End of the World Cup

Anyone have any insight on why they're getting rid of the World Cup? It's coinciding with the first year of the Pro Tour but I can't think of a reason not to have both. Hardly even been any mention that this is the last year.

 

In article <V6b%[email protected]>,
DiabloScott <[email protected]> wrote:

> Any insight on why they're getting rid of the World Cup? It's coinciding with the first year of
> the Pro Tour but I can't think of a reason not to have both. Hardly even been any mention that
> this is the last year.

Because nobody even noticed the World Cup. It was all TdF, all the time.

The Pro Tour is an effort to force the hands of several groups: elite teams will have to compete
against each other in elite events a lot more often. The grand tours will be forced to invite all
the top teams.

It is hoped that all of this will force the teams to contest the Pro Tour events seriously, thus
leading to a serious world-cup-like series, with roughly equivalent events.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

 

Ryan Cousineau schreef:

> The Pro Tour is an effort to force the hands of several groups: elite teams will have to compete
> against each other in elite events a lot more often. The grand tours will be forced to invite all
> the top teams.
>

UCI has a lot of work with this system , if they want cycling to benefit.

Top 20 teams will be forced to do the full Pro Tour calendar. It's impossible to do that seriously
with just 25 riders. Or there will be top teams just 'riding through' e.g. the Giro. Then such a
race might be better off with smaller teams for whom it's the race of the year. And that certainly
goes for their sponsors!

And what with national/regional sponsors behind a big team? For them national races can often be
more important than some Pro Tour event elsewhere. I mean, it are not Coca-cola, Mastercard etc. who
come into cycling. Firms who do often have ideas of targeting specific countries.

Well maybe I'm just sour because Belgium will only have 4 (four) racing days in this whole pro tour
package.....

 

Van Hoorebeeck Bart schreef:

> . Firms who do often have ideas of targeting specific countries.
>

should have been "BUT RATHER firms who have...." sorry

 

Whatever happened to the whole globalization of cycling anyhow? They (UCI) should have supported the
GP des Ameriques. They could have then added a US venue like Philly and we'd be on our way.
Verbruggen has done a mediocre job in my opinion. He's almost as bad as the NHL's Gary Bettman in a
reverse sort of way. The Giro will always be bigger in Italy than the Tour is (in Italy). They
should designate a few wild card spots for regional teams in each regional event including the GT's.
Sort of like the Tour does already although I know a lot of you are against that practice.

James

"Van Hoorebeeck Bart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Ryan Cousineau schreef:
>
> > The Pro Tour is an effort to force the hands of several groups: elite teams will have to compete
> > against each other in elite events a lot more often. The grand tours will be forced to invite
> > all the top teams.
> >
>
> UCI has a lot of work with this system , if they want cycling to benefit.
>
> Top 20 teams will be forced to do the full Pro Tour calendar. It's
impossible to
> do that seriously with just 25 riders. Or there will be top teams just
'riding
> through' e.g. the Giro. Then such a race might be better off with smaller
teams
> for whom it's the race of the year. And that certainly goes for their
sponsors!
>
> And what with national/regional sponsors behind a big team? For them
national
> races can often be more important than some Pro Tour event elsewhere. I
mean, it
> are not Coca-cola, Mastercard etc. who come into cycling. Firms who do
often have
> ideas of targeting specific countries.
>
> Well maybe I'm just sour because Belgium will only have 4 (four) racing
days in
> this whole pro tour package.....

 

James P. Spooner wrote:
> Whatever happened to the whole globalization of cycling anyhow? They (UCI) should have supported
> the GP des Ameriques. They could have then added a US venue like Philly and we'd be on our way.
> Verbruggen has done a mediocre job in my opinion.

To the contrary, I maintain the US has been shown favoritism in the assignment of UCI rankings,
considering the maturity, depth of field, and spectator interest in the UCI-sanctioned races.

The UCI doesn't promote races. The races have to be driven locally. They respond. Look at Malaysia.

Dan

 

"James P. Spooner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:L6q%[email protected]...
> Whatever happened to the whole globalization of cycling anyhow? They
(UCI)
> should have supported the GP des Ameriques.

But they did! The problem was that the costs were too high (it costs a lot of money to make the
whole cycling circus cross the ocean) and a lack of interest of the general public, which was the
reason that the organisation had to sell the TV rights for a meagre $ 32,000, much less than the
European classics. The unavoidable result: the losses were huge. In 1991 the GP Cycliste des
Amériques still managed to find a new sponsor. But when it lost more than the $ 1.000.000 in 1992,
it stopped. End of story. I really don't see what the UCI had to do with it.

