Financial Fair Play

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

spalco said:
fmk_RoI said:
Back up the bus, buddy. I have not said Sky's wealth is responsible for driving up wages for all other teams too.
Well, I did. I don't know for sure if it's true, but I think it's plausible.
Some evidence for it would be useful. Do you have any? Or is it just a gut feeling?
spalco said:
Exactly who are these fly-by-night sponsors so many say are the problem? AG2R? FDJ? Quick Step? Omega Pharma? Lotto? Movistar? Exactly how long does a sponsor have to stay before they're no longer fly-by-night, forever? Doe people not think that marketing campaigns - which is what cycling sponsorship is all about - come to a natural conclusion, that even the notion of five-to-seven years for these things is long?
Now I'm confused, if you don't think there's a problem, what is this thread about.
Finances.
spalco said:
And the three French WT teams are all more or less publically sponsored.
FDJ is the national lottery, Cofidis is owned by Crédit Mutuel, which is a co-op, and Ag2R I don't easily understand the ownership structure, but it seems also sort of state-run.
I'm not sure the involvement in cycling of these companies is guided by market-principles per se.
Did you read what I wrote about sugar daddies and rational economic decision making or am I going to have to repeat myself, just for you?
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
spalco said:
fmk_RoI said:
Back up the bus, buddy. I have not said Sky's wealth is responsible for driving up wages for all other teams too.
Well, I did. I don't know for sure if it's true, but I think it's plausible.
Some evidence for it would be useful. Do you have any? Or is it just a gut feeling?
It's definitely possible. Sky has more financial clout than anyone else, therefore can offer bigger wages. They also have a track record of success in GTs (as long as it isn't the giro), so also have that attraction to younger cyclists, or even older ones hoping for a Froome transformation. Other teams who may want the likes of De La Cruz (who could only have moved to sky for the money - he isn't getting leadership at any point with Thomas, Poels and Froome all above him in the pecking order, and Sivakov and Bernal coming up through the ranks - not to mention whatever Moscon is) have to offer more money than Sky, or at least more money than before. It always happens in every sport: big money comes in, other teams need big money to compete with said team for athletes so wages increase and increase, like in football. Nobody even ten years ago could have seen Neymar earning 30+ million a year (post tax). So it is extremely likely a similar thing has happened in cycling, although not solely down to sky.
 
Re: Re:

Brullnux said:
fmk_RoI said:
spalco said:
fmk_RoI said:
Back up the bus, buddy. I have not said Sky's wealth is responsible for driving up wages for all other teams too.
Well, I did. I don't know for sure if it's true, but I think it's plausible.
Some evidence for it would be useful. Do you have any? Or is it just a gut feeling?
It's definitely possible.
Was there big money in the sport before Sky? If you read carefully you'll see reference to this issue commencing in the 1980s and going on since. Was there wage inflation before Sky? Yes, there was. Clearly, then, Sky cannot be accused of having caused wage inflation, can they? Has wage inflation accelerated since Sky arrived? Produce the evidence. Are Sky the only Daddy Moneybags playing this game? How many times do I have to ask if you've read what was said about sugar daddies? If wage inflation has increased since Sky arrived, could there be other explanations? Indubitably: in the same way some have a gut reaction Sky is a problem, others said Oleg Tinkov's Peter Sagan / Alberto Contador man crushes were the real problem.

Too much of the debate about cycling's finances is built on guesses, hunches, gut feeling, utter bollix. The fly-by-night sponsors. the bogeyman du jour (Sky, Tinkov, Tapie), TV revenue that - if shared - would pay for what, a couple of spare wheels for the team bus? A little bit of evidence in support of these claims, is that really too much to ask for?
 
