http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/nov/25/team-sky-velon-cycling-development

Sounds more like a ‘union’ in the english meaning of the word than the governing body?

Can’t see why Brailsford would be leading a revolutiion aginst Coulson, presumambly they must have spent years working together at BC/Sky? It’s not like the UCI are doing a bad job now, they just had a murky past.

The sponsorship thing does need to be addressed though, at the moment there are no teams, just sponsors and infrastructure, if a sponsor pulled the plug the team would fold. Not sure how you’d go about sorting that but there must be a solution. Making it better for TV would certainly help that, more TV money makes a level playing field and a consistent income for the teams.

Alternatively it could be very much against the UCI or at least the concept of the UCI as it has been for a long time with a view that BC is only going to be president of it for a given length of time and this is a way to try and change the fundamentals of the commercial sport rather than the sport itself – a bit like F1 is owned by the FIA (UCI) but the sport is run by Bernie/CVC (Velon).

Vaughters has been pretty vocal about that for a long time and Brian Cookson has also said previously that there should be a separation between the governing body (UCI) and the commercial side (previously also the UCI which is where Verbruggen and his cronies were making their money).

The goal then would be that Velon would manage central contracts for TV, etc for the sport and would pay teams some of that money plus the UCI would get its cut. This would line up with what Vaugters is quoted as saying in the article about how teams are funded (basically only through sponsorship and prize money right now).

Let’s be honest, there’s no cure for the UCI that doesn’t involve barrels of gunpowder… But maybe some division of power could be good

It’s essential! Governance and commercial need to be split.

But FIFA manage it so well 😆

a bit like F1 is owned by the FIA (UCI) but the sport is run by Bernie/CVC (Velon).

That’s kinda what I thought, although I was thinking more like the drivers, and teams associations with Bernie sat up top like the UCI. I thought Bernie owned F1 and FIA just sanctioned it in return for a hefty cut?

Bernie manages it for CVC who own the rights to put on F1 races. As you say, they pay the FIA for it (though a very dodgily low figure was agreed…)

So here, I would expect the goal is for the UCI to continue to own road racing (eg set the rules, etc) but Velon (so the teams plus someone with money to invest) will pay them for the right to sanction/put on the races and will then be able to push for innovations, etc in the way it works. This is where it’ll get difficult as ASO probably won’t be keen on this as it takes away some of their power and potentially some of their revenue. Given that the own the TdF and no series will be worth much wihtout the TdF, they’re in a pretty strong position so expect some fireworks in the next months…

Quite hard to see through the vague waffle about fans and on-board cameras (hardly a massive issue).

Looks like an attempt to build collective representation (as spoony suggests), with an eye on opportunities to monetise.

I suspect the real “opposition” here isn’t the UCI but the race organisers like ASO. No explicit mention of staging events, but a few allusuions to the current calendar being confusuing (for the casual fan presumably).

The thing is, it’s not like they can force the ASO into anything. It’s the biggest race of the year and is owned by ASO outright so they need to reach an agreement with them. What is more likely to happen is the teams get a bigger slice of the pie (fair enough) and end up in this killing some of the smaller races like happened in F1.

Possibly although the history of cycling is always one of its selling points so they have to balance that (same as F1 actually).

Mind you, ASO won’t necessarily do badly out of it – if the sport can be effectively grown then ASO will make more money longer term even if they have to give up some of their current revenue. Also, in general Cookson and Vaughters et al seem to be collaborative in their approach rather than adversarial per the UCI of old so hopefully they should be able to make it work.

Wouldn’t it create the same problem as in F1 in that although the Fia are supposed to be in charge its actually Bernie who calls the shots?.Wouldnt it lead to a dilution of the influence of the UCI which admittedly has an appalling past(and could have easily pushed FIFA as the most corrupt sporting governing body) but since BC stepped up has really started to make a difference.

The thing is, it’s not like they can force the ASO into anything. It’s the biggest race of the year and is owned by ASO outright so they need to reach an agreement with them.

