Log in:  

Register

Financial Fair Play

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

10 Sep 2017 11:15

The issue with arguing for salary caps seems to assume Sky won their first GTs because they had bigger rider salaries and sponsorship revenue, but that is not the case.

If you take 2012 Accounts from Sky & Radioshack at the time
Sky spent €18,935k on wages from a total sponsorship of €26,319k.
Radioshack spent €18,105k from a total sponsorship of €25,286k

So Radioshack essentially spending and being sponsored the same amount as Sky in the year Wiggins won their first Tour.

In 2011, it was reported Radioshack, Leopard Trek, Rabobank & Katusha all had similar budgets to each other. At one point Katusha was running on a 30M budget while Sky were on 26M. I think in 2014? Today Katusha run on 32M compared to Sky's 35M. The difference is largely Froome's salary and of course riders will have bonus clauses for success. So, even though your wages might not necessarily rise, riders do suck more revenue from a sponsor the more they win and naturally command bigger contract renewals.

It's difficult to compare with all teams, because several don't disclose accounts. e.g. Astana, BMC and several others, but it would seem Sky's success comes before increases in sponsorship revenue, not because of it, very similar to riders wages only increase after success.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 979
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re:

10 Sep 2017 15:49

samhocking wrote:The issue with arguing for salary caps seems to assume Sky won their first GTs because they had bigger rider salaries and sponsorship revenue, but that is not the case.
For some, yes. For others it is that these rich teams are driving up wages, creating inflationary pressure that smaller teams can't cope with. You can look at a team like BMC an the superannuated vanity signings they had just as easily as you can look at a team like Sky and the success they had.

The key issue is that a rising tide lifts all boats except for the ones anchored to the bottom, which are going to sink.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,775
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

10 Sep 2017 16:36

You can also point out that there's more to the Sky budget than the declared, or at least there was, due to the blurred lines between the commercial Team Sky and the national entity British Cycling, with staffers of the latter fulfilling functions ostensibly for British Cycling but serving for Team Sky - even if we take out the infamous jiffy bag, what was Simon Cope doing providing weeks of motorpacing training for Bradley Wiggins in aid of? Obviously there's plausible deniability - it's about helping Wiggins with the Olympic RR etc., which are undertaken by the national team - but it's outside of his remit within British Cycling (he was a women's coach) and served to benefit Team Sky. Few other teams have the same access to supplementary staff and resources in the same way (some of the other pseudo-national teams like Orica or Astana may), because Cope's salary at the time was not part of Team Sky's budget - enabling them to use more of the budget if so required for the riders etc..

The other side of it is that the inflated wages offered at the top prices the ProContinental ranks out of the game and means they cease to be a viable alternative for most riders of the requisite level to be competitive at the top ranks. Therefore it's a lot easier for the big bucks teams to sign up successful riders from the ProContinental ranks because they can recompense them much more to be helpers than they can make being leaders at the smaller teams. ProConti teams are reliant on UCI points for their position so losing a lot of their best points scorers in this way widens the gulf between the top elite teams and the second tier. This isn't just a problem of the big money teams though, although Sky signing the likes of Leopold König and turning them from GT top 10s to third in line climbing domestiques is obviously a major negative impact of it; narrowing marketplaces are also a problem where the ProConti market has already thinned, such as in Spain where Movistar frequently abuse their position as Spain's only surviving premiere team to raid Caja Rural of any talented youngsters, paying them off in return with their offcuts and older riders (e.g. Javi Moreno, José Herrada, Rubén Fernández, Carlos Barbero and Jaime Rosón have gone one way, Ángel Madrazo, David Arroyo and Sérgio Pardilla have gone the opposite). It has been sustainable for a period, but Caja Rural's constantly being raided for their talents - in addition to the riders taken by Movistar, they've lost David de la Cruz, Michał Kwiatkowski, Omar Fraile, Pello Bilbao, Hugh Carthy and Zé Gonçalves - has reached the point where they are struggling to be as visible outside of the depleted national calendar. They were never going to be able to keep all of those talents, but if they'd been able to rely on them for a couple more years their results could have helped improve the team's visibility and garnered more invites, giving them better rider development opportunities and strengthening their foundation as a wildcard team. Likewise, the radical downturn in the number of teams based out of Italy, coupled with RCS' decision to branch out with their wildcards, which in some ways is admirable, has really hurt the national scene in Italy, where less than 10 years ago there were 5 or 6 Italian ProConti teams fighting over the wildcards, there were teams who could contest the GC or the sprints (or both) at every race on the Italian calendar and make a good living doing so, providing a worthwhile alternative to being a domestique or secondary hand at the WT level. Hell, Przemysław Niemiec was making a solid living as a Continental Pro until he was 31 due to the strength of the Italian scene. Now, even the well-established teams like Savio's are reliant on picking up teenage wunderkinds and hoping that they can get a good option when they move on.