On the issue of wage inflation, with an important point in bold, the Gospel according to JV:
"You have to understand that as part of any financial plan or fairness you need to increase the wages of the workers in cycling. The wage inflation in cycling, that has pushed budgets up, concerns maybe for the top 15 riders in the world. Example, Peter Sagan’s contract is roughly five million Euro a year, that’s twice as much of what Lance Armstrong was earning. I was talking to an ex-teammate a while ago and he was a solid domestique and he was being paid 90K a year back in the 2000s. That’s what a good worker is being paid now. So the upper crust of riders their values have tripled and everyone else has seen their worth stagnate. This has to change, we have to value the efforts of the workers in cycling more. Budget caps would give protection and stability to teams and their riders. And as the sport grows, we increase the amount of the caps. It's not about limitation; it's about financial fairness."
Is he right?
 
Aug 19, 2009
588
0
0
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Financial fair play means financial fair play. If you want to argue financial fair play means the UEFA model, well have a go. If you want to argue it means giving away all TV income, go for it. If you want to argue financial fair play involves spending caps or other budgetary restrictions the floor is yours. If you want to say it means dial back the clock to Desgrange's method of centrally provided bikes, food and water, please, make me smile. If you want to say financial fair play means going full communist with centrally provided coaches and shared dorms, let's hear the argument. If you want others to share your belief it means unfettered capitalism with no rules - no minimum pay, no spending restrictions - convince them with your argument.
I don't want to argue that It means the UEFA model. You asked if we thought the financial fair play would work in cycling. I had to look the term up, and make a guess as to what you meant.

But, thank you for clarifying that financial fair play means financial fair play, and that we can define it how ever we'd like.

At that, I'll leave the discussion.
 
Re: Re:

Bag_O_Wallet said:
You asked if we thought the financial fair play would work in cycling. I had to look the term up, and make a guess as to what you meant.
What I don't understand is how anyone who has gone to the bother of reading what UEFA's Financial Fair Play is all about could possibly think it related to cycling. They're trying to solve a problem of clubs being over-leveraged. Which is not an issue in cycling, given borrowing doesn't happen.
 
Jul 5, 2009
1,733
2
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Bag_O_Wallet said:
You asked if we thought the financial fair play would work in cycling. I had to look the term up, and make a guess as to what you meant.
What I don't understand is how anyone who has gone to the bother of reading what UEFA's Financial Fair Play is all about could possibly think it related to cycling. They're trying to solve a problem of clubs being over-leveraged. Which is not an issue in cycling, given borrowing doesn't happen.
You're comparing apples and elephants for even bringing it up.

The financial situation of club based sports is tied to the fact that they own the venue. They charge for entry, refreshments, parking, merch, etc and the game is played in their arena. Sponsors are just icing. The owners can get together and sort out the rules. That's hockey, football, basketball, etc. Not hard to see why they're the big money.

Then you have low infrastructure, individual sports like golf, tennis, and possibly athletics. It's all about the individual and the venue. If you own an event, you get most of the benefits of the club based sports above, and there's the bonus that it's individuals participating that don't require additional overhead. Heroes can be created at will and that's pure marketing gold.

Cycling? It's pretty unique. The event owners are king. Without them there is no sport, especially because they have to organize the very public venue and take on all the risks. A football game requires a flat pitch and some bleachers. Even a weekly local crit takes road closures that require organizing at various levels of government. The organizers also can't charge admission from the fans or sell t-shirts and beer. So what have they got? The occasional sponsor and TV rights. They take all the risk and put on the show. They are the ones who make and keep the meager revenues.

Team sponsorship in this model is bonkers. The only thing a sponsor gets is a bit of air time if one of their riders is at the pointy bit of a race. Not exactly lucrative unless you make bikes or related gear. Plus the overhead! All that staff that you have to shift around the globe. So yeah, sugar daddies abound. The rest is just chaos that will ebb and flow. The economics suck if you have a team and there's no fixing it.

Change? The only real way to change this is to change the model. Let teams/organizations buy and create venues similar to the Nurburgring race track. A technical, challenging loop that is analogous to a stadium. Each team owns one and you build a season around teams visiting each others' course. You could still have multi-day events based on "touring" multiple venues. Heck, each team could even own multiple venues.

John Swanson
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
fmk_RoI said:
Bag_O_Wallet said:
You asked if we thought the financial fair play would work in cycling. I had to look the term up, and make a guess as to what you meant.
What I don't understand is how anyone who has gone to the bother of reading what UEFA's Financial Fair Play is all about could possibly think it related to cycling. They're trying to solve a problem of clubs being over-leveraged. Which is not an issue in cycling, given borrowing doesn't happen.
You're comparing apples and elephants for even bringing it up.
And yet plenty of people here seem to have brought it up. It makes you wonder, doesn't it? If financial ignorance is this bad, how can you expect to have a serious discussion about this topic?
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
The organizers also can't charge admission from the fans or sell t-shirts and beer. So what have they got? The occasional sponsor and TV rights. They take all the risk and put on the show. They are the ones who make and keep the meager revenues.
Do you think we could possibly park this nonsense at this stage? They can. In Flanders they even do. While I haven't checked, I presume it cost money to buy a ticket to get into the velodromes used by Tour and Vuelta this year. How much does a VIP ticket to the Champs-Élysées cost? On the t-shirts and merchandising, it's only a few years since one team manger was moaning how he can't sell replica kit from the team bus because ASO have already sold the licence for that. People seem to be blind to the many ways cycling directly raises revenue from fans.
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
Change? The only real way to change this is to change the model. Let teams/organizations buy and create venues similar to the Nurburgring race track. A technical, challenging loop that is analogous to a stadium. Each team owns one and you build a season around teams visiting each others' course. You could still have multi-day events based on "touring" multiple venues. Heck, each team could even own multiple venues.
The future is bright, the future is Velon's Hammer series? Yeah, right, that'll work, cause fans really want that.
 
Jun 24, 2016
16
0
2,530
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
ScienceIsCool said:
fmk_RoI said:
Bag_O_Wallet said:
You asked if we thought the financial fair play would work in cycling. I had to look the term up, and make a guess as to what you meant.
What I don't understand is how anyone who has gone to the bother of reading what UEFA's Financial Fair Play is all about could possibly think it related to cycling. They're trying to solve a problem of clubs being over-leveraged. Which is not an issue in cycling, given borrowing doesn't happen.
You're comparing apples and elephants for even bringing it up.
And yet plenty of people here seem to have brought it up. It makes you wonder, doesn't it? If financial ignorance is this bad, how can you expect to have a serious discussion about this topic?
It doesn't really seem like you want a discussion. You prefer, as usual, to unnecessarily lace your replies with condescension and insult.
 
Re: Re:

Soggy Chamois said:
It doesn't really seem like you want a discussion. You prefer, as usual, to unnecessarily lace your replies with condescension and insult.
If you have something useful to contribute to the topic, I'm all ears. if you don't...
 
You can't imply charging for tickets could be a viable business model for cycling in one post and then say the Hammer series won't work because that's not the fans don't want that kind of change in the next.

Frankly, if you're not interested enough in anyone else's input to treat them with respect, don't start threads.
 
Jul 5, 2009
1,733
2
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Soggy Chamois said:
It doesn't really seem like you want a discussion. You prefer, as usual, to unnecessarily lace your replies with condescension and insult.
If you have something useful to contribute to the topic, I'm all ears. if you don't...
Yes, professor. All us unruly students will submit a five page essay on the topic of your choice for your inspection and approval... Sheesh.

John Swanson
 
Jul 5, 2009
1,733
2
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
ScienceIsCool said:
Change? The only real way to change this is to change the model. Let teams/organizations buy and create venues similar to the Nurburgring race track. A technical, challenging loop that is analogous to a stadium. Each team owns one and you build a season around teams visiting each others' course. You could still have multi-day events based on "touring" multiple venues. Heck, each team could even own multiple venues.
The future is bright, the future is Velon's Hammer series? Yeah, right, that'll work, cause fans really want that.
Oh, please. Pleeease. Tell me what fans want. With supporting facts and figures. Support your theory with an essay. We demands it!!