Benjo Maso

They could have then added a US
> venue like Philly and we'd be on our way. Verbruggen has done a mediocre job in my opinion. He's
> almost as bad as the NHL's Gary Bettman in a reverse sort of way. The Giro will always be bigger
> in Italy than the
Tour
> is (in Italy). They should designate a few wild card spots for regional teams in each regional
> event including the GT's. Sort of like the Tour
does
> already although I know a lot of you are against that practice.
>
> James
>
>
> "Van Hoorebeeck Bart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > Ryan Cousineau schreef:
> >
> > > The Pro Tour is an effort to force the hands of several groups: elite teams will have to
> > > compete against each other in elite events a lot
more
> > > often. The grand tours will be forced to invite all the top teams.
> > >
> >
> > UCI has a lot of work with this system , if they want cycling to
benefit.
> >
> > Top 20 teams will be forced to do the full Pro Tour calendar. It's
> impossible to
> > do that seriously with just 25 riders. Or there will be top teams just
> 'riding
> > through' e.g. the Giro. Then such a race might be better off with
smaller
> teams
> > for whom it's the race of the year. And that certainly goes for their
> sponsors!
> >
> > And what with national/regional sponsors behind a big team? For them
> national
> > races can often be more important than some Pro Tour event elsewhere. I
> mean, it
> > are not Coca-cola, Mastercard etc. who come into cycling. Firms who do
> often have
> > ideas of targeting specific countries.
> >
> > Well maybe I'm just sour because Belgium will only have 4 (four) racing
> days in
> > this whole pro tour package.....
> >
>

 

I was thinking along the lines of Formula 1 which has a race in Montreal and used to have one (has
again?) in the US. GP Ameriques was well attended spectator-wise and received live coverage on CBC.
It's not the UCI's job to promote races but they likely could have done a better job with this
particular race. I also don't think the UCI rankings and points have anything to do with the
prestige of a race; who follows the world rankings? The bottom line is that Verbruggen hasn't done a
good job outside of Europe (or inside IMO).

James

"Dan Connelly" <[email protected]_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:urs%[email protected]...
> James P. Spooner wrote:
> > Whatever happened to the whole globalization of cycling anyhow? They
(UCI)
> > should have supported the GP des Ameriques. They could have then added
a US
> > venue like Philly and we'd be on our way. Verbruggen has done a
mediocre
> > job in my opinion.
>
> To the contrary, I maintain the US has been shown favoritism in the
assignment
> of UCI rankings, considering the maturity, depth of field, and spectator
interest
> in the UCI-sanctioned races.
>
> The UCI doesn't promote races. The races have to be driven locally. They
respond.
> Look at Malaysia.
>
> Dan

 

The organisation lost the million because they had to pay for everything like the teams' flights.
None (or few) of the European races have to do that. I'm not saying that the UCI could have "saved"
it but they definitely could have made it more attractive. For example letting it remain a WC and
let the teams that come over take the points; be it Saturn, Coors Light, Panasonic, or whomever.

James

"benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
berlin.de...
>
> "James P. Spooner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:L6q%[email protected]...
> > Whatever happened to the whole globalization of cycling anyhow? They
> (UCI)
> > should have supported the GP des Ameriques.
>
>
> But they did! The problem was that the costs were too high (it costs a lot of money to make the
> whole cycling circus cross the ocean) and a lack of interest of the general public, which was the
> reason that the organisation had to sell the TV rights for a meagre $ 32,000, much less than the
European
> classics. The unavoidable result: the losses were huge. In 1991 the GP Cycliste des Amériques
> still managed to find a new sponsor. But when it
lost
> more than the $ 1.000.000 in 1992, it stopped. End of story. I really
don't
> see what the UCI had to do with it.
>
> Benjo Maso
>
>
>
>
>
> They could have then added a US
> > venue like Philly and we'd be on our way. Verbruggen has done a
mediocre
> > job in my opinion. He's almost as bad as the NHL's Gary Bettman in a reverse sort of way. The
> > Giro will always be bigger in Italy than the
> Tour
> > is (in Italy). They should designate a few wild card spots for regional teams in each regional
> > event including the GT's. Sort of like the Tour
> does
> > already although I know a lot of you are against that practice.
> >
> > James
> >
> >
> > "Van Hoorebeeck Bart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > >
> > > Ryan Cousineau schreef:
> > >
> > > > The Pro Tour is an effort to force the hands of several groups:
elite
> > > > teams will have to compete against each other in elite events a lot
> more
> > > > often. The grand tours will be forced to invite all the top teams.
> > > >
> > >
> > > UCI has a lot of work with this system , if they want cycling to
> benefit.
> > >
> > > Top 20 teams will be forced to do the full Pro Tour calendar. It's
> > impossible to
> > > do that seriously with just 25 riders. Or there will be top teams just
> > 'riding
> > > through' e.g. the Giro. Then such a race might be better off with
> smaller
> > teams
> > > for whom it's the race of the year. And that certainly goes for their
> > sponsors!
> > >
> > > And what with national/regional sponsors behind a big team? For them
> > national
> > > races can often be more important than some Pro Tour event elsewhere.
I
> > mean, it
> > > are not Coca-cola, Mastercard etc. who come into cycling. Firms who do
> > often have
> > > ideas of targeting specific countries.
> > >
> > > Well maybe I'm just sour because Belgium will only have 4 (four)
racing
> > days in
> > > this whole pro tour package.....
> > >
> > >
> >
>

 

"James P. Spooner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:aTt%[email protected]...
> The organisation lost the million because they had to pay for everything like the teams' flights.
> None (or few) of the European races have to do that. I'm not saying that the UCI could have
> "saved" it but they
definitely
> could have made it more attractive. For example letting it remain a WC and let the teams that come
> over take the points; be it Saturn, Coors Light, Panasonic, or whomever.