The gulf between Continental Pros and Pro Continental is getting smaller, and the gulf between Pro Continental and World Tour is getting bigger. And even more so, the gulf between low end World Tour and the top of the World Tour is getting much, much bigger. I remember when HTC went under. The most successful team the previous year, but no successor sponsor could be found. At the same time, even guys like Matxin and Savio who had terrible reputations could keep their teams going. This is the risk that we take. The tradition in cycling is, let's face it, fairly inward-looking and parochial. Lots of the most established teams and long-lasting sponsors are comparatively low budget. And that's all well and good. But we have to strike a balancing act, because if there is a big blowout and those big money sponsors like Sky leave, as happened with HTC, then we're going to need those lower budget races and teams in the sport's traditional homes to fall back on. Hell, we'll need them anyway, to develop young riders in anyway. But if we keep inflating the wages and prices, and increase the number of flyaway WT races, the budgetary requirements will become more than long-standing regional sponsors like FDJ, Lotto or Ag2r can handle if they want to be anything other than pack fodder, the equivalent of the old Minardi team in F1 in the 90s. And the other thing is that we have to look after the spectacle, because essentially that's what keeps people tuning in. Cycling isn't like football or other team sports, where if you don't like the dominant champion, you just watch other people's matches instead. And the more the strength is concentrated into the hands of the few, the less reason there is to care about those outside those few teams with the biggest budgets too, because they cease to be a relevance. That's the difficult balancing act that the sport has to consider. Don't innovate and push the boundaries, and the sport can stagnate and feel parochial, as well as shutting out developing markets from being able to build on successes. But allow too much dog eat dog, and run the risk of strangling the grass roots of the sport and turning fans away with a substandard spectacle determined by budget. For the moment, the UCI seems happy to ride the gravy train, but the frustrations about the spectacle in recent years have been hard to ignore, and especially once a handful of individuals like Contador and Nibali - who bring that intangible factor of fan enthusiasm, thanks to defying, or attempting to defy, the formulae into which racing has devolved - have retired and we're left with a generation of riders who've known nothing but the current formulae, we could see the same kind of backlash as F1 saw in the early 2000s as fans grew tired of watching the same product in different packaging race after race.
User avatar Libertine Seguros
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,919
Joined: 20 Feb 2010 11:54
Location: Land of Saíz

Re:

10 Sep 2017 17:03

Libertine Seguros wrote:I remember when HTC went under. The most successful team the previous year, but no successor sponsor could be found.
I agree with most everything you've said there Libertine, we've seen the consequences of this type of thing in other sports (I would argue American cycling saw it at the beginning of the c20th, when the LAW surrendered and handed control to the promoters, killing grassroots cycling).

However. Can we talk about HTC? I sometimes get narked by people who say you can't compare this team or that team or another team to, say, Slipstream, that they're all special cases. My view is, most every team is a special case, on one level. So I'm going to play the special case card with team failures. IAM? Special case, a sponsor who got what they wanted and walked away. Tinkoff? Special case, a sugar daddy who got bored and went looking for new toys? HTC? Hmmnnn... well, special case. Stapleton may have been a business genius, getting Telekom to give him all that money, but he was a rubbish team boss. He tried to pay his riders peanuts and expected them to be loyal to him. He wouldn't compromise with potential sponsors. He is more the architect of his own downfall than any systemic failure in cycling's economic structure. Yet, every time a Slipstream has a problem, or an IAM shutters, we get pointed to HTC and the question of how the most successful team in the whole history of the ever ever couldn't find a sponsor. And very few ever want to ask the question: what was the role of management in the team's failure?
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,775
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Financial Fair Play

