• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Could Sky sponsorship end?

May 11, 2009
1,301
0
0
Over the years when a company CEO changed occasionally that new CEO ended team sponsorship.
Sky was just taken over by Comcast, a USA company, so do not be surprised if Sky sponsorship of cycling ends or is reduced.
 
Sky don't sponsor Team Sky, they own Team Sky. Given that Team Sky have a bunch of guys on long term contracts, whilst I don't know the T&Cs of those contracts, and whether they can be ended early or not, if Comcast have no interest in cycling, they might still be better of letting the team run until the end of those contracts, and get some value from having to pay them anyway, rather than stop the team and have to pay up a bunch of long term contracts and get nothing for their money. I guess that may change if some clinic related matters mean bad publicity. I guess Team Sky also may see a reduction in some of their other budgets, like on tech and research, though. Just my take on things. Anyway, for the moment, why change a good thing? If Brailsford keeps delivering the TdF, he's going to get exactly what he wants.
 
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.
 
Sky are still operating normally in UK. Don't think that's going to change, just like Sky bidding for Premiership TV rights probably won't either. Essentially nothing has changed apart from where the profits go. The relationship between Brailsford & Sky is though Jeremy Darroch, so unless the board thinks Team Sky is a bad ROI, I don't think much will change unless Sky stop winning of course.
 
Re:

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.
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)?

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.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
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.
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)?

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.

Comcast own the team so Disney will likely back out with various Universal films replacing Fox on the rears of Sky riders.
 
Re: Re:

MatParker117 said:
Comcast own the team so Disney will likely back out with various Universal films replacing Fox on the rears of Sky riders.
The 2017 accounts show the ownership as 85% Sky (now Comcast) and 15% 21st Century Fox (now Disney).

When are you saying Fox sold their stake?
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
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.
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)?

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.

Was 2017 the first time it was split?
 
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.
 
Re:

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.
Comcast doesn't own Sky UK alone but Sky plc (thus all its subsidiaries).
 
Re:

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.
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.
 
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.
 
Re:

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.
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.

I would also suggest you read a newspaper someday: Murdoch Minor is on his way out at Fox, Eisner won that battle.
 
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.
 
Re:

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.
You don't actually get any of this, do you? This isn't an act, you actually don't get it, right?

We're talking about the future, how the change in ownership could - get that, could? - impact the team's financing.

You? God knows what you're talking about. Especially given you're still stuck in a pre-2014 past where there's a company actually called British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc. A world where everything's rosey, as always with you and anything Sky-related.
 
Re:

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?
 
Re: Re:

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.
 
Re: Re:

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.

And that seems to be a problem for some/ a lot of cycling fans. Sky are run like a professional sports team should be run in 2018; some of the others seems to be still in the 20th Century. Yet people would seem to prefer the latter..

Some of you get the sport you deserve....

If the sport was run & promoted properly, then Sky wouldn't be the only 'big money' team; alas that isn't really the case.
 

Latest posts