this is a follow up to my earlier post on rudy's rhetoical question.  this post showed up on the d20 list.  i want to take still more timeto address this because it's one of the things that's core to our approach and one of the things that separates racing union from most other cycling clubs.  i think the post listed below is wrong on a number of levels.

>>> -----Original Message-----

>>> From: Thomas Licker [mailto:NHVelo@yahoo.com]

>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 8:47 AM

...

>>> Final thoughts - What is your personal marketability in the sport? 

>>> What value do you bring to the team?  Running a cycling team is just

>>> as difficult as running a business.

only if you choose to run your cycling team like a business.  seriously, take the time to read those three statements and see how many logical fallacies you can spot.  running a cycling team is easy.  you submit the paperwork and remit a fee to the sancioning body for cycling and then you, and whomever else chooses to ride with you goes and races their bikes.  that's really all there is to it.  everything after that is window dressing.  you want to get a tight kit for the team to wear?  no problem, but it's not a requirement.  you want a hot sled for the team to tool around to races in?  no problem, but it's not a requirement.  you want mountains of swag for your riders or to give away at races?  no problem, but it's not a requirement. 

>>> Egos, politics, members jumping from team to team to get the best deal

>>> or ride with friends. 

this is more a statement about what sort of riders you pick to spend time with.  the conflation of money and sports has yielded a mindset where people feel some justification in shopping it around, asking for stuff.  when the stuff is gone, will they stick around?  everyone wants good results but is it a good idea in _amateur_ cycling to attain results by retaining talent with stipends, merchandise, etc?

>>> All I have to say is take a note from the Pittsburgh Steelers

>>> organization or other consistantly successful sports clubs. 

>>> Consistant, executible business plans, and a quality board of

>>> directors is what will make a team or if you have no plan, break a

>>> team and a loss of the sports reputation for additional sponsorship. 

the author of this note is conflating the creation and operation of a cycling team with the creation and operation of a business.  even if he is thinking about continental pro teams, this is still a bit of a stretch because those teams have a formal corporate structure behind them which (hopefully!) pays salaries, taxes, benefits, arranges deals, signs contracts, etc.  the team is a bunch of guys who ride their bikes.  they are supported by the structure behind it.  to contend that this must be true at the amateur level is to be actively misleading.  you know what it takes to start a cycling club?  $150. U.S. and this link is what it takes to start a cycling club.  no reason to fire up the lasterjet, print out the palmares and update the business plan.  gather up some friends and ride your bike.

>>> You don't have to have an MBA to run a cycling team and get

>>> sponsors.  Just a business plan and the skills to sell it and

>>> properly manage it.   

please.  it's stuff like this that convinces _amateur_ riders that they need to market themselves to teams and that they are entitled to a cushy ride.  and it's also stuff like this that convinces _amateur_ teams that they need to spend more and more time each year marketing themselves to sponsors and increasing the amount of revenue that they bring in.  it's an unvirtuous circle, a tailspin that takes your focus away from where it should be.

- - - posted by scott