-
fair enough, my view on them is that the teams will likely see very little of that "extra revenue" and the riders even less so
I also don't see what real product they are selling, on-board cameras - Ok, so what's stopping the race organisers or the UCI doing it for themselves and selling the rights to the broadcasters? They use a lot of corporate spiel and say they're in lots of talks and have lots of teams signed up, but to what end?
On the subject of classics - Etixx to fuck up again, they have no clear leader or even few leaders and seem to have the sole purpose of missing the final breaks only to chase them down again.
Flanders - Sagan, he looked really strong going up the climbs in E3 and Gent and I think the only ones who can follow him, he can outsprint.
Roubaix - Cancellara, will top 5 in Flanders but this is his last hurrah and he'll throw the kitchen sink at it to win.
You are reading a single comment by @ and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
noBlakes
You need to research a lot deeper into Velon to actually understand them, I've come to the conclusion that in the long term they'll be bad for the sport.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/velon-deny-asking-riders-to-sign-away-image-rights/
http://cyclingtips.com/2015/11/velon-rejects-media-report-claiming-it-wants-to-muscle-in-on-rider-contracts-and-image-rights/
When you down right reject the existence of something, though it's very much true (riders tweeted pictures of their's) it all looks a bit shifty.
Add to that the CEO being Sep Blatters nephew, and you've got an organisation that has more than a whiff of "only in it for themselves"