Team Ineos Discussion thread

Page 136 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Except he was probably getting paid peanuts at EF. He also might have taken a bit less to go to Ineos, too. But bargain or not, he’s riding really well and I’d love to see him with a GT coleader role very soon.
A bit less than what? It's probably more likely that he was paid above market value as an incentive to be another one in the GC rider crowd at Ineos,
 
Sep 21, 2020
7
19
60
I am simple. I would like each of the 23 GT teams (that get to compete) to have a genuine GT contender. Each of them backed up by a team capable of delivering victory. I am naïve. It would be fun; it really would. Thing is, INEOS . I was wondering how many of those 23 slots would currently be taken by INEOS riders? Considering TGH won the second biggest? And the ones they already have. And Dennis. Six - Seven?
 
Two points to note here

1. Ineos is actually owned by the sponsor. Contracts will be paid. Unlike Vaughter's team that signed Van Baarle to a three year contract and then said a month later they couldn't pay it. Ineos (and Sky before) offer financial stability. And above all else this is people's jobs.

2. Riders riding as support to Sky/Ineos leaders have a better GC record than most team leaders. They have won four Grand Tours with their back up rider. (V11,T18,T19,G20)
 
Two points to note here

1. Ineos is actually owned by the sponsor. Contracts will be paid. Unlike Vaughter's team that signed Van Baarle to a three year contract and then said a month later they couldn't pay it. Ineos (and Sky before) offer financial stability. And above all else this is people's jobs.

2. Riders riding as support to Sky/Ineos leaders have a better GC record than most team leaders. They have won four Grand Tours with their back up rider. (V11,T18,T19,G20)
On top of training is top notch at the team.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Jul 3, 2018
62
37
1,730
Its the brute force approach. Throw money at a problem and everything will be ok.
It's a law of free market. That's nothing new and most of companies work like that. You can accept lots of irritating things if you are well paid. Frankly speaking, the salary is one of the main factors how your employer respects you. The other are development possibility, "work-life balance" and non-toxic working environment. You will think twice if you are to trade 30-50% of the payout for other "benefits" pointed above.:p
 
Reactions: SHAD0W93
Considering that they could not get an out of shape G to fitness in time for the TDF and all the stuff that Freeman got away with, i would consider their management pretty average even mismanaged. Its the brute force approach. Throw money at a problem and everything will be ok.
Except professional sports is littered with the ruins of “super teams” that never panned out. See PSG for example.
 
Considering that they could not get an out of shape G to fitness in time for the TDF and all the stuff that Freeman got away with, i would consider their management pretty average even mismanaged. Its the brute force approach. Throw money at a problem and everything will be ok.
They won 5 Tours and had 3 podiums with Froome and G, having picked them up as young British riders whom nobody thought would trouble the top 20 at the time. Regardless of how you think this was achieved, it's pretty stunning management.
 
Reactions: Bolder
Maybe it was very cheap to start with. remember that it is extremely easy to lure Colombians to European teams in the WT because of the huge difference in living standards.
Maybe the contract itself wasn't very high as EF is known for not having the budget to overpay their riders but you have to consider:
  • they would need to pay the compensation to EF itself. Martinez had a contract until the end of 2022. Not only would EF give up maybe their biggest talent for stage races but if you have such a big talent locked up on a long term deal, the less he earns, the more disadvantegous it is for the team to lose that rider (because it's unlikely for them to spend the saved money with equal efficiency), so basically the less Martinez was earning, the better the deal Ineos had to offer to EF for them to make sense to let Martinez go.
  • there were at least 2 reasons why Ineos would need to offer Martinez even more money than a rider of his class would usually earn: 1st to get him out of his current team (there are no indications he didn't feel well at EF, so you need to offer a significantly better deal to make all the hustle of breaking the current contract worth it) and 2nd to lure him to the team where he might end up being a domestique from a team where he was pretty much set up to be the main leader
Also the extension Martinez had signed with EF was straight after his impressive P-N stage-win- he was in a good spot back then and I guess he wouldn't have signed a deal that wasn't at least half-decent at that point. Especially a long-term deal.