In Europe the teams are usually coming in buses. The reason why the organisers of the GPA had to pay
all the costs is very simple: if they had not, the numer of entrants would have been very small.
Every team is willing to pay to participate to the Tour, but who cares about the GP des Amériques,
the Wincanton Classic or the Japan Cup? Giving them points for the WC doens't change anything: the
WC has never been important. The Flèche Wallone is still considered as an important race - although
you couldn't get points for the WC - , the HEW Cyclassic Hamburg perhaps in thirty years. Calling a
race as classic doesn't change nothing. It's nice to win the WC, but it doesn't matter much. It's
just as the Climber's trophy in the Tour: only a handful of riders are really interested. And by the
way, AFAIK the GP des Amériques remained a WC-race until the last year it was organised (1992).

Benjo Maso

>
> James
>
>
> "benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> berlin.de...
> >
> > "James P. Spooner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:L6q%[email protected]...
> > > Whatever happened to the whole globalization of cycling anyhow? They
> > (UCI)
> > > should have supported the GP des Ameriques.
> >
> >
> > But they did! The problem was that the costs were too high (it costs a
lot
> > of money to make the whole cycling circus cross the ocean) and a lack of interest of the general
> > public, which was the reason that the
organisation
> > had to sell the TV rights for a meagre $ 32,000, much less than the
> European
> > classics. The unavoidable result: the losses were huge. In 1991 the GP Cycliste des Amériques
> > still managed to find a new sponsor. But when it
> lost
> > more than the $ 1.000.000 in 1992, it stopped. End of story. I really
> don't
> > see what the UCI had to do with it.
> >
> > Benjo Maso
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > They could have then added a US
> > > venue like Philly and we'd be on our way. Verbruggen has done a
> mediocre
> > > job in my opinion. He's almost as bad as the NHL's Gary Bettman in a reverse sort of way. The
> > > Giro will always be bigger in Italy than the
> > Tour
> > > is (in Italy). They should designate a few wild card spots for
regional
> > > teams in each regional event including the GT's. Sort of like the
Tour
> > does
> > > already although I know a lot of you are against that practice.
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > >
> > > "Van Hoorebeeck Bart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ryan Cousineau schreef:
> > > >
> > > > > The Pro Tour is an effort to force the hands of several groups:
> elite
> > > > > teams will have to compete against each other in elite events a
lot
> > more
> > > > > often. The grand tours will be forced to invite all the top teams.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > UCI has a lot of work with this system , if they want cycling to
> > benefit.
> > > >
> > > > Top 20 teams will be forced to do the full Pro Tour calendar. It's
> > > impossible to
> > > > do that seriously with just 25 riders. Or there will be top teams
just
> > > 'riding
> > > > through' e.g. the Giro. Then such a race might be better off with
> > smaller
> > > teams
> > > > for whom it's the race of the year. And that certainly goes for
their
> > > sponsors!
> > > >
> > > > And what with national/regional sponsors behind a big team? For them
> > > national
> > > > races can often be more important than some Pro Tour event
elsewhere.
> I
> > > mean, it
> > > > are not Coca-cola, Mastercard etc. who come into cycling. Firms who
do
> > > often have
> > > > ideas of targeting specific countries.
> > > >
> > > > Well maybe I'm just sour because Belgium will only have 4 (four)
> racing
> > > days in
> > > > this whole pro tour package.....
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

 

Well why have a UCI then? It should have some sort of international agenda instead of the current
Euro-centric one. Maybe they should go back to the old Super Prestige Pernod type series. I wouldn't
place the GP des Ameriques among the most sought after races but it was bigger here (in Canada) than
anything European (was in Canada). Just as Amstel Gold is bigger in Holland than anywhere else as is
MSR in Italy etc.

