Not in the ProTour yet.

I really don't think Unibet has made it into the ProTour yet. See this article: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2006/protour_licence_final, which was written on November 25, 2006.

They aren't. I'll edit that out.--BGBkstroke 11:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moot Point—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.135.161.102 (talk) 15:37, December 17, 2006

Merge Discussion

Agree - it's the same team. One of these entries should be a redirect. kju 12:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make the Team Unibet one a redirect. I think this one is a little better written and better organized, and the name "Unibet.com Cycling Team" is the correct name. --BGBkstroke 14:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - This obviously needs a merger.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.135.161.102 (talk) 15:35, December 17, 2006

There may be some material to include from the Fight for 2006 Pro Tour licence section of Unibet.com but it needs referencing. The rest is already better detailed on this page. Mk3severo 16:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am replacing the Team Unibet article with a redirect to this page.kju 03:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remnants of Team Unibet article for incorporation after referencing

Fight for 2006 Pro Tour licence

After the collapse of the Fassa Bortolo team in September 2005 a vacant Pro Tour team spot became available. With Unibet.com agreeing to a budget increase for the team, Unibet's management decided that getting the licence was an achievable goal. As a result Unibet.com when on a spending spree, looking for high profile riders with large amounts of wins. One of the first riders to join Unibet was Baden Cooke who was reportedly unhappy with being asked to take a pay cut by the cash-strapped Francaise des Jeux team. However a problem loomed for Unibet.com because on October 10 a new team sponsored by Sony Ericsson started trying to sign up riders. With its very large budget riders seemed to be begging to get on the team. In 4 days Sony Ericsson had signed up riders like Stuart O'Grady and Gilberto Simoni but on the 14th of October, Sony Ericsson told the team that it wasn't sponsoring the team. Not only did this force O'Grady and Simoni to find new teams, it allowed Unibet to start chasing the ProTour licence again. After chasing the two high profile riders for a week the team settled on Carlos Garcia Quesada a Spanish climber with high hopes of the future. Unibet now had the complete 2006 roster with 3 big names in the team. By the end of October it emerged that the only other serious competitor for the licence was AG2R Prévoyance a French team with big name riders like Francisco Mancebo and Christophe Moreau. A big blow to Unibet came when Stefan van Dijck was convinced for drug offences by the Flemish anti-doping commission. Unfortunately for Unibet, AG2R had never been convinced of doping offences, putting in a big lead for the licence. By late November, when the UCI made its decision it was clear that would be chosen for two reasons. The main one being van Dijck doping offence, but the UCI was also influenced by the fact that if Unibet was given the licence it would have meant that 3 teams were based in Belgium compared to only 4 in France. After failing in the ProTour bid Unibet.com easily retained its Pro Continental licence.

Somebody Please Explain

Can somebody who knows what's going on please explain this anti-gambling regulation that keeps them from riding in some countries and how this will affect their season? I'm confused. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.170.128.66 (talk) 14:53, May 23, 2007

I think the controversy between the team and the Grand Tour organisers should also be added to the article. I wish someone will help expand it. Celticshk ^Talk 09:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a bit - incomplete and unreferenced (as I don't know how to do references). Shouldn't be hard to find references. Feel free to expand, I might get back on it later. -- Danilot 10:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Unibet cycling team training.jpg

Image:Unibet cycling team training.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that UNIBET should be it's own

I think we should preserve Unibet.com cycling team (category: defunct teams) and preserve their 2007 roster. The Collstrop roster is changed, but it would be a waste to just wreck the Unibet roster. Any comments? Smilo Don (talk) 22:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, keeping old rosters serves no purpose. I just haven't go round to updating this roster yet. We generally keep the pages of continuous teams in one place. There can be debate about if a team is new or not, and this can be a little more hazy with old teams (for example the transition from Reynolds to Banesto). In this case, I think its quite clear they're the same team (and the same as MrBookmaker for that matter). I would only look to split such articles when they became too long - and I don't think any cycling article fits into that category right now. Severo^TC 23:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To preserve the roster of Unibet you could use an article like List of Astana Team riders and include it in Category:Lists of cyclists by team. --Drunt (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Severo's right. I suppose the old squads are preserved, in a sense, on each rider's page. In general though, I'm one of those Wikipedians who believes in an expansive Wikipedia.

I do think it's a little odd, though, to have no page for Unibet cycling. It's a little like wiping out USPostal and redirecting to Discovery Channel, then wiping out Disco and redirecting to Astana. I think we should keep a page for Unibet cycling, even if my idea of preserving old rosters (except for super squads) might not be so great. Smilo Don (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We most definitely should have a section on the Unibet years (especially the saga of last year) on this page - this is after all the same team. Severo^TC 20:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but my point is we can't just roll one team into the next. Again, we can't just absorb Discovery Channel into Astana, right? We have to keep Disco on its own. I think the same logic is true for Unibet/Collstrop: even though there is continuity, we need separate pages. Smilo Don (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It comes back to the point of when one team is a direct continuation of the former. Many teams are built on the structures of old teams, for example Astana of 2007 on top of the old Liberty Seguros structure of 2006, and Quick Step in 2003 being built on top of the 2002 Mapei structure. I tend to think "follow the licence", meaning that if the licence is a renewal of some kind, then it's the same team. Hence Astana in 2007 was a new team. In the case of Unibet, the managers applied for the ProTeam renewal, which was declined by the UCI due to the financial guarantees (IIRC), but was invited to be resubmitted as a ProConti team (with new deadlines). The team is not new. The sponsor has changed, and many riders have changed. But why in cycling do we consider a new team to have been formed when a new sponsor emerges? This isn't the case in most sports. Similarly, in American football pages, the articles trace the history of the franchise. If the franchise moves, a new page is not created but the old page updated. I'm all for a breadth of coverage on Wikipedia, but not with a fragmentary approach: information and articles should generally be kept together. On the side issue of old rosters, there's an issue about Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information. I think a list of riders is probably acceptable, but when we start listing random staff and stagiares who didn't make it I think it gets a bit too much. I hope that all explains my position. Severo^TC 16:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unibet bookies should have own page

Unibet are quite a big online bookmakers. The fact that the cycling team no longer exists shouldn't mean that Unibet.com transfers to Cycle Collstrop. Unibet are now too big. They should be demerged, a new page should be created for Unibet/Unibet.com (same page) and that page will just be about the bookmakers, with a note at the top saying, "For information about the cycling team, see Cycle_Collstrop page" or something like that. I came to the Unibet.com wikipedia page because I wanted to find out about Valencia CF's new shirt sponsors, and I got taken to this cycling page! --Tris2000 (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]