Unibet is getting jobbed

[Fat Robert]

they have to look like The Joker at french races, now they're the shatpawn for the grand tour organizers

***?

what do they have to do, sign berden and have him go through some offices with a crowbar?

[Grant McLean]

Only in cycling. :crap:

What a great time it is to be a pro team sponsor!

:crap:
:crap:
:crap:
:crap:
:crap:
:crap:
:crap:

g

[stevep]

i want one of the ? jerseys.
great trivia question in 5 years...

[Grant McLean]

i want one of the ? jerseys.
great trivia question in 5 years...

ya, like "what's a protour?"


g

[Climb01742]

agree 100% that unibet is getting the shaft. on so many levels this treatment is stupid. not the least of which is why piss off a sponsor? cycling needs every sponsor it can get. why invest millions in a sport that may flush your millions down the toilet? if the grand tour organizers want to b!tch slap someone, b!tch slap each other, not riders or sponsors.

[jeffg]

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGGGGUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUS :crap: :argue:

[Grant McLean]

if the grand tour organizers want to b!tch slap someone, b!tch slap each other, not riders or sponsors.

I guess now that chipo is retired, ASO has to find someone else to slap around.

When Saeco kept getting left out of the Tour, all my pals would hear from me
how cycling needed a 'super league' of teams with a set schedule of races,
and a set list of teams that would attend. When the Pro Tour was announced,
I couldn't believe that it was actually happening. My take on this situation is
that it just made TOO much sense, and so they are obligated to therefore
fcuk up and start all over again.

[BBB]

It's ridiculous. Having a tiff with the UCI is one thing. Deliberately shafting a team in the process is something else again.

[stevep]

I guess now that chipo is retired, ASO has to find someone else to slap around.

When Saeco kept getting left out of the Tour, all my pals would hear from me
how cycling needed a 'super league' of teams with a set schedule of races,
and a set list of teams that would attend. When the Pro Tour was announced,
I couldn't believe that it was actually happening. My take on this situation is
that it just made TOO much sense, and so they are obligated to therefore
fcuk up and start all over again.

cippo did not deserve to go to the tour again.
i remember watching on tv when he was in the yellow jersey as race leader and the first hilly stage came and he got off the bike smiling and laughing at the very bottom of the first hill. bike on the roof, arse in the back seat, showering aththe hotel long before the stage ended... it was all shown on tv... if i ran the race he would not have gotten anywhere near it. play the video of that and tell me he deserved to return. when he cried i would have sent him the 2 minute video and told him to stick it up his arse.
he deeply insulted the event imo.

[ox_rider]

http://www.tcnj.edu/~carr6/riddler.jpg

Fat Robert,

Not to be the Batman-ophile, but I think you meant Riddler, not Joker.

[sspielman]

Isn't gambling part of the mafia's game?

[BdaGhisallo]

While I am by no means on the side of the UCI and the governing bodies on most issues, in this case I think they are completely innocent. The reason that Unibet.com can't race with their jerseys in France is that it is illegal to advertise non-French gambling businesses that french people can access. As with all good Euro-socialist governments, the French have created a government monopoly in the realm of gambling. FDJeux is a government run lottery. PMU, the paramutuel gets a pass also from the government.

Now I know someone will point out Lotto and their long history of racing in France unmolested by French authorities. The reason they are allowed is that, unlike Unibet.com, Lotto doesn't offer internet gambling. They only offer their product in Belgium and the French masses can't access it in France. Interestingly, Lotto has such a long history of cycling sponsorship because they are duty bound to do such, being a government entity.

So, in summary, the race organizers are caught between a rock and a hard place. They are merely ensuring that they are not accomplices in contravening French judicial law.

As for chasing sponsors away, while I agree cycling shouldn't be doing that, I don't think they are in this case. This is beyond cycling. If they were sponsoring the Renault F1 team, they would run into the same issue at the French Grand Prix. Furthermore, I would have thought Unibet would have done their research and known this might be an issue. The fact that they got away with it when they were a continental team perhaps led them to believe that it would get overlooked when they joined the protour. France is not the only country to have this kind of prohibition on competition with their state owned monopolies, I believe.

The issues about not inviting the team to Protour races is, on the other hand, a stupid move. They shouldn't become a pawn in the ongoing battle between the UCI and ASO, RCS and Unipublic. That, in combination with their other advertising challenge, could surely precipitate a quick exit from the sponsorship of their team. Where would that leave the sport? Not for the better, that's for sure.

