Log in:  

Register

Team Ineos Discussion thread

A place to discuss all things related to current professional road races. Here, you can also touch on the latest news relating to professional road racing. A doping discussion free forum.

Moderators: Eshnar, Irondan, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re: Re:

18 Dec 2018 14:00

GuyIncognito wrote:
del1962 wrote:Andy Murray lives in London


Of course he does. He had the money to leave like everyone desperately wants to.

Anyway, let's not discuss this any further. I assume from the amount of "this post is by a user in your ignore list" messages in here that the topic might have annoyed the resident fried mars bar eater, and I don't want any conflict.

EDIT: fixed the spelling



"Fried mars bar eater"? That's one that I've never heard before.
User avatar Angliru
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,360
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 13:30

18 Dec 2018 14:01

Cool it with the Scotland/England/nationalistic stuff. It is off topic and any further such postings will be deleted and posters banned.

Thank you.
User avatar Susan Westemeyer
Administrator
 
Posts: 8,439
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 14:18
Location: Germany


20 Dec 2018 22:23

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/dec/20/wiggins-warns-cycling-will-suffer-if-team-sky-breaks-up
Sir Bradley Wiggins has warned cycling could take a step backwards if Team Sky close their doors at the end of next season.

Sky, who own and sponsor the team, announced last week they will end their investment in professional cycling at the end of 2019, leaving Sir Dave Brailsford scrambling to find new backing to keep the best-funded team in the sport together.

Wiggins, who became the first Briton to win the Tour de France when racing for Team Sky in 2012, has often been critical of his old employers since leaving in 2015, but said the end of the team would not be good news.

“People need to be careful what they wish for because if Sky go now the sport will be worse off for it,” Wiggins said on talkSPORT.

“(Cycling) won’t disintegrate but it won’t have the profile it has enjoyed now. This day was always going to happen because the sport is so backward in some ways, the people that run it. It’s not corrupt but it’s so backward. There’s no money in the sport.

“Sky brought money but I’m talking about sponsors in general aside from Sky. Rather than be grateful for a company like Sky people just hammered it.”
Anything about Fran Millar goes in The Clinic.
User avatar Robert5091
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,781
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56

Re: Team Sky Discussion thread

20 Dec 2018 23:25

There's a good interview on the cycling podcast with some business guy (forgot his name) about the team sky sponsorship. Essentially saying because of the investment the team put into their commercial development they were able to keep providing a better return for the sponsor and hence kept getting bigger and bigger budgets.

I think people don't appreciate enough the structure that the team built facilitated their own growth and earned the increase in money. As opposed to they grew because of the money.
deValtos
Member
 
Posts: 1,863
Joined: 29 Nov 2010 09:27

Re:

21 Dec 2018 10:17

Robert5091 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/dec/20/wiggins-warns-cycling-will-suffer-if-team-sky-breaks-up
Sir Bradley Wiggins has warned cycling could take a step backwards if Team Sky close their doors at the end of next season.

Sky, who own and sponsor the team, announced last week they will end their investment in professional cycling at the end of 2019, leaving Sir Dave Brailsford scrambling to find new backing to keep the best-funded team in the sport together.

Wiggins, who became the first Briton to win the Tour de France when racing for Team Sky in 2012, has often been critical of his old employers since leaving in 2015, but said the end of the team would not be good news.

“People need to be careful what they wish for because if Sky go now the sport will be worse off for it,” Wiggins said on talkSPORT.

“(Cycling) won’t disintegrate but it won’t have the profile it has enjoyed now. This day was always going to happen because the sport is so backward in some ways, the people that run it. It’s not corrupt but it’s so backward. There’s no money in the sport.

“Sky brought money but I’m talking about sponsors in general aside from Sky. Rather than be grateful for a company like Sky people just hammered it.”

Yeah, since sky entered the sport interest in cycling dropped pretty much in every country except one but sure the sport will lose all it's enormous prestige built up solely by sky.
Seriously the logic why sky was good for the sport is so flawed. If a team makes a sport boring why on earth would it be good for the sport? Why do you think did leagues like the NFL introduce budget caps? When you say dominant teams are a problem in sports like F1 everyone agrees but as soon as you say the same about cycling you are a sky hater and irrational.
User avatar Gigs_98
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,198
Joined: 18 Feb 2015 18:36
Location: Austria

21 Dec 2018 10:45

Wiggins is obviously talking like GB is the only cycling nation in the world.

I'd say the popularity of a sport in a country correlates pretty well with the popularity of it's pro athletes in that sport, and I guess it's mostly the more traditional cycling countries where there's a lot of popularity if there aren't the results to back them up, and those countries kinda flow between their own strong generations and weaker generations.

Sky didn't add much to the equation except money.

Wiggins only reaped the rewards off riding for Sky. Talking about it is his only chance to stay relevant to some degree. He is one of the last guys we should be listening to.
User avatar Red Rick
Administrator
 
Posts: 17,552
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 18:15

21 Dec 2018 11:10

It doesn't matter what you think of Team Sky, when they withdraw pro cycling will be €35 million poorer.

That is equivalent to the entire budgets of QS and Movistar, two major teams, at a time when teams are struggling to find sponsors and some have folded part way through the season.

Again, regardless of what you think of Sky, to claim that they have been inconsequential for pro cycling is nonsense. Never a fan myself, but Wiggins is right.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,625
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re:

21 Dec 2018 11:16

macbindle wrote:It doesn't matter what you think of Team Sky, when they withdraw pro cycling will be €35 million poorer.

That is equivalent to the entire budgets of QS and Movistar, two major teams, at a time when teams are struggling to find sponsors and some have folded part way through the season.

Again, regardless of what you think of Sky, to claim that they have been inconsequential for pro cycling is nonsense. Never a fan myself, but Wiggins is right.

To come back to my previous example. When the NFL decided to make a salary cap there suddenly were millions of dollars less in the sport but the organization did it nonetheless because they knew the sport as a whole would benefit.
User avatar Gigs_98
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,198
Joined: 18 Feb 2015 18:36
Location: Austria

Re:

21 Dec 2018 11:27

macbindle wrote:It doesn't matter what you think of Team Sky, when they withdraw pro cycling will be €35 million poorer.

That is equivalent to the entire budgets of QS and Movistar, two major teams, at a time when teams are struggling to find sponsors and some have folded part way through the season.

Again, regardless of what you think of Sky, to claim that they have been inconsequential for pro cycling is nonsense. Never a fan myself, but Wiggins is right.


not a problem for a sport like Cycling which has always survived as a niche sport for hardcore fans. It managed to survive the post Armstrong era with all its implications, let alone the post-Sky....Spain, Italy, France and Belgium/Ned are still the cornerstones of Cycling and always will provide that amount of riders/viewers/fans able to sustain the entire sport with a bit of help from arab/russian money.

Riders will have to adjust, salaries will probably go down as a result but competition will benefit as others have said already and other new fans will be drawn by the new playing-field.
Last edited by 46&twoWheels on 21 Dec 2018 11:30, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar 46&twoWheels
Member
 
Posts: 406
Joined: 27 Jun 2015 16:16
Location: Italy

21 Dec 2018 11:28

As to whether the sport would benefit depends on what you mean by the 'sport'.

Would it benefit British fans? Almost certainly not.
Would it benefit fans from other countries? Almost certainly yes, for the reasons you give upthread about boring racing.
Would it benefit pro riders? Definitely not.
Would it benefit ancillary staff? Definitely not.
Would it benefit progress in training technology? Many would say not.

As a fan (and a long-time one with an added hatred of all things Newscorp) I'm hopeful for far more mixed up racing. But I do worry about the long-term commercial viability of cycling as a sport.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,625
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re:

21 Dec 2018 11:47

macbindle wrote:As to whether the sport would benefit depends on what you mean by the 'sport'.

Would it benefit British fans? Almost certainly not.
Would it benefit fans from other countries? Almost certainly yes, for the reasons you give upthread about boring racing.
Would it benefit pro riders? Definitely not.
Would it benefit ancillary staff? Definitely not.
Would it benefit progress in training technology? Many would say not.

As a fan (and a long-time one with an added hatred of all things Newscorp) I'm hopeful for far more mixed up racing. But I do worry about the long-term commercial viability of cycling as a sport.

But a sport more than anything else is an entertainment product so the benefit for fans isn't just some minor positive aspect. That's what it comes down to in the long run and more fans are what brings the money to the sport.
User avatar Gigs_98
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,198
Joined: 18 Feb 2015 18:36
Location: Austria

21 Dec 2018 11:54

That is true...
.....but you might be in danger of arguing against yourself here....Sky brought more money to the sport :) Ultimately they also brought a new legion of fans too (annoying ones :D )

I guess it would be interesting to see if, during the last 8 years, pro cycling has grown in terms of revenues and following.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,625
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re: Re:

21 Dec 2018 12:36

Gigs_98 wrote:
macbindle wrote:As to whether the sport would benefit depends on what you mean by the 'sport'.

Would it benefit British fans? Almost certainly not.
Would it benefit fans from other countries? Almost certainly yes, for the reasons you give upthread about boring racing.
Would it benefit pro riders? Definitely not.
Would it benefit ancillary staff? Definitely not.
Would it benefit progress in training technology? Many would say not.

As a fan (and a long-time one with an added hatred of all things Newscorp) I'm hopeful for far more mixed up racing. But I do worry about the long-term commercial viability of cycling as a sport.

But a sport more than anything else is an entertainment product so the benefit for fans isn't just some minor positive aspect. That's what it comes down to in the long run and more fans are what brings the money to the sport.

So... let me guess more riders like Nibali bring more money to the sport than more riders like froome do?
dacooley
Member
 
Posts: 1,705
Joined: 30 May 2015 15:37

Re: Re:

21 Dec 2018 12:43

dacooley wrote:
Gigs_98 wrote:
macbindle wrote:As to whether the sport would benefit depends on what you mean by the 'sport'.

Would it benefit British fans? Almost certainly not.
Would it benefit fans from other countries? Almost certainly yes, for the reasons you give upthread about boring racing.
Would it benefit pro riders? Definitely not.
Would it benefit ancillary staff? Definitely not.
Would it benefit progress in training technology? Many would say not.

As a fan (and a long-time one with an added hatred of all things Newscorp) I'm hopeful for far more mixed up racing. But I do worry about the long-term commercial viability of cycling as a sport.

But a sport more than anything else is an entertainment product so the benefit for fans isn't just some minor positive aspect. That's what it comes down to in the long run and more fans are what brings the money to the sport.

So... let me guess more riders like Nibali bring more money to the sport than more riders like froome do?


I´d say Nibali fans here in Italy, and cycling fans in general have always been a lot. juts think about the boom cyclind in UK thanks to Sky. hundred thousands people. riding and following and filling the streets and velodromes
pastronef
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,415
Joined: 19 Aug 2011 08:25
Location: Italia

Re: Re:

21 Dec 2018 14:04

dacooley wrote:
Gigs_98 wrote:
macbindle wrote:As to whether the sport would benefit depends on what you mean by the 'sport'.

Would it benefit British fans? Almost certainly not.
Would it benefit fans from other countries? Almost certainly yes, for the reasons you give upthread about boring racing.
Would it benefit pro riders? Definitely not.
Would it benefit ancillary staff? Definitely not.
Would it benefit progress in training technology? Many would say not.

As a fan (and a long-time one with an added hatred of all things Newscorp) I'm hopeful for far more mixed up racing. But I do worry about the long-term commercial viability of cycling as a sport.

But a sport more than anything else is an entertainment product so the benefit for fans isn't just some minor positive aspect. That's what it comes down to in the long run and more fans are what brings the money to the sport.

So... let me guess more riders like Nibali bring more money to the sport than more riders like froome do?

I'm not talking about riders like Froome I'm talking about teams like Sky. If Froome wins his tours for any other team there would still be hype in Britain but maybe racing wouldn't have been so controlled and the global interest for cycling therefore be higher. And that's the important point, you don't need a team like sky to create a hype. Someone will win the tour de france anyway and people in the winner's country will go mad anyway. But it seems like some people think Britain has reserved the right for creating a hype for themselves. If the next tour de france dominator comes from Germany the exact same thing that happened in Britain will suddenly happen in Germany and if after that the next tour dominator comes from Japan the same kind of hype will appear in Japan and on and on it goes. I'm not doubting that team sky folding will have a negative impact on cycling in Britain but so what? Are we supposed to reserve the top spot of the tdf podium for Britain so the Brits don't stop watching the Tour? Cycling will continue and I think globally team sky leaving the sport will rather lead to more interest in the sport than the opposite.
User avatar Gigs_98
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,198
Joined: 18 Feb 2015 18:36
Location: Austria

Re: Re:

21 Dec 2018 14:26

Gigs_98 wrote:
dacooley wrote:
Gigs_98 wrote:
macbindle wrote:As to whether the sport would benefit depends on what you mean by the 'sport'.

Would it benefit British fans? Almost certainly not.
Would it benefit fans from other countries? Almost certainly yes, for the reasons you give upthread about boring racing.
Would it benefit pro riders? Definitely not.
Would it benefit ancillary staff? Definitely not.
Would it benefit progress in training technology? Many would say not.

As a fan (and a long-time one with an added hatred of all things Newscorp) I'm hopeful for far more mixed up racing. But I do worry about the long-term commercial viability of cycling as a sport.

But a sport more than anything else is an entertainment product so the benefit for fans isn't just some minor positive aspect. That's what it comes down to in the long run and more fans are what brings the money to the sport.

So... let me guess more riders like Nibali bring more money to the sport than more riders like froome do?

I'm not talking about riders like Froome I'm talking about teams like Sky. If Froome wins his tours for any other team there would still be hype in Britain but maybe racing wouldn't have been so controlled and the global interest for cycling therefore be higher. And that's the important point, you don't need a team like sky to create a hype. Someone will win the tour de france anyway and people in the winner's country will go mad anyway. But it seems like some people think Britain has reserved the right for creating a hype for themselves. If the next tour de france dominator comes from Germany the exact same thing that happened in Britain will suddenly happen in Germany and if after that the next tour dominator comes from Japan the same kind of hype will appear in Japan and on and on it goes. I'm not doubting that team sky folding will have a negative impact on cycling in Britain but so what? Are we supposed to reserve the top spot of the tdf podium for Britain so the Brits don't stop watching the Tour? Cycling will continue and I think globally team sky leaving the sport will rather lead to more interest in the sport than the opposite.


That is a bit of a straw man. Nobody is suggesting that the British have a right to podium the TdF. They have dominated it since '12, with British riders on a British team, but those days are over. Sitting here in the UK I don't see much wailing going on, anywhere. British people are pretty sanguine when it comes to sporting victory as they understand its ephemeral nature.

Easy come, easy go.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,625
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re: Team Sky Discussion thread

21 Dec 2018 14:39

I might have gone over the top there but I know nobody is suggesting that, I was just trying to say that cycling isn't so dependent on the recent british success that there should rather be a dominant british team on top of the podium every year than no dominant team competing at all.
User avatar Gigs_98
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,198
Joined: 18 Feb 2015 18:36
Location: Austria

21 Dec 2018 19:14

The ONLY people Sky's budget brought money into the sport for was Sky employees. No one else. Heck we've seen several teams fold since Sky has been here. Ratings have dropped everywhere except for GB. Thus Sky is actually bad for the sport. The big difference between ratings dropping outside the US during US Postal/Lance era and the ratings dropping outside GB during the Sky/Froome era is simply the market size. The US market during that era could make up for the ratings dropping in all other countries due to the sheer size and population of the US. GB cannot make up for that ratings drop. Also the budgets of other teams in the peloton have NOT increased due to Sky's presence. Thus it has NOT helped riders who are not employed by Sky. Heck, Landa has talked about the fact that he took a very large pay cut to leave Sky. He could have stayed at Sky and at his currently salary or an increased salary, but he choose to go to Movistar for a much reduced salary.
User avatar Koronin
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,409
Joined: 14 Oct 2017 01:42
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re:

21 Dec 2018 20:32

macbindle wrote:As to whether the sport would benefit depends on what you mean by the 'sport'.

Would it benefit British fans? Almost certainly not.
Would it benefit fans from other countries? Almost certainly yes, for the reasons you give upthread about boring racing.
Would it benefit pro riders? Definitely not.
Would it benefit ancillary staff? Definitely not.
Would it benefit progress in training technology? Many would say not.

As a fan (and a long-time one with an added hatred of all things Newscorp) I'm hopeful for far more mixed up racing. But I do worry about the long-term commercial viability of cycling as a sport.

Actually, there's a decent case that it would benefit pro riders. Not just in that you'd have more even matchups that increase the evenness of prize money, but in other ways too. Without a single overarching, overpowered team bogarting large amounts of the prize money and TV time in the biggest profile events, opportunities to gain sponsor airtime, prize money and coverage for other teams increase manifold. Not just because you'd have more teams able to fight at the front rather than everybody sitting in line behind the controlling team, but you'd see the leaders fighting head to head for more of the stage with fewer superdomestiques being lined up in the same team, plus you'd have more stages liable to be left to the breakaway, and there would be the possibility of a return to currency of the old tactic which we saw in the Vuelta for the first time in years, of shipping the jersey to an unthreatening breakaway because you don't want to expend your energy defending it - which means smaller teams have more reason to continue to fight deep into the race, attack aggressively in breaks and pursue secondary classifications for the TV time it achieves. When one team waits until the sprinters' days are over, then takes the lead in either the first long TT or the first mountain and then holds it for two weeks comfortably, that isn't an option. If more teams are getting more airtime, and their riders have more chances to achieve something visible or win more prize money in the highest-exposure events, then their earning potential increases.

Yes, Sky leaving leaves a huge financial hole in the total sponsorship income of the sport, but it's not like that budget was a big financial windfall spread across teams - it was all invested in the one team. It's pure Supply Side Jesus fallacy to argue that that is automatically good for the sport because the total amount of money invested was higher - "look, Pilate! Average income is going up!"
User avatar Libertine Seguros
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,092
Joined: 20 Feb 2010 11:54
Location: Land of Saíz

PreviousNext

Return to Professional road racing

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Asero831, claude cat, Google [Bot], JosephK, Koronin and 36 guests

Back to top