John Swanson
 
Re:

hrotha said:
You can't imply charging for tickets could be a viable business model for cycling in one post and then say the Hammer series won't work because that's not the fans don't want that kind of change in the next.

Frankly, if you're not interested enough in anyone else's input to treat them with respect, don't start threads.
I don't believe the Hammer series will work for pretty much the same reason Six Day racing went into decline: it's actually kinda rubbish, unless you're smashed. Did I say that charging for tickets is a viable business model for cycling? I said it is part of the current model, despite what so many so often say about it not being an option.
 
Jul 5, 2009
1,733
2
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
ScienceIsCool said:
The organizers also can't charge admission from the fans or sell t-shirts and beer. So what have they got? The occasional sponsor and TV rights. They take all the risk and put on the show. They are the ones who make and keep the meager revenues.
Do you think we could possibly park this nonsense at this stage? They can. In Flanders they even do. While I haven't checked, I presume it cost money to buy a ticket to get into the velodromes used by Tour and Vuelta this year. How much does a VIP ticket to the Champs-Élysées cost? On the t-shirts and merchandising, it's only a few years since one team manger was moaning how he can't sell replica kit from the team bus because ASO have already sold the licence for that. People seem to be blind to the many ways cycling directly raises revenue from fans.
You honestly believe that a finish line beer garden is capable of sustaining all of pro cycling? Wow. Just wow. Sorry, but I used to think you were kinda smart.

John Swanson
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
fmk_RoI said:
ScienceIsCool said:
The organizers also can't charge admission from the fans or sell t-shirts and beer. So what have they got? The occasional sponsor and TV rights. They take all the risk and put on the show. They are the ones who make and keep the meager revenues.
Do you think we could possibly park this nonsense at this stage? They can. In Flanders they even do. While I haven't checked, I presume it cost money to buy a ticket to get into the velodromes used by Tour and Vuelta this year. How much does a VIP ticket to the Champs-Élysées cost? On the t-shirts and merchandising, it's only a few years since one team manger was moaning how he can't sell replica kit from the team bus because ASO have already sold the licence for that. People seem to be blind to the many ways cycling directly raises revenue from fans.
You honestly believe that a finish line beer garden is capable of sustaining all of pro cycling? Wow. Just wow. Sorry, but I used to think you were kinda smart.

John Swanson
This is the problem: you try and point out that something is part of the current model - even though it is claimed it is not - and people moan and falsely claim you're saying it's the full financial model.
 
Jul 5, 2009
1,733
2
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
ScienceIsCool said:
fmk_RoI said:
ScienceIsCool said:
The organizers also can't charge admission from the fans or sell t-shirts and beer. So what have they got? The occasional sponsor and TV rights. They take all the risk and put on the show. They are the ones who make and keep the meager revenues.
Do you think we could possibly park this nonsense at this stage? They can. In Flanders they even do. While I haven't checked, I presume it cost money to buy a ticket to get into the velodromes used by Tour and Vuelta this year. How much does a VIP ticket to the Champs-Élysées cost? On the t-shirts and merchandising, it's only a few years since one team manger was moaning how he can't sell replica kit from the team bus because ASO have already sold the licence for that. People seem to be blind to the many ways cycling directly raises revenue from fans.
You honestly believe that a finish line beer garden is capable of sustaining all of pro cycling? Wow. Just wow. Sorry, but I used to think you were kinda smart.