11 Sep 2017 09:35

British Cycling staff, even from day one invoice Tour Racing Ltd to an agreed Service Level Agreement Libertine based on what riders are OWCP or not. The Delloite investigation didn't find any conflicts, but did advise the SLA was extended to define the exact roles of dual staff supporting British pro tour riders who are Lottery-funded, British pro tour riders who are not Lottery-funded, and foreign pro tour riders on Team Sky so accounts could be paid according to the riders lottery funding or not. Since 2011 it's very clear-cut and you certainly couldn't have say Landa going to Manchester for free BC specialist treatment, Sky would be paying for that according to Tour Racing Ltd's SLA with BC, no different than any Pro tour team having an SLA with a private company or National body.
The following riders are lottery funded this year and would not have to pay to use any British Cycling resources even those that are not Sky riders.

Owain Doull (Sky)
Chris Froome (Sky)
Dan McLay (Bretagne–Séché Environnement)
Luke Rowe (Sky)
Ian Stannard (Sky)
Ben Swift (UAE)
Geraint Thomas (Sky)
Scott Thwaites (Dimension Data)

So, when Cavendish, not lottery funded needs to use British Cycling resources this year, either he pays for it personally now, or Dimension Data do. However, his team mate Scott Thwaites gets it free because he's on the OWCP even though not a Sky rider. The existing arrangement betwen British riders and British Cycling benefits other teams too, so it's not exactly a close relationship between Sky & British Cycling. All teams have free BC access and rider support if they employ a OWCP rider.

Anyway, back to capping salary, The Cycling Podcast discuss this a bit recently and points out like any successful team over the decades, Sky's sponsorship only increases because of the successes ticked the box of whatever the teams and sponsors objectives met were the previous season. After that success and following increase in revenue from the sponsors, and only after that success will the stronger riders come to support the best riders and be affordable to the team to make that offer. This is how it's worked ever since the days of Peugeot & Alycon who similarly dominated cycling in a similar way simply buying strong riders to support leaders. Different times, perhaps not exactly comparable because wages were comparably lower and riders, even winners had to ride all year on road and all winter on the track to earn a living, but in terms of stronger teams having more money for more expensive riders, it's exactly the same progression for a team sustaining a high level of success for a long period. If Sky stop winning, their sponsorship revenue will drop, the strong riders will leave to go to other teams who fill Sky's decline in rankings as their replacement and so it goes on. Sky is simply a continuation of how cycling has worked ever since Hippolyte Aucouturier won Paris Roubaix for Peugeot.

If we took say Froome's 4M and Nibali's 2.5M salaries they reportedly earn this year and cap them both to a maximum of say 1M, that then means both Sky & Katusha (Assume Martin is around 1M already) are spending roughly the same on total capped rider and staff wages from an identical budget of around 31M. Clearly Froome is considered the higher value rider than Nibali and Martin and Zacharin though and a free salary market is prepared to pay Froome 4M and Nibali 2.5M supports. After a salary cap however, Froome is going to be affordable and cost a team the same as Nibali though at 1M, but Nibali's true market value is much less than Froome's because he hasn't won Tour for 3 years. So even with salary caps, the team most attractive to Froome continuing his success will be where he races. He can't be bought by a wealthy sponsor really, because they can't pay more than another team anyway. So Froome goes to the strongest team of the moment and Nibali a less-strong team which is exactly what currently happens anyway with uncapped salaries. All capping salary will do, is force teams to place strength in other areas that allow capped salary riders to join them and remove incentive for the Nibali's to be any stronger. The only incentive will be winning and I would argue, for most of the great sportsman, the money is secondary anyway to the success. Money just allows the riders to have value for that success.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 979
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

11 Sep 2017 09:51

I thought the point of a salary cap was to cap total salary, not individual salary. Therefore a team is free to pay Froome what they want, and he therefore gets a higher salary than Nibali because his absolute value at present is higher, but then, having paid Froome more, the team would then have less room within the cap to pay for helpers. Maintaining a team with multiple leaders on significant salaries then runs the risk of a top-heavy team (as the Movistar of next year looks to be, with a drastic downturn in the domestiques coinciding with adding Landa to the two existing blockbuster leaders - as maintaining a position at the very top on a mid-table budget looks to catch up with them), and teams perhaps unable to ride at a super-controlling pace due to their strength in depth all season long.

The issue would then be that it opens the transfer market up to various in-season trading where a team needs to open up cap space for purchases they want to make. Riders might have to be cut or waived to open up salary cap space, and picked up off waivers into the season when injuries and illnesses hit (a bit like IR works in American sports). A lot of these things happen to an extent anyway, but would become much more major players in the way teams do business than the occasional cut-price option in the market thanks to a team falling apart, the most notable example being how Sky picked up Christian Knees from the ashes of the Pegasus debacle and have turned him from being a middling Classics rider to one of their domestiques of choice for several years.
User avatar Libertine Seguros
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,919
Joined: 20 Feb 2010 11:54
Location: Land of Saíz

11 Sep 2017 10:00

Excellent thread.

My opinion flatly contradicts my favoured political-economy (which is very egalitarian). In that, I see pro-cycling as expressive of a genuine unfettered capitalism; it is for that reason, dysfunctional, anarchic, unfair/unjust and hugely governed by the worst kinds of self-interest. As a spectator watching a sport - this is actually a rather interesting concoction, and that includes the clinic issues which are part of the unfairness/injustice.

So I think: let it all be. Let the Murdoch/Sky/GB/Froome play out. Let the Russian oligarchs come and go. Let the Lemond/Hinault/Tapie $$$ fly. It's all part of the very fabric of the sport - which is, let's be frank, only a very little bit about sport.
User avatar The Hegelian
Member
 
Posts: 573
Joined: 06 Jul 2014 09:18

11 Sep 2017 10:09

Well if you cap teams total wage expenditure, you would have to cap it to that of the poorest team in Pro Tour, otherwise you don't have teams below the cap, so you won't be able to pay Froome 4M anyway and his salary will be indirectly capped lower. e.g. If Bora wanted to employ Froome last year ALL of their entire team budget would be Froome's 4M wage, so you would have to detrimentally cap total team budget too. That's the only way to maintain rider value in my opinion. Capping salary when cyclists are paid so poorly just seems a bit daft. Nobody's ever said it when Peugeot, Molteni, Mapei, Faema, Banesto, USPostal, KAS were dominating like Sky, so why the change needed now? The difference in team budgets between top and bottom ranked teams haven't really changed in the last 50 years as far as I'm aware?
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 979
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re: Financial Fair Play

11 Sep 2017 12:19

samhocking wrote:British Cycling staff, even from day one invoice Tour Racing Ltd to an agreed Service Level Agreement Libertine based on what riders are OWCP or not. The Delloite investigation didn't find any conflicts, but did advise the SLA was extended to define the exact roles of dual staff supporting British pro tour riders who are Lottery-funded, British pro tour riders who are not Lottery-funded, and foreign pro tour riders on Team Sky so accounts could be paid according to the riders lottery funding or not. Since 2011 it's very clear-cut and you certainly couldn't have say Landa going to Manchester for free BC specialist treatment, Sky would be paying for that according to Tour Racing Ltd's SLA with BC, no different than any Pro tour team having an SLA with a private company or National body.
The following riders are lottery funded this year and would not have to pay to use any British Cycling resources even those that are not Sky riders.

Owain Doull (Sky)
Chris Froome (Sky)
Dan McLay (Bretagne–Séché Environnement)
Luke Rowe (Sky)
Ian Stannard (Sky)
Ben Swift (UAE)
Geraint Thomas (Sky)
Scott Thwaites (Dimension Data)

So, when Cavendish, not lottery funded needs to use British Cycling resources this year, either he pays for it personally now, or Dimension Data do. However, his team mate Scott Thwaites gets it free because he's on the OWCP even though not a Sky rider. The existing arrangement betwen British riders and British Cycling benefits other teams too, so it's not exactly a close relationship between Sky & British Cycling. All teams have free BC access and rider support if they employ a OWCP rider.

<snipped for brevity>


Got a link to this information?
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,986
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: Financial Fair Play

11 Sep 2017 12:44

Benotti69 wrote:
samhocking wrote:British Cycling staff, even from day one invoice Tour Racing Ltd to an agreed Service Level Agreement Libertine based on what riders are OWCP or not. The Delloite investigation didn't find any conflicts, but did advise the SLA was extended to define the exact roles of dual staff supporting British pro tour riders who are Lottery-funded, British pro tour riders who are not Lottery-funded, and foreign pro tour riders on Team Sky so accounts could be paid according to the riders lottery funding or not. Since 2011 it's very clear-cut and you certainly couldn't have say Landa going to Manchester for free BC specialist treatment, Sky would be paying for that according to Tour Racing Ltd's SLA with BC, no different than any Pro tour team having an SLA with a private company or National body.
The following riders are lottery funded this year and would not have to pay to use any British Cycling resources even those that are not Sky riders.

Owain Doull (Sky)
Chris Froome (Sky)
Dan McLay (Bretagne–Séché Environnement)
Luke Rowe (Sky)
Ian Stannard (Sky)
Ben Swift (UAE)
Geraint Thomas (Sky)
Scott Thwaites (Dimension Data)

So, when Cavendish, not lottery funded needs to use British Cycling resources this year, either he pays for it personally now, or Dimension Data do. However, his team mate Scott Thwaites gets it free because he's on the OWCP even though not a Sky rider. The existing arrangement betwen British riders and British Cycling benefits other teams too, so it's not exactly a close relationship between Sky & British Cycling. All teams have free BC access and rider support if they employ a OWCP rider.

<snipped for brevity>


Got a link to this information?


The bit about lottery sponsored riders is 100% spot on - I am unsure of some of the stuff in the first paragraph - Better that you research it yourself instead of asking for a link.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,950
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re: Financial Fair Play

11 Sep 2017 13:23

The OWCP riders change and are published each year/ Olympic cycle by UKSport & BC so I just copied and pasted that part from a members email, but there's no secret if you're a British pro tour rider on the OWCP program, you have free access to everything at British Cycling no matter what pro tour team you're on and it's free to that rider as a drop-in service between racing commercially. For riders not in the OWCP (has been cut from 16 to 8 pro riders) like Cavendish or Stannard they can still use British Cycling services under what UKSport now call the Elite Affiliate Programme I believe designed to manage their exit because clearly riders like Cavendish & Stannard have their entire coaching, medical and sports history at BC more or less and so this needs to be managed with their teams to take over instead of BC or to continue it.

In terms of the SLA between those OWCP riders in other teams, of course I don't have that agreement, but if you follow those riders, they're in and out of Manchester, especially if injured and recovering, but will be at the BC training camps, many still use BC Coaches within the season and in their build up for the Worlds each year and Olympics despite on different teams.

In terms of the SLA payments from TRLtd to BC, there was no financial conflicts raised in Deloitte report as far as I know. The main conflict, was non-Sky riders thought the OWCP riders were at an advantage if Sky riders and the non-Sky BC staff resented those working with Sky who they thought had more staffing resources being in both camps at once.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 979
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re: Financial Fair Play

11 Sep 2017 14:32

samhocking wrote:The OWCP riders change and are published each year/ Olympic cycle by UKSport & BC so I just copied and pasted that part from a members email, but there's no secret if you're a British pro tour rider on the OWCP program, you have free access to everything at British Cycling no matter what pro tour team you're on and it's free to that rider as a drop-in service between racing commercially. For riders not in the OWCP (has been cut from 16 to 8 pro riders) like Cavendish or Stannard they can still use British Cycling services under what UKSport now call the Elite Affiliate Programme I believe designed to manage their exit because clearly riders like Cavendish & Stannard have their entire coaching, medical and sports history at BC more or less and so this needs to be managed with their teams to take over instead of BC or to continue it.

In terms of the SLA between those OWCP riders in other teams, of course I don't have that agreement, but if you follow those riders, they're in and out of Manchester, especially if injured and recovering, but will be at the BC training camps, many still use BC Coaches within the season and in their build up for the Worlds each year and Olympics despite on different teams.

In terms of the SLA payments from TRLtd to BC, there was no financial conflicts raised in Deloitte report as far as I know. The main conflict, was non-Sky riders thought the OWCP riders were at an advantage if Sky riders and the non-Sky BC staff resented those working with Sky who they thought had more staffing resources being in both camps at once.


I asked for a link. When you are ready and in your own time.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,986
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: Financial Fair Play

11 Sep 2017 14:59

samhocking wrote:Anyway, back to capping salary, The Cycling Podcast discuss this a bit recently and points out like any successful team over the decades, Sky's sponsorship only increases because of the successes ticked the box of whatever the teams and sponsors objectives met were the previous season. After that success and following increase in revenue from the sponsors, and only after that success will the stronger riders come to support the best riders and be affordable to the team to make that offer.
On this the Cycling Podcast is wrong, suffering from a failure to understand the fundamentals of the cycling 'economy.' What they say is correct if you are dealing with a text-book model of a team with a commercial backer and the commercial backer wanting a bang for their buck. This was the model cycling had in the days of Peugeot and Alcyon. But then the bicycle industry went bust and we turned to extra-sportif sponsors. Some of those sponsors came into the sport on the back of 'proper' commercial decisions, cycling was a marketing opportunity and they wanted a measurable bang for their buck. But others didn't. The sugar daddies arrived. Take, for example, KAS and the Knörr family. Papi Knörr, he was a cycling fan. He was putting money into a passion project. He wasn't making rational economic decisions, he didn't need a bang for his buck: his bang was how it made him feel, not how much extra product KAS sold. So his sponsorship moved with his moods. And left when he died: the family didn't share his passion. We can see the same in Italy: businessmen who grew up listening to the exploits of Coppi and Bartali on the radio and felt the urge to give something back, or to try and recreate the happiness of their childhood. And we still have this: I challenge anyone to say BMC is about rational economic decision making. It isn't. A few years ago they went through that superannuated vanity signings phase, splashing the cash and getting no return. Across the 18 WT level squads, I think you would struggle to group three together as having the same 'model': some only need a little local success to keep a sponsor happy, some get away with a narrative and a bit of air-time, only a few - a very small few - appear to have commercial backers who would take to the hills if the wins weren't coming in. There is no one-size-fits-all funding model in cycling and we need to realise that, otherwise we are coming up with solutions to the wrong problem.
Last edited by fmk_RoI on 11 Sep 2017 15:49, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,775
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Financial Fair Play

11 Sep 2017 15:01

samhocking wrote:If we took say Froome's 4M and Nibali's 2.5M salaries they reportedly earn this year and cap them both to a maximum of say 1M, that then means both Sky & Katusha (Assume Martin is around 1M already) are spending roughly the same on total capped rider and staff wages from an identical budget of around 31M.
As Libertine said, this is not the way a salary cap works. A salary cap limits total spending, not the spend on individuals. More on this below.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,775
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re:

11 Sep 2017 15:04

Libertine Seguros wrote:The issue would then be that it opens the transfer market up to various in-season trading where a team needs to open up cap space for purchases they want to make. Riders might have to be cut or waived to open up salary cap space, and picked up off waivers into the season when injuries and illnesses hit (a bit like IR works in American sports). A lot of these things happen to an extent anyway, but would become much more major players in the way teams do business than the occasional cut-price option in the market thanks to a team falling apart, the most notable example being how Sky picked up Christian Knees from the ashes of the Pegasus debacle and have turned him from being a middling Classics rider to one of their domestiques of choice for several years.
This is an important point to think about. JV, Tinkov, Verbruggen, they've all spoken out in favour of the cap, but the cap is just one part of their glorious reform project. And a major part of that project involves monetising rider contracts: creating a transfer market.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,775
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re:

11 Sep 2017 15:08

The Hegelian wrote:My opinion flatly contradicts my favoured political-economy (which is very egalitarian). In that, I see pro-cycling as expressive of a genuine unfettered capitalism; it is for that reason, dysfunctional, anarchic, unfair/unjust and hugely governed by the worst kinds of self-interest. As a spectator watching a sport - this is actually a rather interesting concoction, and that includes the clinic issues which are part of the unfairness/injustice.
Actually, cycling isn't quite unfettered capitalism and has quite a but of socialism in it already. We have minimum salaries, which protect both the (financially) weak riders at WT level and try and keep the gap between WT and Pro-Conti manageable. We have limited revenue sharing, in the form of prize money and appearance money minimums. At the moment, we are concerned with protecting the weak from the excesses of capitalism. The salary cap, the franchises for life, the transfer market, that's all about protecting the strong from the excesses of capitalism.
Last edited by fmk_RoI on 11 Sep 2017 15:51, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,775
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Financial Fair Play

