Kennaugh

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

hrotha said:
saganftw said:
well he is not wrong,women cycling has very limited audience,the sponsors are not breaking legs to get into it
By that logic, all the money ever should go to football. How many people know this Kennaugh tool, hardcore cycling fans aside?
thats wrong logic mate,if a sponsor (SKY) wants to give money to women cycling let them do it,if they want to pour 100M euros into it fine,good for them

but they clearly didnt want to and nobody has the right to expect money be given to them,SKY doesnt owe women cycling nothing
 
Nobody in the UK had any idea what the men's Giro was until a few year ago...

If sponsors invest then the sport will only grow, and they will see a bigger return on the investment..

Anyway yes Kennaugh is a known jerk so this is not much of a surprise
 
Apr 10, 2011
4,819
0
0
Re:

luckyboy said:
Nobody in the UK had any idea what the men's Giro was until a few year ago...

If sponsors invest then the sport will only grow, and they will see a bigger return on the investment..

Anyway yes Kennaugh is a known jerk so this is not much of a surprise
Why would sponsors invest when even men's cycling don't bring great profits, if sometimes any profits at all depending on year to year results.

UCI is trying to commercialize the sport, but many are opposed to it because cycling will just become another basketball, F1 franchise. Welll if you want to see more sponsors and more women's racing then such commercialization will be the only answer.
 
Re:

TMP402 said:
Odd season so far:

51st in a supporting role at the Tour Down Under - 1st Cadel Evans race - 2nd overall and a stage, Herald Sun Tour.

Then a month off before DNF Strade Bianche - 15th overall Tirreno-Adriatico - though I doubt he was trying - 49th in a supporting role at MSR.

Then another month off... and now he's riding the Tour de Yorkshire. Why the stop-start nature to his season?

Illness.
 
Re:

Billie said:
When I saw the Kennaugh thread this high I for sure thought it would be about this:

Nothing he's said there is wrong. There is generally very little interest in women's sport I'm afraid. And as for the women's Giro there is hardly any interest in the men's Giro in the UK so why would a major sponsor be interested in the women's version?
 
Re: Re:

JRanton said:
Nothing he's said there is wrong. There is generally very little interest in women's sport I'm afraid. And as for the women's Giro there is hardly any interest in the men's Giro in the UK so why would a major sponsor be interested in the women's version?
That race was the biggest Tour of the woman's calendar. Britain has many great women cyclists. Sponsering it would require much less money than what was put into men's road cycling. It could generate a positive image for Sky.

It's really not that difficult, but you have to want to see it.
Not only is Kenaugh too dim to see or acknowledge this, but he then also turns this into a personal slur.
 
Re: Re:

Jagartrott said:
JRanton said:
Nothing he's said there is wrong. There is generally very little interest in women's sport I'm afraid. And as for the women's Giro there is hardly any interest in the men's Giro in the UK so why would a major sponsor be interested in the women's version?
That race was the biggest Tour of the woman's calendar. Britain has many great women cyclists. Sponsering it would require much less money than what was put into men's road cycling. It could generate a positive image for Sky.

It's really not that difficult, but you have to want to see it.
Not only is Kenaugh too dim to see or acknowledge this, but he then also turns this into a personal slur.
Want to see what? That there's hardly any interest in women's sport from the public? That's the reality. Let's not start trying to blame companies like Sky and the media when the reason for the lack of interest is that the public simply aren't interested in it.
 
Re: Re:

JRanton said:
Jagartrott said:
JRanton said:
Nothing he's said there is wrong. There is generally very little interest in women's sport I'm afraid. And as for the women's Giro there is hardly any interest in the men's Giro in the UK so why would a major sponsor be interested in the women's version?
That race was the biggest Tour of the woman's calendar. Britain has many great women cyclists. Sponsering it would require much less money than what was put into men's road cycling. It could generate a positive image for Sky.

