Shack-Trek Nissan: here we go!

This week sees the first team meeting, in Belgium, of what is left of Leopard Trek and what is staying from Radioshack.

Mr Bruyneel is being very upbeat and positive about it - well, he would, wouldn't he? He's got exactly what he wanted: he's kept his sponsors (which is no mean feat, these days), he's kept his pet riders and staff, he's gained the super-rich but not-good-at-keeping-his-word Mr Becca, and he's got his hands on Andy. Is it significant that on his blog, the only rider he mentions by name is Andy? In the context of "I think we'll see some improvements from Andy." Am I the only one shuddering at that?

It appears that he's been trying to get hold of Andy since July 2009: well, technically, that news story said that it was Lance who was trying to get Andy - although he wasn't interested in Frankie - but it's a fair bet that Mr Bruyneel was the one behind the decision.

So, what will be happening in Spa next week? No riding, no boot camp, no survival training, but a lot of talk, by the sound of it.

Who will be there? Mr Bruyneel, of course, cracking the whip. Andy, handing out canapes. (sorry, that's just me being caustic. Will try harder to be positive.) OK, here's the management team:

So he's kindly keeping three of "our" boys, and three out of "his" four boys. As most of us probably don't know a great deal about the Shack management, here's a quick synopsis:

Jose: former rider, this year was his first year as DS.
Dirk: (great name) ex-rider - DS with Bruyneel since 2000.
Alain: pro-rider for just one year, then into management. Joined the Shack as DS this year, but was DS with 7 teams in 15 years prior to that. Could be said that he was "galloping" around from team to team. Ha ha.

Mr Bruyneel is graciously going to be listening to our boys: “A big part of my job is to listen." he says. "What they thought went well last year." he says. "What they think needs to be improved upon." he says. "How can the team be better, stronger and more successful."

Hmm, no interest in their concerns about the way the merger was handled, their concerns about their future, or the way they feel about being shoehorned into his outfit then? Oh, silly me, riders aren't important to teams, are they? Last to be told anything, last to be listened to (race radios, anyone?).

Then, they'll be off to Spain in December for a proper training camp, and then Mallorca in January.

But this does lead to a bit of a thought about sponsorship in general. LLB doesn't quite see why we are all so shirty about what Mr Becca did.

I wasn't quite sure myself, for a while: but while stuck in an airport for five hours a few weeks ago, I had plenty of time to reflect on it, and here are my thoughts.

Sponsorship: The Burning Issue

I've just read the Linda McCartney Story, about the British, vegetarian, pro-cycling team which started in 1998 and managed a couple of years before going broke. The book was very interesting, not least because they really were vegetarians, amazing as that sounds (to me, confirmed meat-eater). They did comment that at least they didn't have any  problems with upset digestion due to Bad Meat, ha ha, which is funny in the light of the current beef/clenbuterol problems.

Their story is surprisingly close to that of Leopard-Trek: rich man sponsors team, but they go bankrupt. OK, in this case, the rich man (Paul McCartney) was getting advertising for his wife's product, so he was a "proper" sponsor rather than just a rich man....

Anyway, the team went bankrupt despite being backed by an extremely rich man. Why? They make the  point that a cycling team is created and set in flight by the original sponsors, but is expected to earn it's own way thereafter. Sponsors come and go - that's a fact, we've all seen it for ourselves. So the job of the initial sponsor is to get them up and running, and thereafter it's up to them to make their own way, collecting new sponsors as they go. Long-term sponsors such as Rabobank are very rare, and Euskaltel were sponsored by their government - although that is now about to end, apparently, with their contract running out at the end of next year.

So in the case of the Linda McCartney team - for all those that, like me, don't really remember them - Sir Paul and his money got them going in order to raise the profile of the meat-free meals. Linda then sadly died of cancer, but Paul stood by the deal as agreed for the second year. Mr Becca, are you taking note? Stood by the deal. Did not rat out. Anyway. Their sponsorship deal ended, but Paul kindly allowed the team to continue using the name for another year, even though he wasn't putting any more money in. This gave them the continuity and the publicity of the (very big) McCartney name, and a chance to get another sponsor. In their case, they were unable to get another sponsor so the team folded.

To us, on the outside, it's easy to say "Well, as he's so damned rich, a billionaire, why can't he just cough up the measly 10million that it takes?"

I mean, compared to other sports, the cost of sponsoring a cycling team is laughable. £10-12 million per year will get you a decent team. Compared to, say Formula One racing: Red Bull are one of the big sponsors in F1, they put in £250million per year PER YEAR (sorry, had to say that twice) and as well as that, they put in £90million  for the junior team. The junior team! Ninety Million quid! 'Scuse me while I pass out.

But the point is that rich men get rich by keeping close tabs on their money, and they won't just keep on pouring money into a project without getting what they want out of it.

In the case of the McCartney team, it wasn't a private individual like Mr Becca, it was a business deal, and the manufacturing company (Heinz) were the ones who pulled the plug. Reading between the lines, I rather got the feeling that it was Linda's project rather than Paul's: she wanted to publicise her veggie meals, it wasn't that he (or she) were bananas about bikes. (Quick plug there for Bananas about Bikes! where you can read real stories of attending cycle races, written by the fans.)

In the case of Mr Becca, we're not quite sure what he actually wanted from the deal: to the best of my knowledge he made some statements about riding for the love and joy or some such rubbish, and that he wasn't in it for the money. He just wanted to be involved with a cycling team.

So we have to assume that somehow, he didn't get the kudos that he wanted, or the "star treatment", perhaps, that he was seeking? Perhaps he thought that he'd get to ride in the Commissaire's car at races? I don't think it was public adulation that he was after: if he'd wanted that, he could have had his name on the jerseys, but he chose not to.

As the Schpleculation in the wardrobe has suggested, it's possible that the whole Shack takeover deal was initiated by Mr Bruyneel - the guy with no star, no young riders, no Tour or GC hope: but a shed-load of sponsors.

I still, by the way, don't see why Mr Bruyneel didn't just buy in a batch of new riders and a star name or two, which would mean that he would remain a US-based outfit.

"Oh wait," I hear you say, "isn't that what he's done?" Well, yes, sort of, but now he's saddled with using the Leopard Trek UCI licence, and being officially based in Lux. I assume, as an aside, that Ken Sommer and his merry men are still involved, but we haven't heard much on that side of things, as yet. Being based in Lux is going to be very different from being based in the US, particularly as he has already stated that his company is going to be managing the team. How, exactly, is that going to work, I wonder.

Oh, we mustn't forget the Trek angle: Trek, the bike manufacturer, are currently a lower-level sponsor for the Shack, and a named-but-second sponsor for Leopard Trek. Rumor has it -and by that, I mean the cycling forums, not l'Equipe - that Trek were mighty cross at being outsold by Bontrager bikes, and decided to consolidate their sponsorship into one team. A "super" team, if you like. There's merit in that suggestion. but I can't see why they would want or allow their new super team to be anything other than US based.

As we know, Radioshack the company are pretty much 98% USA based. I am ignoring the tiny outlet in Edinburgh and I think there's one very small one somewhere else - but there is nothing in Benelux.

Then there's Trek: well, that would be USA based again although, of course, they were happy to be sponsors of L-T.. Is it possible that Trek have been planning this merger for some time? Nissan, of course, multi-national, no problem there, but they do have more of a presence in northern Europe.

So, how long do we think it will be before the team organisation, training etc is moved to the states?

Changing direction a little, here's another take on the whole takeover/merger aspect: there's been a lot of grumbling amongst us Leopard fans that it isn't a merger at all, it's a takeover, and the Shack are just eating Leopard-Trek - and spitting out the bits they don't like, of course.

But actually, take a look at the names: Shack keep first billing. Trek have kept second billing, Leopard has disappeared altogether - even though it is their UCI licence - and Nissan are tacked on the end. (For the purposes of this point, we will have to assume that UCI rules regarding the number of sponsor names in a team name is not going to apply. Although I am pretty certain that they will be applied!)

Now, in my experience of business takeovers, it's usually the bigger partner who "stands down" regarding the new name. It's as though the company being taken over is given top billing in the new name as a gesture of apology, or to boost their self-esteem. So it's possible - just about - that this is a real merger, and will be to the advantage of our boys. Yes, we still deplore the way it was done, in particular the way the riders weren't told. Not to mention the supporting cast - both Shack and Leopard may have been a little light on riders, but both had a full and dedicated complement of mechanics, masseurs, drivers, coaches, DS team, managers, soigneurs, PR people, secretaries, cleaners, vending machine re-stockers (never forget the little people!) and so on, and logically, 50% of those are now job-hunting, at short notice.

So what do we do?

As fans, there is of course nothing we can do. Will we follow Andy, Frankie, Fab, Jakob etc? Of course we will.  Unlike most other sports, in pro-cycling we follow our riders, as teams come and go - or get re-named, at the very least. We were very lucky last year, that such a big proportion of SexyBank (ah, remember those happy SexyBank days?) - the "best", we like to think - went to Leopard Trek, and most of them are continuing into Shack-it-all-About Trek, or whatever they are going to be called.

Will I make a new flag and strive to get a Radio-Trek musette?

It's too early to say. I'm most certainly going to be supporting OGL (as they say, "a true fan is not one who was there from the beginning, it's one who is there until the end") but I'll be waving the Union Jack for Team Sky next year. I'm not sure how I feel about supporting a team run by Mr Bruyneel, as I'm not comfortable with his past associations, nor do I care for the relentless trumpet-blowing on his own website.

I haven't met the man, and I know it's wrong to judge, but he just doesn't strike me as a very nice man.

But we will have to watch and wait.

Oh, and did I work out why Mr Becca's actions were so very annoying, to me personally? (I can't speak for all the other fans, of course.)

Yes - I have come to expect that sort of about-face, lying-through-the-teeth, hide-it-from-everyone behaviour in business. From a business sponsor, yes - not nice, but something we have to accept. Business sponsors have an agenda: they need to either make money or get publicity, for the least amount of outlay. They have shareholders, chairmen, boards of directors, committees etc to satisfy, so all it takes is one of those to say "hey, we need to save £10million, we can either sack a couple of you guys, or we scrap that little sponsorship deal" and chop! there goes the sponsorship.

But I don't expect that from an individual.

And he seems to be starting a trend, doesn't he? "Oh, contracts don't mean anything, let's just ditch the sponsorship deal and walk". Geox, I am looking at you.