11 Sep 2017 15:21

yaco wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:
samhocking wrote:British Cycling staff, even from day one invoice Tour Racing Ltd to an agreed Service Level Agreement Libertine based on what riders are OWCP or not. The Delloite investigation didn't find any conflicts, but did advise the SLA was extended to define the exact roles of dual staff supporting British pro tour riders who are Lottery-funded, British pro tour riders who are not Lottery-funded, and foreign pro tour riders on Team Sky so accounts could be paid according to the riders lottery funding or not. Since 2011 it's very clear-cut and you certainly couldn't have say Landa going to Manchester for free BC specialist treatment, Sky would be paying for that according to Tour Racing Ltd's SLA with BC, no different than any Pro tour team having an SLA with a private company or National body.
The following riders are lottery funded this year and would not have to pay to use any British Cycling resources even those that are not Sky riders.

Owain Doull (Sky)
Chris Froome (Sky)
Dan McLay (Bretagne–Séché Environnement)
Luke Rowe (Sky)
Ian Stannard (Sky)
Ben Swift (UAE)
Geraint Thomas (Sky)
Scott Thwaites (Dimension Data)

So, when Cavendish, not lottery funded needs to use British Cycling resources this year, either he pays for it personally now, or Dimension Data do. However, his team mate Scott Thwaites gets it free because he's on the OWCP even though not a Sky rider. The existing arrangement betwen British riders and British Cycling benefits other teams too, so it's not exactly a close relationship between Sky & British Cycling. All teams have free BC access and rider support if they employ a OWCP rider.

<snipped for brevity>


Got a link to this information?


The bit about lottery sponsored riders is 100% spot on - I am unsure of some of the stuff in the first paragraph - Better that you research it yourself instead of asking for a link.

If someone posts something along the lines that SH has then asking for a link is fairly standard in any discussion. Suggesting people go digging around for sources that another poster likely has or can link to very quickly is, frankly, bizzare.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Moderator
 
Posts: 6,336
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re:

11 Sep 2017 15:24

samhocking wrote:Well if you cap teams total wage expenditure, you would have to cap it to that of the poorest team in Pro Tour
Let's think about the consequences of this for a moment. Set the cap at the lowest level - let's say the lowest WT budget is €10m, rider salaries are circa 70% of expenditure, therefore the cap is €7m - and what happens? Overall, salaries fall. Is that a win, is that the intended consequence? Actually, no, it isn't. The salary cap backed by JV, by Tinkov, by Verbruggen, it's about controlling the temperature of the rider market, stopping it boiling over and teams getting burned. JV himself has been clear: any cap will rise over time. (His belief is that over time the pot will grow in size and so more heat can be applied without it boiling over.) So pulling down current salaries, that's not what's wanted. But, you will say, it is. By whom? Would the CPA - the riders' union - want it? My understanding is they've already nixed the notion of a budget cap in the current attempts at WT reform. I can't see them voting for a measure that sees their members having to take massive pay cuts. But let's for a moment imagine that either we can get CPA buy-in or find away to do this without their buy-in. What happens then? What happens then is someone funds a test case and blows the whole thing out of the water in Europe. The EU will allow a cap, that I think most observers seem to agree on. But the EU will throw a wobbly at a cap that is set so low it punishes riders (set the cap too low and you could even see an American court throwing a hissy fit and saying the thing is anti-competitive). So, long story short, the cap will not be set based on the spending of the smallest team. As in all of these situations, it will be set at the spending of the largest team.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,775
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Financial Fair Play

11 Sep 2017 16:58

Benotti69 wrote:
samhocking wrote:The OWCP riders change and are published each year/ Olympic cycle by UKSport & BC so I just copied and pasted that part from a members email, but there's no secret if you're a British pro tour rider on the OWCP program, you have free access to everything at British Cycling no matter what pro tour team you're on and it's free to that rider as a drop-in service between racing commercially. For riders not in the OWCP (has been cut from 16 to 8 pro riders) like Cavendish or Stannard they can still use British Cycling services under what UKSport now call the Elite Affiliate Programme I believe designed to manage their exit because clearly riders like Cavendish & Stannard have their entire coaching, medical and sports history at BC more or less and so this needs to be managed with their teams to take over instead of BC or to continue it.