It wouldn’t be the biggest race of the year if the best riders and teams didn’t turn up. Its about time the the teams got a decent cut rather than relying on sponsorship and prize money.

Well that’s kind back to the root of how the FIA sold F1 to Bernie (with other peoples’ money) for a pittance and probably a pretty weak contract. That said, Bernie doesn’t like the current engines for example but the FIA made that happen still. In that sense, it’s exactly how the UCI/Velon should work – UCI defines the sport, Velon manages the business side of it.

Wouldn’t it create the same problem as in F1 in that although the Fia are supposed to be in charge its actually Bernie who calls the shots?.Wouldnt it lead to a dilution of the influence of the UCI which admittedly has an appalling past(and could have easily pushed FIFA as the most corrupt sporting governing body) but since BC stepped up has really started to make a difference.

I dunno, ASO have gone their own way in the past with the TdF when the UCI leant on them to include Pro-Tour teams when ASO refused to invite back teams implicated in doping (was it Festina or Confidis, or others?). I think they sanctioned it through the French cycling comission instead of the UCI, so it technicaly became a national event rather than international.

It’s clearly competition for ASO though, if it is intended to fullfill a similar role at every other race other than the TdF.

It’ll be interesting to see what sort of ‘story’ they want to generate through the year, at the moment it’s a free for all and entirely possible for the big guns to get to the TDF without having raced against any of the competition. Compulsory to race the giro, tour, vuletta and minor suppourt races that run upto them?

It’s clearly competition for ASO though, if it is intended to fullfill a similar role at every other race other than the TdF.

I thought ASO ran Paris Roubaix, Paris Nice and a couple of the other classics as well. Thats how they have faced down proposals in the past to share things out a little more evenly

Yep, ASO own various races other than the TdF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaury_Sport_Organisation

List of cycling events organised[edit]
As of 2012 ASO organises the following professional cycling events:[5]

Arctic Race of Norway
Critérium International
Critérium du Dauphiné
Ladies Tour of Qatar
La Flèche Wallonne
La Flèche Wallonne Féminine
Liège–Bastogne–Liège
Paris–Nice
Paris–Roubaix
Paris–Tours
Tour de l’Avenir
Tour de France
Tour de Picardie
Tour of Beijing
Tour of Oman
Tour of Qatar
Vuelta a España
World Ports Classic

So, two of three grand tours and several classics..

And the Arctic Race of Norway 🙂

Simple solution for getting ASO out of the equation is to call the TdF (and any other races the UCI feel like renaming) something else and commission a different organiser/promoter.

ASO may well have the rights on the TdF trademark but they cant possibly or legally be able to dictate that they’re the only people who are able to stage a bike race around France?!

Have you ever met anyone French? 🙂 There’s plenty of ways to stop that happening through bureaucracy alone 🙂

Besides, it just wouldn’t work. Everyone knows that the Tour is the Tour. Calling a new race something similar just wouldn’t work.

Probably not but I bet they’re one of the few with the know-how and clout to get it done. The easiest thing is to reach accommodation with them rather than try to shut them down. ASO aren’t a problem, they exist because they’ve done the best job of promoting their races where lots of other people failed.

The fact that Velon want to get rid of races means they’re not really about making cycling for the riders better as this will ultimately lead to less world tour cyclists. They’re more about making sure the team owners investments don’t go south because a sponsor pulls out or what have you. The fact that over a third of the teams aren’t members means you’d have to be concerned if Velon wield too much power or presume to speak for the entire world tour.

Besides, it just wouldn’t work. Everyone knows that the Tour is the Tour. Calling a new race something similar just wouldn’t work.

+1

Cycling’s as much about tradition as anything else.

Like trying to convince a football fan that the Capital One cup is more worthwile than the FA cup, even though the quality of the teams in it should be higher.

