Is 2017 the end of Etixx Quickstep?

Oliwright said:
pastronef said:
Bakkie said:
Patrick said that 2017 might be the end for Etixx. Because all the contracts ends end of that year.


http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20160630_02365380

I dont remember where I read it. but Astana (and Tinkoff) wont ride Specy next year.

Quick-Step is the only team with a valid Specy contract for next year.
Bora are going to get Specy bikes and a hairy Slovakian
yes I know, was just saying Etixx wont be supported by Specy after 2017.
 
Bakkie said:
Patrick said that 2017 might be the end for Etixx. Because all the contracts ends end of that year.


http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20160630_02365380
If no sponsor comes into take over that team, then cycling looks in a bit of trouble to me. They're perhaps one of the more expensive teams to run, but they are so successful and guarantee so much positive exposure, that if they can't find a sponsor, then cycling's whole business model looks on very shaky ground.
 
DFA123 said:
Bakkie said:
Patrick said that 2017 might be the end for Etixx. Because all the contracts ends end of that year.


http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20160630_02365380
If no sponsor comes into take over that team, then cycling looks in a bit of trouble to me. They're perhaps one of the more expensive teams to run, but they are so successful and guarantee so much positive exposure, that if they can't find a sponsor, then cycling's whole business model looks on very shaky ground.
The issue is that the cost of running a top end team has been inflated by quasi-national and "rich man's toy" teams. There are very few purely commercial sponsors that are likely to consider putting the kind of money into a cycling team that Etixx (or more accurately Omega Pharma) do. The return just can't justify it except in extremely unusual circumstances.

There are more potential sponsors for lower budget teams, but of course what such teams are offering is just exposure at the Tour and sporadic at best success. They are offering less publicity for less money, but it's within more potential sponsor's available marketing budgets. It's actually harder for a team like Etixx to replace major sponsors, unless they are willing to remodel themselves as a relatively low budget team.
 
Zinoviev Letter said:
DFA123 said:
Bakkie said:
Patrick said that 2017 might be the end for Etixx. Because all the contracts ends end of that year.


http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20160630_02365380
If no sponsor comes into take over that team, then cycling looks in a bit of trouble to me. They're perhaps one of the more expensive teams to run, but they are so successful and guarantee so much positive exposure, that if they can't find a sponsor, then cycling's whole business model looks on very shaky ground.
The issue is that the cost of running a top end team has been inflated by quasi-national and "rich man's toy" teams. There are very few purely commercial sponsors that are likely to consider putting the kind of money into a cycling team that Etixx (or more accurately Omega Pharma) do. The return just can't justify it except in extremely unusual circumstances.

There are more potential sponsors for lower budget teams, but of course what such teams are offering is just exposure at the Tour and sporadic at best success. They are offering less publicity for less money, but it's within more potential sponsor's available marketing budgets. It's actually harder for a team like Etixx to replace major sponsors, unless they are willing to remodel themselves as a relatively low budget team.
Fair points, certainly about the likes of Astana and Tinkoff inflating everything. I'm just surprised that some big company wouldn't see it as worth taking them over. They've got one of Belgium's most high profile riders, have two German superstars, the most exciting French rider, and one of the most high profile Anglo riders. And they are competitive and highly visible in every race they enter - so they offer incredible exposure to a range of very large and rich markets.

Someone perhaps a big telecommunications company like a Belgian or Geman equivalent of Sky or Movistar could take them over with what is spare change for them and get loads of positive exposure. Even a company like Nike or Adidas could get involved with a really minimal expenditure for them and open up all kinds of possibilities for a new market or new product lines. I just wonder how much clinic issues are making the really big companies think that cycling isn't worth the risk.
 
DFA123 said:
Zinoviev Letter said:
DFA123 said:
Bakkie said:
Patrick said that 2017 might be the end for Etixx. Because all the contracts ends end of that year.


http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20160630_02365380
If no sponsor comes into take over that team, then cycling looks in a bit of trouble to me. They're perhaps one of the more expensive teams to run, but they are so successful and guarantee so much positive exposure, that if they can't find a sponsor, then cycling's whole business model looks on very shaky ground.
The issue is that the cost of running a top end team has been inflated by quasi-national and "rich man's toy" teams. There are very few purely commercial sponsors that are likely to consider putting the kind of money into a cycling team that Etixx (or more accurately Omega Pharma) do. The return just can't justify it except in extremely unusual circumstances.

There are more potential sponsors for lower budget teams, but of course what such teams are offering is just exposure at the Tour and sporadic at best success. They are offering less publicity for less money, but it's within more potential sponsor's available marketing budgets. It's actually harder for a team like Etixx to replace major sponsors, unless they are willing to remodel themselves as a relatively low budget team.
Fair points, certainly about the likes of Astana and Tinkoff inflating everything. I'm just surprised that some big company wouldn't see it as worth taking them over. They've got one of Belgium's most high profile riders, have two German superstars, the most exciting French rider, and one of the most high profile Anglo riders. And they are competitive and highly visible in every race they enter - so they offer incredible exposure to a range of very large and rich markets.

Someone perhaps a big telecommunications company like a Belgian or Geman equivalent of Sky or Movistar could take them over with what is spare change for them and get loads of positive exposure. Even a company like Nike or Adidas could get involved with a really minimal expenditure for them and open up all kinds of possibilities for a new market or new product lines. I just wonder how much clinic issues are making the really big companies think that cycling isn't worth the risk.
Fundamentally it's a medium size sport where sponsors have to pay the full costs of running teams. If the price is inflated, that starts to rub up against the maximum amount of useful exposure a sponsor can get from the sport. This is even more obviously so where actually winning the Tour is not a possibility for the team. It is hard to see how a top budget team aimed primarily at classics success could be considered a wise marketing choice for many companies outside Belgium.

(And even within Belgium, the fading of Boonen's star does not help matters).
 
Mayomaniac said:
pastronef said:
Bakkie said:
Patrick said that 2017 might be the end for Etixx. Because all the contracts ends end of that year.


http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20160630_02365380

I dont remember where I read it. but Astana (and Tinkoff) wont ride Specy next year.

Quick-Step is the only team with a valid Specy contract for next year.
I've heard rumours about Astana riding Bianchi bikes next year.
Vino said that there is no Bianchi deal.

"Vinokourov admitted he has still to confirm a bike sponsor for 2017 but said two or three brands were in talks. He revealed that Bianchi was no longer a possibility despite initial talks. The Italian brand is expected to stay with LottoNL-Jumbo after a successful Giro d’Italia with Steven Kruijswijk."
 
Zinoviev Letter said:
DFA123 said:
Zinoviev Letter said:
DFA123 said:
Bakkie said:
Patrick said that 2017 might be the end for Etixx. Because all the contracts ends end of that year.


http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20160630_02365380
If no sponsor comes into take over that team, then cycling looks in a bit of trouble to me. They're perhaps one of the more expensive teams to run, but they are so successful and guarantee so much positive exposure, that if they can't find a sponsor, then cycling's whole business model looks on very shaky ground.
The issue is that the cost of running a top end team has been inflated by quasi-national and "rich man's toy" teams. There are very few purely commercial sponsors that are likely to consider putting the kind of money into a cycling team that Etixx (or more accurately Omega Pharma) do. The return just can't justify it except in extremely unusual circumstances.

There are more potential sponsors for lower budget teams, but of course what such teams are offering is just exposure at the Tour and sporadic at best success. They are offering less publicity for less money, but it's within more potential sponsor's available marketing budgets. It's actually harder for a team like Etixx to replace major sponsors, unless they are willing to remodel themselves as a relatively low budget team.
Fair points, certainly about the likes of Astana and Tinkoff inflating everything. I'm just surprised that some big company wouldn't see it as worth taking them over. They've got one of Belgium's most high profile riders, have two German superstars, the most exciting French rider, and one of the most high profile Anglo riders. And they are competitive and highly visible in every race they enter - so they offer incredible exposure to a range of very large and rich markets.

Someone perhaps a big telecommunications company like a Belgian or Geman equivalent of Sky or Movistar could take them over with what is spare change for them and get loads of positive exposure. Even a company like Nike or Adidas could get involved with a really minimal expenditure for them and open up all kinds of possibilities for a new market or new product lines. I just wonder how much clinic issues are making the really big companies think that cycling isn't worth the risk.
Fundamentally it's a medium size sport where sponsors have to pay the full costs of running teams. If the price is inflated, that starts to rub up against the maximum amount of useful exposure a sponsor can get from the sport. This is even more obviously so where actually winning the Tour is not a possibility for the team. It is hard to see how a top budget team aimed primarily at classics success could be considered a wise marketing choice for many companies outside Belgium.

(And even within Belgium, the fading of Boonen's star does not help matters).
I guess that's part of the problem for cycling. Even with a considerable increase in global interest in the sport in the last decade or so; most TV companies and casual fans are still only really interested in the Tour. And, the two riders who look to have that competition more or less sewn up for the next five years or so are already on teams sponsored by huge multinational corporations. It doesn't really leave that much incentive for other companies to get involved. Isn't there another lotto somewhere in some country that has money burning a hole in its pocket? :)
 
Oct 10, 2015
2,059
0
0
Re: Re:

42x16ss said:
StryderHells said:
Why does anyone take what Patrick Lefevere says seriously?
Because if this is true, it could have huge repercussions for the sport? It's also quite plausible in the current economic environment.
I don't dispute that but Lefevere does have a history of talking rubbish
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS