The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Isn't the imporant point that Sky's income is now split between too non-linked companies, Comcast (picking up the lion's share of the bill, £21.5m in 2017) and Disney (the new owners of 21st Century Fox, who chipped in £3.8m in 2017)?King Boonen said:While it's hard to quantify, ROI in cycling is usually quoted as very high. Team Sky's budget has, in the past, been about 2% of total marketing spend. That's likely to reduce now. If anything they ay get a higher budget to sure up the GT wins.
fmk_RoI said:Isn't the imporant point that Sky's income is now split between too non-linked companies, Comcast (picking up the lion's share of the bill, £21.5m in 2017) and Disney (the new owners of 21st Century Fox, who chipped in £3.8m in 2017)?King Boonen said:While it's hard to quantify, ROI in cycling is usually quoted as very high. Team Sky's budget has, in the past, been about 2% of total marketing spend. That's likely to reduce now. If anything they ay get a higher budget to sure up the GT wins.
The notion that Sky signing riders for 100-year contracts or whatever means they have a solid golid sponsorship deal for that period doesn't wash. Brailsford should be fairly confident that, should Comcast and/or Disney walk, he'll first of all have notice and second of all little difficult signing up another megacorp (maybe even Tesla, if the rumour about James Murdoch taking over from Elon Musk turns out not to be the load of nonsense it looks like). He's not going to hold back investing in the future while he waits for sponsorship contracts to be signed. That would be silly.
The 2017 accounts show the ownership as 85% Sky (now Comcast) and 15% 21st Century Fox (now Disney).MatParker117 said:Comcast own the team so Disney will likely back out with various Universal films replacing Fox on the rears of Sky riders.
fmk_RoI said:Isn't the imporant point that Sky's income is now split between too non-linked companies, Comcast (picking up the lion's share of the bill, £21.5m in 2017) and Disney (the new owners of 21st Century Fox, who chipped in £3.8m in 2017)?King Boonen said:While it's hard to quantify, ROI in cycling is usually quoted as very high. Team Sky's budget has, in the past, been about 2% of total marketing spend. That's likely to reduce now. If anything they ay get a higher budget to sure up the GT wins.
The notion that Sky signing riders for 100-year contracts or whatever means they have a solid golid sponsorship deal for that period doesn't wash. Brailsford should be fairly confident that, should Comcast and/or Disney walk, he'll first of all have notice and second of all little difficult signing up another megacorp (maybe even Tesla, if the rumour about James Murdoch taking over from Elon Musk turns out not to be the load of nonsense it looks like). He's not going to hold back investing in the future while he waits for sponsorship contracts to be signed. That would be silly.
No, it's pretty much always been split between the different shareholders. Fox have been chipping in since they came onboard in 2013.King Boonen said:Was 2017 the first time it was split?
Comcast doesn't own Sky UK alone but Sky plc (thus all its subsidiaries).samhocking said:Probably worth just viewing Team Sky (TR Ltd) as originally BSkyB (Sky UK), Sky Italia and NewsCorp as the original sponsors who switched various % shares until 2012 when Sky Italia disposed of their 25% to 21st Century Fox and it ended up 60% BSkyB – 40% 21st Century Fox hence the shorts sponsor appearing in 2013.
Then in 2013 iirc 21st Century Fox sold 15% of their shares to Sky UK and it has been 85% Sky UK, 15% 21st Century Fox ever since, although Sky Italia do continued to sponsor a % of the Sky UK money but no longer have any shares in TR Ltd. Sky Italia were not part of Comcasts takeover from what I can tell, although find that hard to believe, so probably are now Comcast too.
Today with Comcast, really all that's happened is Sky UK is now a subsidiary of Comcast instead of Sky PLC and 21st Century Fox (NewsCorp, now Disney) retains 15% shares as secondary sponsor with Comcast's 85%. Really nothing has changed or needs to change.
It's incisive observations like that that I come to this place for. It's vitally important to know that a wholly owned subsidiary is owned by its ultimate parent company.Nirvana said:Comcast doesn't own Sky UK alone but Sky plc (thus all its subsidiaries).
Well, actually, that's not really all, now is it? The decision making process has changed. Whereas before Darroch and Murdoch Minor could agree something over a nice brandy and a chat or whatever, it's no longer two mates deciding on who picks up how much of the tab, with Murdoch Minor out of the picture and Eisner in it's entirely spearate businesses.samhocking said:Today with Comcast, really all that's happened is Sky UK is now a subsidiary of Comcast instead of Sky PLC and 21st Century Fox (NewsCorp, now Disney) retains 15% shares as secondary sponsor with Comcast's 85%. Really nothing has changed or needs to change.
Sam, I do appreciate that you like to deliberately misrepresent what people say, but I'm sure you're not doing that here. In which case let me suggest that you go back and read my actual comments before hurling another pile of percentage laden nonsense at me. TIA.samhocking said:Maybe, but it would be a guess only in my opinion.
Team Sky and before that British Cycling's business relationship has always been between Brailsford & Jeremy Darroch who is CEO of Sky UK Ltd (BSkyB), but it was James Murdoch being a keen cyclists that created that relationship as far as I'm aware. James Murdoch, until Disney takeover, was CEO of 21st Century Fox & Sky PLC, but 21st Century Fox only have 15% shares in Tour Racing Ltd anyway, so James Murdoch only had 15% influence on the board I would think compared to Jeremy Darroch at Sky UK Ltd? With Disney takeover of 21st Century Fox James Murdoch only resigned as CEO of Sky PLC, he's still CEO of 21st Century Fox so nothing has changed in terms of 21st Century Fox is still James Murdoch @ 15% shares and Sky UK Ltd is still Jeremy Darroch with 85% shares.
I guess Sky PLC's new owner/ceo could now influence Jeremy Darroch's at Sky UK Ltd and their ongoing relationship with Sky, but I read that Comcast is not even changing any staff at Sky UK Ltd, so it would seem they are happy perhaps, at least for now.
You don't actually get any of this, do you? This isn't an act, you actually don't get it, right?samhocking said:I was simply referencing the now, not what is happening in the future or misrepresenting your point. I don;t know, I did say it was my opinion btw ; )
Sky UK LTD regardless have 85% of the shares and I believe 75% voting rights (the other 10% is I assume British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc), so at the very most if Disney don't want their 15% share in TR Ltd after James Murdoch leaves that is not going to affect Jeremy Darroch's 75% say and BSkyB's 10%. As I said, I think unless Jeremy Darroch resigns or Comcast moves the direction of Sky UK Ltd (No sign Sky TV going anywhere different) not much will change out of the existing set-up, just like nothing is changing in Sky TV in UK either.
Dazed and Confused said:To the question: One would hope so.
pastronef said:Dazed and Confused said:To the question: One would hope so.
one of the single name sponsor, long lasting and stable sponsorships, already planning for the future (see Bernal's 5 year contract) and we hope it ends?
do we prefer sponsors coming and going and teams not sure of their future?
Dazed and Confused said:pastronef said:Dazed and Confused said:To the question: One would hope so.
one of the single name sponsor, long lasting and stable sponsorships, already planning for the future (see Bernal's 5 year contract) and we hope it ends?
do we prefer sponsors coming and going and teams not sure of their future?
Let me repeat: I hope so.
MatParker117 said:Dazed and Confused said:pastronef said:Dazed and Confused said:To the question: One would hope so.
one of the single name sponsor, long lasting and stable sponsorships, already planning for the future (see Bernal's 5 year contract) and we hope it ends?
do we prefer sponsors coming and going and teams not sure of their future?
Let me repeat: I hope so.
Why? This is the best run team in the sport.