[Fat Robert]

riddler, joker, whatever

we're masturbatory internet geeks, but we're *bike* geeks, d--n it.

[yeehawfactor]

i want one of the ? jerseys.
great trivia question in 5 years...
yes! that's the first thing i thought when i saw those.

also, i can't imagine unibet is too distraught as their name is all over every cycling news outlet while the question marks get them extra coverage on tv....

[classic1]

RCS, ASO and Unipublic are being deliberately provocative. The protour teams are weak. Unibet have paid for a Protour licence. The other teams should show solidarity with Unibet and threaten to not ride ASO, RCS or Unipublic events until they give Unibet a ride. What has happened to Unibet could happen to any of them.

[Polyglot]

Ads BdaGhisallo writes above, this has nothing to do with the cycling oversight body, this is a French legal situation (that also extends to other countries including Italy). All betting is licensed in all European countries (just like here in most places in North America) and there is only one way that you can advertise about it and that is to be licensed by the government gambling monopoly. Unibet is not licensed and as such are not permitted to 'advertise' in certain markets. Had Unibet done their homework, they would have known this beforehand. But if truth is told, they are probably happy about the ban as the team is not all that strong and they are getting more advertising mileage from the ban than what they would have received from actually racing.

In Formula one, the cigarette makers are likewise not permitted to advertise in certain markets which makes the teams repaint their cars with different paint schemes for those races. Nobody screams bloody murder in that case, so why should the situation in cycling be any different? Anybody complaining about Unibet getting the shaft should realize that they have fallen into Unibet's ploy. Unibet is complaining for added 'free' advertising.

[Climb01742]

there are two issues: their jersey/betting thing in france and not getting invited to races (giro + milan/san remo) that all pro tour teams "should" be in. the second point is, IMO, where the true real shafting is happening.

[saab2000]

Just another reason why pro cycling is just one step above pro wrestling in terms of legitimacy in the public's eye.

The sport is great, the organisation (at almost all levels in the US and in Europe) is not. This is why the Tuesday night world championships held everywhere across the country (unsanctioned and without rules) is the best racing there is.

All these organisations are trying real hard to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

[saab2000]

Just another reason why pro cycling is just one step above pro wrestling in terms of legitimacy in the public's eye.

The sport is great, the organisation (at almost all levels in the US and in Europe) is not. This is why the Tuesday night world championships held everywhere across the country (unsanctioned and without rules) is the best racing there is.

All these organisations are trying real hard to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

[Grant McLean]

Ads BdaGhisallo writes above, this has nothing to do with the cycling oversight body, this is a French legal situation (that also extends to other countries including Italy). All betting is licensed in all European countries (just like here in most places in North America) and there is only one way that you can advertise about it and that is to be licensed by the government gambling monopoly. Unibet is not licensed and as such are not permitted to 'advertise' in certain markets. Had Unibet done their homework, they would have known this beforehand. But if truth is told, they are probably happy about the ban as the team is not all that strong and they are getting more advertising mileage from the ban than what they would have received from actually racing.

In Formula one, the cigarette makers are likewise not permitted to advertise in certain markets which makes the teams repaint their cars with different paint schemes for those races. Nobody screams bloody murder in that case, so why should the situation in cycling be any different? Anybody complaining about Unibet getting the shaft should realize that they have fallen into Unibet's ploy. Unibet is complaining for added 'free' advertising.

F1 is a good example, but I can't agree with your conclusion that it's Unibet's
fault for "not doing it's homework". This advertising issue is completely
the UCI's fault. The whole point of the Protour licence is to prevent these
kind of things from happening. This regulation about betting should have
been brought forward during the ProTour application process, and Unibet
should not have been given ProTour status if this was going to be the case.
All the sponsors have to be approved, and financial statements and procedures
need to be in place before a team can get it's ProTour licence. Bank guarentees
that there is enough money for the riders to be paid for the season, and
many other financial regualtions are already in place. This is the ProTour's
fault.

In F1 the sponsors are well aware of the fact that in some countries there is a ban
on tobacco advertising. It's not like Ferrari show up at the french GP and
someone taps Jean Todt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Todt) on the shoulder and says, oh by the way, take that
Marlboro sticker off the car...

The seperate situation now is with the race organizers. This is like preventing
Toyota from racing becuase you want to invite another team to the Grand Prix
that is not part of the concorde agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde_Agreement) which is a totally outrageous
action, in my opinion. If the race organizers intend to follow through on
preventing a licenced ProTour team from riding, I think all the teams should
boycot the first few races. This is a major power struggle between the union
and the organizers, and it's about to come to a head. The UCI needs to
decide whether or not they really are a union, and take some drastic action
to resolve this ProTour situation. I don't know what would happen, but this
current situation is totally unacceptable. What company would sign a
sponsorship deal knowing full well that the race organizer could deny them
entry into the race?

g

[saab2000]

The big difference is that at the end of the day, cycling is not run by the brightest bulbs in the shop. In fact, many of the powers that be in cycling are actually pretty dim. There are some major companies which are in it and which are real companies run by real people. But even Discovery is heavily influenced by LA, a guy who has never spent a day in college or any other higher education.

That is not the case in F1 racing, which is huge business.

There is no solidarity among anyone in cycling. Many managers and directors are former riders and anyone who has raced at a high level will tell you that not all of those people are lawyers or MBAs. They are dudes who chose to ride bikes instead of working in the proverbial local mattress factory or local equivalent.

[Brendan Quirk]

Lost in the UCI vs. ProTour battle royale is the potential impact the Unibet snubbing has on the 2nd & 3rd tier team sponsors. The irony is that the companies who invested the most -- Unibet, Canyon, and Campy are the 3 I think of -- can most easily absorb the loss they'll take on what will apparently be a lousy ROI on their sponsorship dollars. They're huge companies that can absorb the occassional bodyblow.

I feel horrible for the smaller sponsors, in particular Carbonsports (manufacturer of Lightweight wheels). They are a small company, and this is their 1st-ever full-on investment in a ProTour team. I know their decision to commit to this sponsorship came only after serious introspection. The cost to them to supply Unibet with wheels was huge, and equally painful for them was the manufacturing capacity it consumed in order to build the considerable # of wheels the team required. In other words, it wasn't just the cost of the wheels for Unibet, but it was also the cost of not producing wheels they'd sell for profit during that period. Carbonsports already struggles to keep up with demand, so this just made their biggest problem (timely delivery to distributors) that much worse. And, lastly, I know they were planning to make substantial infrastructure investments in order to keep up with the demand that they expected to see skyrocket based on the exposure they'd get from their sponsorship. What might eventually happen to their inventory position if that demand doesn't materialize? The only thing worse that an inability to keep up with demand, of course, is a surplus of slow-moving inventory.

Youngish companies like Carbonsports take gigantic risks in sponsoring teams, and it's rare that their finances can withstand disastrous outcomes to major investments like sponsoring a ProTour team. Very few innovative companies in the bike industry have heavy-hitting financial backers. Rather, the rule (not the exception) is financial fragility.

I'm not making a judgement of who should/shouldn't be making these sorts of sponsorship investments. Calculating risk & benchmarks for ROI in a sponsorship scenario is probably more art than science, methinks. Rather, this post is just a statement that there are some wonderful people that'll get buried under the rubble here if the situation worsens.

[Grant McLean]

I'm not making a judgement of who should/shouldn't be making these sorts of sponsorship investments. Calculating risk & benchmarks for ROI in a sponsorship scenario is probably more art than science, methinks. Rather, this post is just a statement that there are some wonderful people that'll get buried under the rubble here if the situation worsens.

Great post Brendan. I don't know what the balance of power should be between
the race organizers and the UCI, but your points about sponsorship serve
to underscore what the real value of a stable protour could potentially be.
All this jockeying and political manouvering is the last thing the financial
side of the business of racing needs given the doping headlines of the past
few years.

g

[fstrthnu]

Jacques Haanagraf is a controversial guy. I know Jacques as he was responsible for taking me in to Team Farm Frites. He arranged everything for me, bent over backwards to make sure I was taken care of. Awesome guy and I would ride for him again.

The thing about Jacques is that he rubs a lot of people the wrong way and has made some enemies in the sport. I don't know if this is directly related to Unibet's outing but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some connection somewhere.

I know this is a stretch as Unibet's problems lay in the written laws... but I still would not set aside a "mafia" or "conspiracy" theory as it is well know that all the rules in cycling are not always followed and adhered to with a blind eye being turned.

Justin