John Swanson
This is the problem: you try and point out that something is part of the current model - even though it is claimed it is not - and people moan and falsely claim you're saying it's the full financial model.
It's NOT part of the current financial model except in the narrowest of sense. A finish line beer garden has nothing in relation to filling stadium of hungry, thirsty fans. You know, this is a lot like "debating" sniper. You bite around the edges, looking to score a point, but you never actually advance a theory or thesis that can be attacked directly. Then you claim to be above it all while sniping away at factoids. I'm calling it. You, Feargal are, albeit scholarly, full of carp.

John Swanson
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
It's NOT part of the current financial model except in the narrowest of sense. A finish line beer garden has nothing in relation to filling stadium of hungry, thirsty fans. You know, this is a lot like "debating" sniper. You bite around the edges, looking to score a point, but you never actually advance a theory or thesis that can be attacked directly. Then you claim to be above it all while sniping away at factoids. I'm calling it. You, Feargal are, albeit scholarly, full of carp.

John Swanson
Ok, so now you accept it is part of the current financial model but want to say that that doesn't matter...I'm sorry, but it either is something that can and is being done, or it isn't.

If you don't understand what a mixed financial model actually means, I'm not the guy who's going to explain it to you.

The problem is that too many don't want a mixed model, they want a single solution, all the money coming in from one source (ASO's TV revenue, usually).
 
Jul 5, 2009
1,733
2
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
]Ok, so now you accept it is part of the current financial model but want to say that that doesn't matter...I'm sorry, but it either is something that can and is being done, or it isn't.

If you don't understand what a mixed financial model actually means, I'm not the guy who's going to explain it to you.

The problem is that too many don't want a mixed model, they want a single solution, all the money coming in from one source (ASO's TV revenue, usually).
How much do these glorified beer gardens bring in as a percentage of total revenue? Facts please! Cite your sources and submit your papers for review! <As a certain know it all likes to say>

John Swanson
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
fmk_RoI said:
]Ok, so now you accept it is part of the current financial model but want to say that that doesn't matter...I'm sorry, but it either is something that can and is being done, or it isn't.

If you don't understand what a mixed financial model actually means, I'm not the guy who's going to explain it to you.

The problem is that too many don't want a mixed model, they want a single solution, all the money coming in from one source (ASO's TV revenue, usually).
How much do these glorified beer gardens bring in as a percentage of total revenue? Facts please! Cite your sources and submit your papers for review! <As a certain know it all likes to say>

John Swanson
I think all the race organisers treat that as market sensitive information: we know it's part of their financial model - and looking at the way it's being done in Flanders they appear to like it, and the fact that ASO have twice used stadia this year suggests they like it too - but we don't know its actual contribution.

But this is progress: at a cost of a lot of unnecessary personal abuse I have at least moved you from your initial, inaccurate statement.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of other financial myths to be busted yet...
 
Jul 5, 2009
1,733
2
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
ScienceIsCool said:
fmk_RoI said:
]Ok, so now you accept it is part of the current financial model but want to say that that doesn't matter...I'm sorry, but it either is something that can and is being done, or it isn't.

If you don't understand what a mixed financial model actually means, I'm not the guy who's going to explain it to you.

The problem is that too many don't want a mixed model, they want a single solution, all the money coming in from one source (ASO's TV revenue, usually).
How much do these glorified beer gardens bring in as a percentage of total revenue? Facts please! Cite your sources and submit your papers for review! <As a certain know it all likes to say>

John Swanson
I think all the race organisers treat that as market sensitive information: we know it's part of their financial model - and looking at the way it's being done in Flanders they appear to like it, and the fact that ASO have twice used stadia this year suggests they like it too - but we don't know its actual contribution.

But this is progress: at a cost of a lot of unnecessary personal abuse I have at least moved you from your initial, inaccurate statement.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of other financial myths to be busted yet...
<hand waving> You've moved me from nothing. How much are broadcast rights worth for Flanders? What's your spitball estimate for finish line beer garden revenue? No numbers means you've got no idea. This is the exact same thing you beat on others for. You, sir, are full of carp.

John Swanson
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS