-
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.
noBlakes-
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
Velon is a venture set up by a bunch of teams. That is to say, Velon is the teams. They are the ones who would profit.
Ok, so what's stopping the race organisers or the UCI doing it for themselves and selling the rights to the broadcasters?
I'm not sure, but I doubt the UCI can force riders to put cameras on their bikes which they (the UCI) will the will then profit from. The teams that the riders are signed to presumably can (by making it a part of their contract). Thus, Velon has access to a resource the UCI doesn't - the riders themselves.
As to what Velon is actually selling - fuck all as far as I can tell. It's a bit like Dimension Data (the sponsor, not the team). All talk thus far.
This is exactly why I said revenue for teams and included "(and maybe riders?)" in brackets and as a question.