One thing no ones mentioned, a fe years ago the UCI threatened to ban anyone who raced in lower tier competions that weren’t UCI sanctioned, hence Wiggins et al. couldn’t turn up and do local races. So I can’t see the teams promoting anything that would prvent them doing more races, although I can see a more prescriptive ‘world tour’ of events that the teams have to do and maybe have to select riders from a more limted squad (maybe a squad of 15, pick your best 10 for each race) so that mroe like football you cana ctualy follow a team. Rather than having an A team and a B team at different races.

Or that MK Dons are a real team 👿

Atlaz – you make some fair points but right now the race calendar is a mess with key players not always at races and some great races being dumbed down. With the proposals, there would be self interest to make the season more consistent (the telling a story part mentioned) and to ensure that things develop based on sound judgement rather than how much money the UCI will make in backhanders (Tour of China)

you make some fair points but right now the race calendar is a mess with key players not always at races and some great races being dumbed down

That’s the irony of the whole situation. Teams decide who races. There’s NOTHING to stop Tinkoff telling Contador he’s doing all three grand tours, Sky telling Froome the same and so on. Their idea that they need to get rid of races to somehow make it all better isn’t going to get a GC candidate to do all three races or even 1 or 2 GTs, some spring classics and a load of other races.

The sad truth is science in sport means that everyone is training and setting up for that final 1or 2% of performance and that means a very well considered race programme if you want to win the Tour or Giro in particular. Froome rode 7 races in 2014 (54 days), Boonen 17 races (79 days, to compare to a 1-day specialist), Contador 9 (66 days), and Valverde did 20 races (77 days). I think that riders rode 2 GTs and finished top 5 in both proves that it’s possible to ride more, just teams prefer not to do it. Sprinters are no different mind you. Nacer Bouhanni won the points at the Giro, was pissed off at his team for not having him at the Tour and then went on to wave goodbye to FDJ with two stage wins at the Vuelta. Could he have ridden the Tour, almost certainly, but it was down to his team.

The easiest things for the team to do is lobby the UCI for a drop in team riders from 30 to, say, 25 and automatically everyone has to race more. Sure, it means a few injuries could easily ruin a team’s Tour but those are the breaks so to speak.

This sounds very like the Champions League setup, i.e. it’s about protecting the interests of the top teams. Which is probably why an ex-UEFA / Liverpool FC person is going to lead it. It will be dressed up as being better for the fans etc., but the real winners will be the Brailsford’s. Vaughter’s, Tinkoff etc who’ll be sorted for life.

How this will play with ASO and UCI is anyone’s guess. But if there is enough cash in it for them also, then they’ll play ball. End of day it’s all about the money for the top, and I suspect those below will be fighting for the scraps.

That’s interesting – football has quite a different model in that clubs make a lot of money from fans paying to watch at the statiums. That doesn’t and won’t happen with cycling for obvious reasons and I’m not really sure that going to Sky or restricting the TV audience is going to be good for making the sport more popular (or just making more money) as it won’t rival football IMO.

As such, the question I suppose is has football got better as a sport/spectacle as its grown? Certainly football is big business now and ethics falls by the wayside IMO – given the history of cycling is that a risk if it becomes even bigger – eg doping – or does history suggest that it’s in their interest for that not to be the case (eg German market is still not big on cycling after all the doping scandals).

I’m not that convinced that cycling could get much less corrupt than it was 10 years ago which was arguably the modern peak for it outside the UK.

I’m not that convinced that cycling could get much less corrupt than it was 10 years ago which was arguably the modern peak for it outside the UK.

Do you mean more? 10 years ago Armstrong was making huge donations to the UCI anti doping agency!

football has quite a different model in that clubs make a lot of money from fans paying to watch at the stadiums.

No longer is this the case, below is a breakdown of Man U’s income year up to June 2013. Note Man U have the biggest ground in the league, so the biggest gate income out of all the Premier League Clubs.

Gate and matchday income: £109m

TV and broadcasting: £102m

Commercial activities: £153m

Source and rest of the clubs figures can be found here:

Guardian football accounts.