James

"benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
berlin.de...
>
> "James P. Spooner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:aTt%[email protected]...
> > The organisation lost the million because they had to pay for everything like the teams'
> > flights. None (or few) of the European races have to do that. I'm not saying that the UCI could
> > have "saved" it but they
> definitely
> > could have made it more attractive. For example letting it remain a WC
and
> > let the teams that come over take the points; be it Saturn, Coors Light, Panasonic, or whomever.
>
>
> In Europe the teams are usually coming in buses. The reason why the organisers of the GPA had to
> pay all the costs is very simple: if they had not, the numer of entrants would have been very
> small. Every team is
willing
> to pay to participate to the Tour, but who cares about the GP des
Amériques,
> the Wincanton Classic or the Japan Cup? Giving them points for the WC doens't change anything: the
> WC has never been important. The Flèche
Wallone
> is still considered as an important race - although you couldn't get
points
> for the WC - , the HEW Cyclassic Hamburg perhaps in thirty years. Calling
a
> race as classic doesn't change nothing. It's nice to win the WC, but it doesn't matter much.
> It's just as the Climber's trophy in the Tour: only a handful of riders are really interested.
> And by the way, AFAIK the GP des Amériques remained a WC-race until the last year it was
> organised (1992).
>
> Benjo Maso
>
>
>
>
> >
> > James
> >
> >
> > "benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> > berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "James P. Spooner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:L6q%[email protected]...
> > > > Whatever happened to the whole globalization of cycling anyhow?
They
> > > (UCI)
> > > > should have supported the GP des Ameriques.
> > >
> > >
> > > But they did! The problem was that the costs were too high (it costs a
> lot
> > > of money to make the whole cycling circus cross the ocean) and a lack
of
> > > interest of the general public, which was the reason that the
> organisation
> > > had to sell the TV rights for a meagre $ 32,000, much less than the
> > European
> > > classics. The unavoidable result: the losses were huge. In 1991 the GP Cycliste des Amériques
> > > still managed to find a new sponsor. But when
it
> > lost
> > > more than the $ 1.000.000 in 1992, it stopped. End of story. I really
> > don't
> > > see what the UCI had to do with it.
> > >
> > > Benjo Maso
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > They could have then added a US
> > > > venue like Philly and we'd be on our way. Verbruggen has done a
> > mediocre
> > > > job in my opinion. He's almost as bad as the NHL's Gary Bettman in
a
> > > > reverse sort of way. The Giro will always be bigger in Italy than
the
> > > Tour
> > > > is (in Italy). They should designate a few wild card spots for
> regional
> > > > teams in each regional event including the GT's. Sort of like the
> Tour
> > > does
> > > > already although I know a lot of you are against that practice.
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Van Hoorebeeck Bart" <[email protected]> wrote
in
> > > > message news:[email protected]...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ryan Cousineau schreef:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The Pro Tour is an effort to force the hands of several groups:
> > elite
> > > > > > teams will have to compete against each other in elite events a
> lot
> > > more
> > > > > > often. The grand tours will be forced to invite all the top
teams.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > UCI has a lot of work with this system , if they want cycling to
> > > benefit.
> > > > >
> > > > > Top 20 teams will be forced to do the full Pro Tour calendar. It's
> > > > impossible to
> > > > > do that seriously with just 25 riders. Or there will be top teams
> just
> > > > 'riding
> > > > > through' e.g. the Giro. Then such a race might be better off with
> > > smaller
> > > > teams
> > > > > for whom it's the race of the year. And that certainly goes for
> their
> > > > sponsors!
> > > > >
> > > > > And what with national/regional sponsors behind a big team? For
them
> > > > national
> > > > > races can often be more important than some Pro Tour event
> elsewhere.
> > I
> > > > mean, it
> > > > > are not Coca-cola, Mastercard etc. who come into cycling. Firms
who
> do
> > > > often have
> > > > > ideas of targeting specific countries.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well maybe I'm just sour because Belgium will only have 4 (four)
> > racing
> > > > days in
> > > > > this whole pro tour package.....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

 

"James P. Spooner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:rQv%[email protected]...
> Well why have a UCI then? It should have some sort of international
agenda
> instead of the current Euro-centric one.

It has. It resulted in the World Cup - created by Verbruggen. But the UCI cannot educate nor the
public neither the sponsors. When people aren't interested and it's impossible to find sponsors
everything stops.

Maybe they should go back to the
> old Super Prestige Pernod type series.

Perhaps, although I am not sure it will have more success

I wouldn't place the GP des
> Ameriques among the most sought after races but it was bigger here (in Canada) than anything
> European (was in Canada). Just as Amstel Gold is bigger in Holland than anywhere else as is MSR in
> Italy etc.

I hate to say this, but I'm afraid Canada is not a very important cycling country. The GPdA might
have been big in Canada, but apparently not big enough to attract enough sponsors.

Benjo Maso

>
> James
>
> "benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> berlin.de...
> >
> > "James P. Spooner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:aTt%[email protected]...
> > > The organisation lost the million because they had to pay for
everything
> > > like the teams' flights. None (or few) of the European races have to
do
> > > that. I'm not saying that the UCI could have "saved" it but they
> > definitely
> > > could have made it more attractive. For example letting it remain a WC
> and
> > > let the teams that come over take the points; be it Saturn, Coors
Light,
> > > Panasonic, or whomever.
> >
> >
> > In Europe the teams are usually coming in buses. The reason why the organisers of the GPA had to
> > pay all the costs is very simple: if they
had
> > not, the numer of entrants would have been very small. Every team is
> willing
> > to pay to participate to the Tour, but who cares about the GP des
> Amériques,
> > the Wincanton Classic or the Japan Cup? Giving them points for the WC doens't change anything:
> > the WC has never been important. The Flèche
> Wallone
> > is still considered as an important race - although you couldn't get
> points
> > for the WC - , the HEW Cyclassic Hamburg perhaps in thirty years.
Calling
> a
> > race as classic doesn't change nothing. It's nice to win the WC, but it doesn't matter much.
> > It's just as the Climber's trophy in the Tour: only
a
> > handful of riders are really interested. And by the way, AFAIK the GP
des
> > Amériques remained a WC-race until the last year it was organised
(1992).
> >
> > Benjo Maso
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > >
> > > "benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> > > berlin.de...
> > > >
> > > > "James P. Spooner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:L6q%[email protected]...
> > > > > Whatever happened to the whole globalization of cycling anyhow?
> They
> > > > (UCI)
> > > > > should have supported the GP des Ameriques.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But they did! The problem was that the costs were too high (it costs
a
> > lot
> > > > of money to make the whole cycling circus cross the ocean) and a
lack
> of
> > > > interest of the general public, which was the reason that the
> > organisation
> > > > had to sell the TV rights for a meagre $ 32,000, much less than the
> > > European
> > > > classics. The unavoidable result: the losses were huge. In 1991 the
GP
> > > > Cycliste des Amériques still managed to find a new sponsor. But when
> it
> > > lost
> > > > more than the $ 1.000.000 in 1992, it stopped. End of story. I
really
> > > don't
> > > > see what the UCI had to do with it.
> > > >
> > > > Benjo Maso
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > They could have then added a US
> > > > > venue like Philly and we'd be on our way. Verbruggen has done a
> > > mediocre
> > > > > job in my opinion. He's almost as bad as the NHL's Gary Bettman
in
> a
> > > > > reverse sort of way. The Giro will always be bigger in Italy than
> the
> > > > Tour
> > > > > is (in Italy). They should designate a few wild card spots for
> > regional
> > > > > teams in each regional event including the GT's. Sort of like the
> > Tour
> > > > does
> > > > > already although I know a lot of you are against that practice.
> > > > >
> > > > > James
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Van Hoorebeeck Bart" <[email protected]> wrote
> in
> > > > > message news:[email protected]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ryan Cousineau schreef:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Pro Tour is an effort to force the hands of several
groups:
> > > elite
> > > > > > > teams will have to compete against each other in elite events
a
> > lot
> > > > more
> > > > > > > often. The grand tours will be forced to invite all the top
> teams.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > UCI has a lot of work with this system , if they want cycling to
> > > > benefit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Top 20 teams will be forced to do the full Pro Tour calendar.
It's
> > > > > impossible to
> > > > > > do that seriously with just 25 riders. Or there will be top
teams
> > just
> > > > > 'riding
> > > > > > through' e.g. the Giro. Then such a race might be better off
with
> > > > smaller
> > > > > teams
> > > > > > for whom it's the race of the year. And that certainly goes for
> > their
> > > > > sponsors!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And what with national/regional sponsors behind a big team? For
> them
> > > > > national
> > > > > > races can often be more important than some Pro Tour event
> > elsewhere.
> > > I
> > > > > mean, it
> > > > > > are not Coca-cola, Mastercard etc. who come into cycling. Firms
> who
> > do
> > > > > often have
> > > > > > ideas of targeting specific countries.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well maybe I'm just sour because Belgium will only have 4 (four)
> > > racing
> > > > > days in
> > > > > > this whole pro tour package.....
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

 

Benjo,

The GP des Ameriques was a pretty big race crowd-wise (1 million or so plus TV), and to my
understanding the reason it went under was because the expenses of flying in all the teams. The
World Cup is hardly a World Cup and they just added a couple races (Wincanton) and called them World
Cups. Again, using the Formula 1 model which never used to be an issue here in Canada the Montreal
GP is well attended and viable (despite certain issues this year). I think if Verbruggen would have
supported a North American stop(s) for a few years the fans would have come. Instead we remain a
third rate cycling nation.

James

"benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
berlin.de...
>
> "James P. Spooner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:rQv%[email protected]...
> > Well why have a UCI then? It should have some sort of international
> agenda
> > instead of the current Euro-centric one.
>
> It has. It resulted in the World Cup - created by Verbruggen. But the UCI cannot educate nor the
> public neither the sponsors. When people aren't interested and it's impossible to find sponsors
> everything stops.
>
>
> Maybe they should go back to the
> > old Super Prestige Pernod type series.
>
> Perhaps, although I am not sure it will have more success
>
>
> I wouldn't place the GP des
> > Ameriques among the most sought after races but it was bigger here (in Canada) than anything
> > European (was in Canada). Just as Amstel Gold is bigger in Holland than anywhere else as is MSR
> > in Italy etc.
>
> I hate to say this, but I'm afraid Canada is not a very important cycling country. The GPdA might
> have been big in Canada, but apparently not big enough to attract enough sponsors.
>
> Benjo Maso
>
>
> >
> > James
> >
> > "benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> > berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "James P. Spooner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:aTt%[email protected]...
> > > > The organisation lost the million because they had to pay for
> everything
> > > > like the teams' flights. None (or few) of the European races have
to
> do
> > > > that. I'm not saying that the UCI could have "saved" it but they
> > > definitely
> > > > could have made it more attractive. For example letting it remain a
WC
> > and
> > > > let the teams that come over take the points; be it Saturn, Coors
> Light,
> > > > Panasonic, or whomever.
> > >
> > >
> > > In Europe the teams are usually coming in buses. The reason why the organisers of the GPA had
> > > to pay all the costs is very simple: if they
> had
> > > not, the numer of entrants would have been very small. Every team is
> > willing
> > > to pay to participate to the Tour, but who cares about the GP des
> > Amériques,
> > > the Wincanton Classic or the Japan Cup? Giving them points for the WC doens't change anything:
> > > the WC has never been important. The Flèche
> > Wallone
> > > is still considered as an important race - although you couldn't get
> > points
> > > for the WC - , the HEW Cyclassic Hamburg perhaps in thirty years.
> Calling
> > a
> > > race as classic doesn't change nothing. It's nice to win the WC, but
it
> > > doesn't matter much. It's just as the Climber's trophy in the Tour:
only
> a
> > > handful of riders are really interested. And by the way, AFAIK the GP
> des
> > > Amériques remained a WC-race until the last year it was organised
> (1992).
> > >
> > > Benjo Maso
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> > > > berlin.de...
> > > > >
> > > > > "James P. Spooner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:L6q%[email protected]...
> > > > > > Whatever happened to the whole globalization of cycling anyhow?
> > They
> > > > > (UCI)
> > > > > > should have supported the GP des Ameriques.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But they did! The problem was that the costs were too high (it
costs
> a
> > > lot
> > > > > of money to make the whole cycling circus cross the ocean) and a
> lack
> > of
> > > > > interest of the general public, which was the reason that the
> > > organisation
> > > > > had to sell the TV rights for a meagre $ 32,000, much less than
the
> > > > European
> > > > > classics. The unavoidable result: the losses were huge. In 1991
the
> GP
> > > > > Cycliste des Amériques still managed to find a new sponsor. But
when
> > it
> > > > lost
> > > > > more than the $ 1.000.000 in 1992, it stopped. End of story. I
> really
> > > > don't
> > > > > see what the UCI had to do with it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Benjo Maso
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > They could have then added a US
> > > > > > venue like Philly and we'd be on our way. Verbruggen has done a
> > > > mediocre
> > > > > > job in my opinion. He's almost as bad as the NHL's Gary Bettman
> in
> > a
> > > > > > reverse sort of way. The Giro will always be bigger in Italy
than
> > the
> > > > > Tour
> > > > > > is (in Italy). They should designate a few wild card spots for
> > > regional
> > > > > > teams in each regional event including the GT's. Sort of like
the
> > > Tour
> > > > > does
> > > > > > already although I know a lot of you are against that practice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > James
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Van Hoorebeeck Bart" <[email protected]>
wrote
> > in
> > > > > > message news:[email protected]...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ryan Cousineau schreef:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The Pro Tour is an effort to force the hands of several
> groups:
> > > > elite
> > > > > > > > teams will have to compete against each other in elite
events
> a
> > > lot
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > > often. The grand tours will be forced to invite all the top
> > teams.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > UCI has a lot of work with this system , if they want cycling
to
> > > > > benefit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Top 20 teams will be forced to do the full Pro Tour calendar.
> It's
> > > > > > impossible to
> > > > > > > do that seriously with just 25 riders. Or there will be top
> teams
> > > just
> > > > > > 'riding
> > > > > > > through' e.g. the Giro. Then such a race might be better off
> with
> > > > > smaller
> > > > > > teams
> > > > > > > for whom it's the race of the year. And that certainly goes
for
> > > their
> > > > > > sponsors!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And what with national/regional sponsors behind a big team?
For
> > them
> > > > > > national
> > > > > > > races can often be more important than some Pro Tour event
> > > elsewhere.
> > > > I
> > > > > > mean, it
> > > > > > > are not Coca-cola, Mastercard etc. who come into cycling.
Firms
> > who
> > > do
> > > > > > often have
> > > > > > > ideas of targeting specific countries.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well maybe I'm just sour because Belgium will only have 4
(four)
> > > > racing
> > > > > > days in
> > > > > > > this whole pro tour package.....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

 

A question. In the new premier division, how many of those races will be outside Europe? Perhaps
this hasn't been finalized yet.

It seems that the UCI is really a marketing organization that looks to where the money is to be had.
Is Malaysia a "cycling nation?" Or is there just sponsorship money there? How is that different from
Oz where there is genuine interest in cycling and some economic clout? I suspect that if the
sponsorship market were there, they'd be racing a cup event in Bombay in mid-August. They're in
Qatar and that's only about money----well, podium boys too.

As to Montreal, it is a wonderful circuit to watch a race on. There is a culture in Quebec that has
long supported bicycle racing. But the economy of Quebec has not been all that strong (nor Canada
for that matter, although
W. is working to change that) so the sponsor market is weak.

Anyway, maybe we should just go back to everything as it was when Eddy set the Hour and make
everyone ride, promote and equip teams circa 1975. I've got a few sets of downtube shifters to sell.

"James P. Spooner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:faw%[email protected]...
> Benjo,
>
> The GP des Ameriques was a pretty big race crowd-wise (1 million or so
plus
> TV), and to my understanding the reason it went under was because the expenses of flying in all
> the teams. The World Cup is hardly a World Cup and they just added a couple races (Wincanton) and
> called them World Cups. Again, using the Formula 1 model which never used to be an issue here in
> Canada the Montreal GP is well attended and viable (despite certain issues this year). I think if
> Verbruggen would have supported a North American stop(s) for a few years the fans would have come.
> Instead we remain a
third
> rate cycling nation.
>
> James
>
> "benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> berlin.de...
> >
> > "James P. Spooner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:rQv%[email protected]...
> > > Well why have a UCI then? It should have some sort of international
> > agenda
> > > instead of the current Euro-centric one.
> >
> > It has. It resulted in the World Cup - created by Verbruggen. But the
UCI
> > cannot educate nor the public neither the sponsors. When people aren't interested and it's
> > impossible to find sponsors everything stops.
> >
> >
> > Maybe they should go back to the
> > > old Super Prestige Pernod type series.
> >
> > Perhaps, although I am not sure it will have more success
> >
> >
> > I wouldn't place the GP des
> > > Ameriques among the most sought after races but it was bigger here (in Canada) than anything
> > > European (was in Canada). Just as Amstel Gold
is
> > > bigger in Holland than anywhere else as is MSR in Italy etc.
> >
> > I hate to say this, but I'm afraid Canada is not a very important
cycling
> > country. The GPdA might have been big in Canada, but apparently not big enough to attract enough
> > sponsors.
> >
> > Benjo Maso
> >
> >
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > "benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:c1l[email protected]
> > > berlin.de...
> > > >
> > > > "James P. Spooner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:aTt%[email protected]...
> > > > > The organisation lost the million because they had to pay for
> > everything
> > > > > like the teams' flights. None (or few) of the European races have
> to
> > do
> > > > > that. I'm not saying that the UCI could have "saved" it but they
> > > > definitely
> > > > > could have made it more attractive. For example letting it remain
a
> WC
> > > and
> > > > > let the teams that come over take the points; be it Saturn, Coors
> > Light,
> > > > > Panasonic, or whomever.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In Europe the teams are usually coming in buses. The reason why the organisers of the GPA
> > > > had to pay all the costs is very simple: if
they
> > had
> > > > not, the numer of entrants would have been very small. Every team is
> > > willing
> > > > to pay to participate to the Tour, but who cares about the GP des
> > > Amériques,
> > > > the Wincanton Classic or the Japan Cup? Giving them points for the
WC
> > > > doens't change anything: the WC has never been important. The Flèche
> > > Wallone
> > > > is still considered as an important race - although you couldn't get
> > > points
> > > > for the WC - , the HEW Cyclassic Hamburg perhaps in thirty years.
> > Calling
> > > a
> > > > race as classic doesn't change nothing. It's nice to win the WC, but
> it
> > > > doesn't matter much. It's just as the Climber's trophy in the Tour:
> only
> > a
> > > > handful of riders are really interested. And by the way, AFAIK the
GP
> > des
> > > > Amériques remained a WC-race until the last year it was organised
> > (1992).
> > > >
> > > > Benjo Maso
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > James
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> > > > > berlin.de...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "James P. Spooner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:L6q%[email protected]...
> > > > > > > Whatever happened to the whole globalization of cycling
anyhow?
> > > They
> > > > > > (UCI)
> > > > > > > should have supported the GP des Ameriques.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But they did! The problem was that the costs were too high (it
> costs
> > a
> > > > lot
> > > > > > of money to make the whole cycling circus cross the ocean) and a
> > lack
> > > of
> > > > > > interest of the general public, which was the reason that the
> > > > organisation
> > > > > > had to sell the TV rights for a meagre $ 32,000, much less than
> the
> > > > > European
> > > > > > classics. The unavoidable result: the losses were huge. In 1991
> the
> > GP
> > > > > > Cycliste des Amériques still managed to find a new sponsor. But
> when
> > > it
> > > > > lost
> > > > > > more than the $ 1.000.000 in 1992, it stopped. End of story. I
> > really
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > see what the UCI had to do with it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Benjo Maso
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They could have then added a US
> > > > > > > venue like Philly and we'd be on our way. Verbruggen has done
a
> > > > > mediocre
> > > > > > > job in my opinion. He's almost as bad as the NHL's Gary
Bettman
> > in
> > > a
> > > > > > > reverse sort of way. The Giro will always be bigger in Italy
> than
> > > the
> > > > > > Tour
> > > > > > > is (in Italy). They should designate a few wild card spots
for
> > > > regional
> > > > > > > teams in each regional event including the GT's. Sort of like
> the
> > > > Tour
> > > > > > does
> > > > > > > already although I know a lot of you are against that
practice.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > James
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Van Hoorebeeck Bart" <[email protected]>
> wrote
> > > in
> > > > > > > message news:[email protected]...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ryan Cousineau schreef:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The Pro Tour is an effort to force the hands of several
> > groups:
> > > > > elite
> > > > > > > > > teams will have to compete against each other in elite
> events
> > a
> > > > lot
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > often. The grand tours will be forced to invite all the
top
> > > teams.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > UCI has a lot of work with this system , if they want
cycling
> to
> > > > > > benefit.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Top 20 teams will be forced to do the full Pro Tour
calendar.
> > It's
> > > > > > > impossible to
> > > > > > > > do that seriously with just 25 riders. Or there will be top
> > teams
> > > > just
> > > > > > > 'riding
> > > > > > > > through' e.g. the Giro. Then such a race might be better
off
> > with
> > > > > > smaller
> > > > > > > teams
> > > > > > > > for whom it's the race of the year. And that certainly goes
> for
> > > > their
> > > > > > > sponsors!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And what with national/regional sponsors behind a big team?
> For
> > > them
> > > > > > > national
> > > > > > > > races can often be more important than some Pro Tour event
> > > > elsewhere.
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > mean, it
> > > > > > > > are not Coca-cola, Mastercard etc. who come into cycling.
> Firms
> > > who
> > > > do
> > > > > > > often have
> > > > > > > > ideas of targeting specific countries.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well maybe I'm just sour because Belgium will only have 4
> (four)
> > > > > racing
> > > > > > > days in
> > > > > > > > this whole pro tour package.....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

 

"benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
>
> In Europe the teams are usually coming in buses. The reason why the organisers of the GPA had to
> pay all the costs is very simple: if they had not, the numer of entrants would have been very
> small. Every team is
willing
> to pay to participate to the Tour, but who cares about the GP des
Amériques,
> the Wincanton Classic or the Japan Cup? Giving them points for the WC doens't change anything: the
> WC has never been important. The Flèche
Wallone
> is still considered as an important race - although you couldn't get
points
> for the WC - , the HEW Cyclassic Hamburg perhaps in thirty years. Calling
a
> race as classic doesn't change nothing. It's nice to win the WC, but it doesn't matter much. It's
> just as the Climber's trophy in the Tour: only a handful of riders are really interested.

This is an interesting contrast to the way the track World Cup is set up. As I understood it, the
track WC was supposed to have an event in each the main cycling global regions: Europe,
Asia/Australia, and the Americas. Several years ago, the UCI organized 5 or 6 events/year, but this
year, it is down to four (maybe because the Worlds and Olympics all come before the end of August, I
dunno). The several significant differences between the road WCs and the track WCs are that the road
are for trade teams and the track are for national teams; and the track WCs serve as qualifiers for
Worlds and the Olympics and the road WCs don't. While the track WC organizers are not paying out for
travel, AFAIK, they do provide all support vehicles for the event, and probably the accommodations
and food as well. Logistically, it is probably easier for a road team to travel by air than a track
team (road bikes, track bikes, specialized track bikes, disk wheels, spares, etc.).

I wonder how the team budgets of national teams vs. Div 1 or 2 trade teams compare (minus the
salaries, of course)?

 

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:06:37 GMT, James P. Spooner wrote:
> who follows the world rankings?

Everyone.

 

James P. Spooner <[email protected]> wrote:
> Benjo,

> The GP des Ameriques was a pretty big race crowd-wise (1 million or so plus TV), and to my
> understanding the reason it went under was because the expenses of flying in all the teams. The
> World Cup is hardly a World Cup and they just added a couple races (Wincanton) and called them
> World Cups. Again, using the Formula 1 model which never used to be an issue here in Canada the
> Montreal GP is well attended and viable (despite certain issues this year). I think if Verbruggen
> would have supported a North American stop(s) for a few years the fans would have come. Instead we
> remain a third rate cycling nation.

You are recommending the approach the UCI took with cyclocross. The 'Cross World Cup never traveled
but the opportunities for points certainly did. So in a sense they ran that experiment with a
different population.

The result was that rankings were skewed by participation and did not reflect actual performance.
And the US remains a third rate cyclocross nation. We are moving up the nations' rankings primarily
as a result of the skewed relationship between participation and points availability. We get
whatever results we get at Worlds due to the fact that the number of Belgians that are allowed to
enter is limited.

Bob Schwartz [email protected]

 

B. Lafferty wrote:
> A question. In the new premier division, how many of those races will be outside Europe? Perhaps
> this hasn't been finalized yet.
>
Tour of Qatar should definitely be one, just to let some top riders shake hands with a podium boy.
And I bet they wouldn't complain about having to pay the teams' travel costs.

 

Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <V6b%[email protected]>, DiabloScott
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Any insight on why they're getting rid of the World Cup? It's coinciding with the first year of
> > the Pro Tour but I can't think of a reason not to have both. Hardly even been any mention that
> > this is the last year.
>
> Because nobody even noticed the World Cup. It was all TdF, all the time.
>
> The Pro Tour is an effort to force the hands of several groups: elite teams will have to compete
> against each other in elite events a lot more often. The grand tours will be forced to invite all
> the top teams.
>
> It is hoped that all of this will force the teams to contest the Pro Tour events seriously, thus
> leading to a serious world-cup-like series, with roughly equivalent events.

The Pro Tour is misguided but a step in the right direction. I would liked to have a point system
whereby a team would have to accumulate a min # of points to enter the TDF and other tours. In
order to balance things the points would depend upon points accumulated by individual riders as
well as the team.