In terms of the SLA between those OWCP riders in other teams, of course I don't have that agreement, but if you follow those riders, they're in and out of Manchester, especially if injured and recovering, but will be at the BC training camps, many still use BC Coaches within the season and in their build up for the Worlds each year and Olympics despite on different teams.

In terms of the SLA payments from TRLtd to BC, there was no financial conflicts raised in Deloitte report as far as I know. The main conflict, was non-Sky riders thought the OWCP riders were at an advantage if Sky riders and the non-Sky BC staff resented those working with Sky who they thought had more staffing resources being in both camps at once.


I asked for a link. When you are ready and in your own time.


A link to what exactly? There are no financial conflicts between TRLtd & BC as reported pretty clearly by Deloitte and also Phelps and if you want evidence of an SLA, British Cycling invoiced TRLtd £600 for Cope's trip supporting those two reports remember. Phelps did raise concerns that the dual-staffing role of some BC staff was resented by those not, because those with a dual-role were paid extra for their SLA work agreed in their contracts and earned more for the same role essentially. Again evidence that payments for SLA came from TRLtd. If you break down TRLtd's accounts for say 2012, there was iirc over £100K paid to British Cycling.

OWCP list is published by BC & UK Sport to its members and i'm sure it's probably on their website. I just copied the list from the BC email I didn't guess anything.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 979
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re: Re:

11 Sep 2017 17:59

fmk_RoI wrote:
samhocking wrote:Well if you cap teams total wage expenditure, you would have to cap it to that of the poorest team in Pro Tour
Let's think about the consequences of this for a moment. Set the cap at the lowest level - let's say the lowest WT budget is €10m, rider salaries are circa 70% of expenditure, therefore the cap is €7m - and what happens? Overall, salaries fall. Is that a win, is that the intended consequence? Actually, no, it isn't. The salary cap backed by JV, by Tinkov, by Verbruggen, it's about controlling the temperature of the rider market, stopping it boiling over and teams getting burned. JV himself has been clear: any cap will rise over time. (His belief is that over time the pot will grow in size and so more heat can be applied without it boiling over.) So pulling down current salaries, that's not what's wanted. But, you will say, it is. By whom? Would the CPA - the riders' union - want it? My understanding is they've already nixed the notion of a budget cap in the current attempts at WT reform. I can't see them voting for a measure that sees their members having to take massive pay cuts. But let's for a moment imagine that either we can get CPA buy-in or find away to do this without their buy-in. What happens then? What happens then is someone funds a test case and blows the whole thing out of the water in Europe. The EU will allow a cap, that I think most observers seem to agree on. But the EU will throw a wobbly at a cap that is set so low it punishes riders (set the cap too low and you could even see an American court throwing a hissy fit and saying the thing is anti-competitive). So, long story short, the cap will not be set based on the spending of the smallest team. As in all of these situations, it will be set at the spending of the largest team.


So initially a salary cap changes nothing, but over the longer term Froome will not be able to earn more than his 4M even if he and sky achieve more success, but Nibali will be able to earn more even without any improvement in results? Likewise for all the best support riders who are in demand by the best teams. The thing is riders salaries are hardly spiralling out of control. The primary concern of all teams is finding sponsors. Team Sky started on £7M in 2010 iirc. They were well below the budget of 5 other teams far more successful than them at the time. Over time though and with success it increased. For one, Team Sky's staff went from I think 30 permanent and contracting staff to over 100 between 2010 and 2013/14 so much of the increase in sponsorship revenue was not simply rider wages but 70 new staff and contractors. Even on a measly £30K a year that's over £2M alone and doesn't include their expenses travelling all over Europe racing and flying and driving extra vehicles that also need to be bought.

Another important point, is TRLtd are the only team to publish full detailed accounts of all Pro Tour teams. That's not to say other teams are not accurate in their balance, but when there is no detail or breakdown on expenditure I think you have to assume it might well be more than perhaps they accounted for?
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 979
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Avoriaz, Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Norks74 and 24 guests

Back to top