Compare with Sky for the same year (taken from inrng blog )

What is Team Sky’s budget? The income statement above lists the figure in black and white: £22,061,000. ($36.5m / €26.7m, exchange rates at the bottom of the page). Teams are business-like but they are not run for profit – UCI rules constrain this – so there’s no surplus.

Maybe that last sentence in bold (mine) tells you why Velon has been set up?

Quite possibly.

The figures for ManU are interesting but the gate is still 1/3 of their income which is fairly significant though obviously the TV money is very large too.

I wonder what they do with the surplus to avoid carrying it over, is Brailsford minted, or does Sky just write a blank cheque and pay the bills ad hock through the year?

I suppose it keeps things fair, if a new company wants to sponsor a team, they can’t just go knock in Sky’s (as the ‘best’ team’s) door and offer them the money as they could (or would have to) turn it down, so it goes to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th team etc.

Do you mean more? 10 years ago Armstrong was making huge donations to the UCI anti doping agency!

Err. Yes.

I wonder what they do with the surplus to avoid carrying it over, is Brailsford minted, or does Sky just write a blank cheque and pay the bills ad hock through the year?

Before the season they know what their costs will be and they adjust their budget accordingly. I’d be willing to bet there’s a cash excess on hand and if they ever have to dip into it, Sky just up their sponsorship a little.

Compare Man Us income to say their neighbours Man City

Gate and matchday: £40m
TV and broadcasting: £88m
Commercial activities: £143m

and a smaller club e.g. QPR, as the club size decreases so does their gate and commercial money and the TV and media money becomes the biggest income source by a long way.

Gate receipts: £8m
TV and media: £43m
Sponsorship and advertising: £5m
Commercial: £4m
Uefa and other: £0.9m

I guess any cycling team would look more like a QPR than a Man U.

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2014/11/velon-interview-part-i-how-ceo-bartlett-believes-group-can-transform-cycling/

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2014/11/velon-interview-part-ii-ceo-bartlett-on-ucis-restructuring-of-cycling-and-doping/

So, how on earth are they going to create a “season-long narrative” short of forcing certain riders to ride certain races?

I wonder that too. It works in F1 or football because it’s a single sport. Road racing is really several – GC riders, classics riders, sprinters, etc.

I guess that maybe they could rejig the calendar to some extent with the aim that GC riders may consider racing one or two classics seriously?

The thing it bought to mind for me is that they wanted to come up with some kind of season long league table for the teams. That way they’re not raising the issue of forcing riders to ride in certain races but there’s still a story for the more casual fan (essentially, “who’s the manager going to pick” in football terms). I thought that they’d probably try to make it more obviously (again to the casual fan) a team sport, recognisable kits outside of sponsor colours, focus on the squad throughout the season etc.

That already exists though doesn’t it? From memory it didn’t really get much interest from the fans but maybe that could change with some decent promotion.

I think you’re right though that they are clearly aiming for more of a team/franchise product to offer with star riders adding the glitz.

That already exists though doesn’t it?

If it does it’s news to me, and I’m more interested than the general populace although by no means an expert or fanatic.

To continue the football analogy I think the likes of Froome, Contador etc. will become like star strikers and the General managers DS’s become more of the focus in the same way team team managers are, giving a thread that continues throughout the season, I’d also imagine you’d see a little more ‘structure’ put into promotion of the calendar, “The Spring Classics: Paris-Roubaix” and so on.

I think it’s what the sport needs if it’s going to become more accessible for casual fans/non-riders.

If it does it’s news to me, and I’m more interested than the general populace although by no means an expert or fanatic.

http://www.uci.ch/road/ranking/

Top team – Movistar
Top rider – Valverde

I’d also imagine you’d see a little more ‘structure’ put into promotion of the calendar, “The Spring Classics: Paris-Roubaix” and so on.

They do already on Eurosport, the only channel that consistently shows cycling. The problem is that in the UK it’s not a main channel programme; it’s buried away. The rest of europe is better but fundamentally, it takes a lot of schedule time and can be quite boring to watch at times so it’s left for specialists.