ProTour teams for 2010?



Trev_S

New Member
Jan 24, 2004
479
0
0
5 current teams are up for Protour licence renewal at the end of 09, all 5 have reapplied, plus there has been 3 new teams apply so 21 teams all up for the 18 spots available.

Renewals :-
AG2R La Mondiale (end of 4 year term)
Milram (end of 4 year term)
Lampre-N.G.C (end of 3 year term)
Cofidis (end of 1 year term)
Bbox Bouygues Telecom (end of 1 year term)


Team Sky, Team RadioShack & Skil Shimano are the new applications

Who do you think will actually miss out and who do you think should miss out?
 

tonyzackery

Well-Known Member
Dec 23, 2006
3,517
80
0
56
IMO, the teams that pay the most money to the UCI will get in - period; regardless who "should" or "shouldn't".
 

slovakguy

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2006
1,898
66
0
in agreement with t.z. skil-shimano against skytv? advantage sky. on a side note, according to cn, sky may have added a fine rider to their stable in j.a. flecha. not sure how this fits in with the whole "u.k." theme, but there you have it.
 

Grater

New Member
Jan 30, 2006
730
0
0
Skil will miss out
Team sky should get in, but Cofidis might miss out.
Radioshack should miss out but they won't.
 

Tech72

Member
Nov 29, 2003
405
6
18
Do tell why the cheap electronic store team "shouldn't" be in the Pro Tour? Based on what? Their (expected) roster is more Pro Tour worthy than Sky, Skil (or many of the currently registered teams).
 

classic1

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2006
11,491
2,085
113
Tech72 said:
Do tell why the cheap electronic store team "shouldn't" be in the Pro Tour? Based on what? Their (expected) roster is more Pro Tour worthy than Sky, Skil (or many of the currently registered teams).

I thought it was Team Caddyshack. Fark, that's how much I know.

rodney_dangerfield.jpg
 

Grater

New Member
Jan 30, 2006
730
0
0
The person that runs the team and the person who has started the team.

That's the reason why.

Armstrong and Bruyneel are the cancer of cycling. They are worse than the drugs.
 

slyjackson

New Member
Jun 18, 2007
151
0
0
Grater said:
The person that runs the team and the person who has started the team.

That's the reason why.

Armstrong and Bruyneel are the cancer of cycling. They are worse than the drugs.

Wow.....:confused:
 

Cobblestones

New Member
Jul 2, 2007
592
0
0
Tech72 said:
Do tell why the cheap electronic store team "shouldn't" be in the Pro Tour? Based on what? Their (expected) roster is more Pro Tour worthy than Sky, Skil (or many of the currently registered teams).

First keyword here is 'expected'. What's their budget going to be? Who will they be able to hire? Will they make an honest attempt to field a reasonable team for all ProTour races.

It looks to me Team Shack is constructed for LA to race in the TdF in 2010. For that, they don't need ProTour status, only an invite by ASO.
 

Tech72

Member
Nov 29, 2003
405
6
18
Cobblestones said:
First keyword here is 'expected'. What's their budget going to be? Who will they be able to hire? Will they make an honest attempt to field a reasonable team for all ProTour races.

It looks to me Team Shack is constructed for LA to race in the TdF in 2010. For that, they don't need ProTour status, only an invite by ASO.


That is precisely my point, but perhaps I just didn't convey it clearly. We don't know all the final details of Sky, Skil, Radio Shack, etc., etc. so can't really make an informed call on which teams is deserving of a Pro Tour license. My question to Grater was why he summarily suggested that RS shouldn't be part of the Pro Tour and others should. Was there a more concrete reasoning, other than his usual bashing of all LA related anything - to which the little guy playing the violin is summarily ignoring.
 

Cobblestones

New Member
Jul 2, 2007
592
0
0
Tech72 said:
That is precisely my point, but perhaps I just didn't convey it clearly. We don't know all the final details of Sky, Skil, Radio Shack, etc., etc. so can't really make an informed call on which teams is deserving of a Pro Tour license. My question to Grater was why he summarily suggested that RS shouldn't be part of the Pro Tour and others should. Was there a more concrete reasoning, other than his usual bashing of all LA related anything - to which the little guy playing the violin is summarily ignoring.