It's really not that difficult, but you have to want to see it.
Not only is Kenaugh too dim to see or acknowledge this, but he then also turns this into a personal slur.
Want to see what? That there's hardly any interest in women's sport from the public? That's the reality. Let's not start trying to blame companies like Sky and the media when the reason for the lack of interest is that the public simply aren't interested in it.
I´d say, the public interested is not much. there is a hard core of fans very interested and informed about women cycling. problem is it´s low numbers and sponsor return is thin
 
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
JRanton said:
Jagartrott said:
JRanton said:
Nothing he's said there is wrong. There is generally very little interest in women's sport I'm afraid. And as for the women's Giro there is hardly any interest in the men's Giro in the UK so why would a major sponsor be interested in the women's version?
That race was the biggest Tour of the woman's calendar. Britain has many great women cyclists. Sponsering it would require much less money than what was put into men's road cycling. It could generate a positive image for Sky.

It's really not that difficult, but you have to want to see it.
Not only is Kenaugh too dim to see or acknowledge this, but he then also turns this into a personal slur.
Want to see what? That there's hardly any interest in women's sport from the public? That's the reality. Let's not start trying to blame companies like Sky and the media when the reason for the lack of interest is that the public simply aren't interested in it.
I´d say, the public interested is not much. there is a hard core of fans very interested and informed about women cycling. problem is it´s low numbers and sponsor return is thin
Yup, it's pretty much like that for the majority of Olympic sports for example, men and women. Very little public interest outside of a couple of weeks every four years.
 
pastronef said:
I dont follow women cycling, I must admit. but he should´ve kept his mouth shut.
I think it's about time Pooley received a few truth bombs.

Sexism is deplorable but it's not Sky and Brailsford's fault that there's virtually no interest in women's cycling for goodness sake.
 
JRanton said:
pastronef said:
I dont follow women cycling, I must admit. but he should´ve kept his mouth shut.
I think it's about time Pooley received a few truth bombs.

Sexism is deplorable but it's not Sky and Brailsford's fault that there's virtually no interest in women's cycling for goodness sake.
example: just look for a thread about women cycling on this forum, and the interest on twitter.

I am just noticing that
 
I think some of you are misinterpreting pooley's words. Her criticism is towards british cycling, not sky:

If you're going to ask questions of Shane Sutton you have to ask them of Dave Brailsford too. I wish more questions had been asked of him before he was awarded his knighthood and moved to Sky. It was when he was running British Cycling that there was no women's Team Sky.
Why didn't anyone ask how it could be that a publicly funded body like British Cycling joined together with a privately funded team – Sky – on a mission to get a British winner of the Tour de France within five years? Why wasn't there a similar plan for the women?
 
It's hard for women cycling to gain an audience if races are cancelled for lack of sponsors and if most races are not televised because it costs too much. You cannot sell a product if you don't first make it available to the public.
 
Re:

Catwhoorg said:
https://twitter.com/Petekennaugh/status/725709358064099329

His account is back up.

No doubt after a rollicking from the PR types at Sky

"I've re-read the tweet i deleted and realise i came across like a total idiot im sorry to anyone i may have offended in how they were worded"
I rather have his tweets than Sky thinking it but censoring everyone who mentions it.
 
Re:

Jagartrott said:
It's hard for women cycling to gain an audience if races are cancelled for lack of sponsors and if most races are not televised because it costs too much. You cannot sell a product if you don't first make it available to the public.
but the first move has to come from athletes,they have to make the competition interesting enough for broader audience - then the sponsors will follow
 
Re: Re:

saganftw said:
but the first move has to come from athletes,they have to make the competition interesting enough for broader audience - then the sponsors will follow
Riiight.
Because up until now, they have been holding back and not living for their sport? More women have to compete with no money available to support them? No idea what you mean. Women's races are actually attractive, but we hardly get to see them.
 
Re:

carolina said:
I think some of you are misinterpreting pooley's words. Her criticism is towards british cycling, not sky:

If you're going to ask questions of Shane Sutton you have to ask them of Dave Brailsford too. I wish more questions had been asked of him before he was awarded his knighthood and moved to Sky. It was when he was running British Cycling that there was no women's Team Sky.
Why didn't anyone ask how it could be that a publicly funded body like British Cycling joined together with a privately funded team – Sky – on a mission to get a British winner of the Tour de France within five years? Why wasn't there a similar plan for the women?
She's not an idiot so you have to ask why she's asking the question. Bit of a rent-a-quote is Pooley.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY