'.
The finances are rubbish.

m.r.m.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why do cycling fans always want to change the structure of cycling?

My glass half full take on this is, that it is a glorious part of the human existence to always strive for improvement. This is the glowing, pulsating heart of engineering.

But maybe it's also like a girl meeting a boy she likes and then changing him and changing him until she doesn't like him any more.

ShutupJens

M.R.M. wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why do cycling fans always want to change the structure of cycling?

My glass half full take on this is, that it is a glorious part of the human existence to always strive for improvement. This is the glowing, pulsating heart of engineering.

But maybe it's also like a girl meeting a boy she likes and then changing him and changing him until she doesn't like him any more.

I think a lot of cycling fans think the racing was better back years ago and that these changes might bring it back to being "less controlled". Obviously Sky are so dominant that no one ever used a mountain train before or just TTT'd away to a podium sweep at roubaix