At least for Skil-Shimano, we know their performance this year. Same for all the teams who already have a license and want it renewed. We don't know much of the Shack Team. I'm not at all against new teams, it's healthy and good for the sport, but maybe it would be prudent practice to have them race for at least 1 year before considering them for the license. It wouldn't really be hard on them since they still would be able to race by invitation.
 

Trev_S

New Member
Jan 24, 2004
479
0
0
Tech72 said:
Do tell why the cheap electronic store team "shouldn't" be in the Pro Tour? Based on what? Their (expected) roster is more Pro Tour worthy than Sky, Skil (or many of the currently registered teams).
Well RadioShack have one rider on their roster so far?
The rest are only speculation, although some are very likely of course.

Should a team get accepted when they don't really have a roster as yet?
 

Grater

New Member
Jan 30, 2006
730
0
0
Tech72 said:
That is precisely my point, but perhaps I just didn't convey it clearly. We don't know all the final details of Sky, Skil, Radio Shack, etc., etc. so can't really make an informed call on which teams is deserving of a Pro Tour license. My question to Grater was why he summarily suggested that RS shouldn't be part of the Pro Tour and others should. Was there a more concrete reasoning, other than his usual bashing of all LA related anything - to which the little guy playing the violin is summarily ignoring.

It's not LA bashing.

I'm just not brainwashed like everyone else. I've read his book and I refused to be brainwashed by that tripe. I even have a copy of the book as proof that I've read it.
 

Tech72

Member
Nov 29, 2003
405
6
18
Trev_S said:
Well RadioShack have one rider on their roster so far?
The rest are only speculation, although some are very likely of course.

Should a team get accepted when they don't really have a roster as yet?

How many confirmed riders do Sky have? At this point, it's just rumours and speculation. They're in the same position as RS, yet certain posters would like to suggest that Sky should somehow be "in", and another team (RS) should be "out". I was pointing out the biased and baseless observations of some.

Love or hate the group of riders likely to make-up part of the team (LA, Levi, Popo, Klodi, Horner, Zulbeldia, Ballan?), RS as a sponsor is a good thing for pro cycling in general.

And no, I haven't read LA's book like some, nor do I intend to. No interest. Not a fan really, but a fair observer.
 

Grater

New Member
Jan 30, 2006
730
0
0
Sky, Radioshack and Skil shouldn't get on the protour team list straight away.

The teams listed deserve to stay - unless Cofidis give up on the TDF and go to the other races instead. Same with maybe one of the other teams too.
 

steve

Administrator
Staff member
Aug 12, 2001
5,276
394
83
Grater said:
Sky, Radioshack and Skil shouldn't get on the protour team list straight away.

The teams listed deserve to stay - unless Cofidis give up on the TDF and go to the other races instead. Same with maybe one of the other teams too.

Do you think it would be a better system if the bottom ranked teams got relegated?

Last year Cofidis, Lampre and Team Milram should have been given the boot.
 

Bike_Tyson

New Member
May 29, 2008
18
0
0
Why don't they just allow all 21 teams through? How much more does it matters? Rules are rules, yes, then again, it's a new season. What if only 17 teams apply?
 

Grater

New Member
Jan 30, 2006
730
0
0
steve said:
Do you think it would be a better system if the bottom ranked teams got relegated?

Last year Cofidis, Lampre and Team Milram should have been given the boot.

That's the thing Steve. It's hard to tell. You could be right with Cofidis and Lampre. They can do the classics without protour status can't they? Which is what they would be more suited for.
 

Trev_S

New Member
Jan 24, 2004
479
0
0
Tech72 said:
How many confirmed riders do Sky have? At this point, it's just rumours and speculation. They're in the same position as RS, yet certain posters would like to suggest that Sky should somehow be "in", and another team (RS) should be "out". I was pointing out the biased and baseless observations of some.
Samething goes for Team Sky as well.
I would think a team with no roster as such can't really say they warrant a ProTour licence.

They should do promotion/demotion system. Bottom 2 teams drop & top 2 teams move up.
Any new team would have to start at the second level.