And last year he won the Dauphine and a TdF stage in an impressive manner so it's not like he didn't have the results to match his talent that would allow Ineos to pay him less than he was worth.

All thing considered, it's unlikely it really was such a bargain to Ineos. :)
 
Ineos has the biggest budget, by far.
They are doing some things right, but they are also doing some things wrong, but it doesn't matter because in the end they just have the money.
I don't think you can compare cycling teams to football teams at all, it's just a totally different system.
One symptom is that in football you do at least have a handful or dozen teams who are on the highest level in terms of what they can spend - in cycling, for a decade, there has been one such team.
It's not Ineos' fault, the system is not okay.
There is not enough interest in cycling around the world, and cycling has a very bad reputation (doping), but relies on good reputation on the other hand to get financed, because of their over-dependence on sponsors.
The system is extremely fragile and depends not only on sponsors but, quite importantly, on intervention of very rich individuals and states.
Seems there is not enough interest in the market to have three equally strong teams. Ineos gets so much money because there is an interest in financing the most successful cycling team. There wouldn't be the same interest at all in financing one of the most successful teams.

UAE have a pretty big budget now, as well, don't they?
And Jumbo/Rabo have upped their game again?

If UAE dominates the coming years, the interest in financing Ineos will go down. If on the other hand UAE fails to deliver what they want, their budget will go down again, I suppose.

This is what I think will happen, at least.

Strictly talking about Martinez, who would not have wanted him if you could afford him? It's not like Ineos had to sell their silverware for him.
Just a few days ago, Aldag I think it was, talked about how Quickstep wanted Ganna when he was 18, and it was "you need to get Ganna, you need to get Ganna", but against Sky - no chance.

Honestly I don't even know how this system survives. It must be living on the edge every day.
 
Ineos has the biggest budget, by far.
They are doing some things right, but they are also doing some things wrong, but it doesn't matter because in the end they just have the money.
I don't think you can compare cycling teams to football teams at all, it's just a totally different system.
One symptom is that in football you do at least have a handful or dozen teams who are on the highest level in terms of what they can spend - in cycling, for a decade, there has been one such team.
It's not Ineos' fault, the system is not okay.
There is not enough interest in cycling around the world, and cycling has a very bad reputation (doping), but relies on good reputation on the other hand to get financed, because of their over-dependence on sponsors.
The system is extremely fragile and depends not only on sponsors but, quite importantly, on intervention of very rich individuals and states.
Seems there is not enough interest in the market to have three equally strong teams. Ineos gets so much money because there is an interest in financing the most successful cycling team. There wouldn't be the same interest at all in financing one of the most successful teams.

UAE have a pretty big budget now, as well, don't they?
And Jumbo/Rabo have upped their game again?

If UAE dominates the coming years, the interest in financing Ineos will go down. If on the other hand UAE fails to deliver what they want, their budget will go down again, I suppose.

This is what I think will happen, at least.

Strictly talking about Martinez, who would not have wanted him if you could afford him? It's not like Ineos had to sell their silverware for him.
Just a few days ago, Aldag I think it was, talked about how Quickstep wanted Ganna when he was 18, and it was "you need to get Ganna, you need to get Ganna", but against Sky - no chance.

Honestly I don't even know how this system survives. It must be living on the edge every day.
Well Quickstep is known to be cheap for the most part so far.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Considering that they could not get an out of shape G to fitness in time for the TDF and all the stuff that Freeman got away with, i would consider their management pretty average even mismanaged. Its the brute force approach. Throw money at a problem and everything will be ok.
I think that's a bit harsh with the effect of Covid-19. It was hit and miss. In 2020 Ineos missed and JV assumed the mantle. But at the TdF we see Roglic and Pogacar but Ineos lineup is looking super strong.. Geraint Thomas who already looks very strong compared to last season, then Richard Carapaz, Richie Porte, Rohan Dennis and TGH riding in support. That is three grand tour winners and 6 riders who will be near the front on all the HC climbs. Frankly I have never seen them that strong.

Also not sure if you noticed but old man Porte is still looks to be riding super strong and has picked up this season from where he left off on LPdBF in last years TdF.
 
Reactions: Eeslliw

ASK THE COMMUNITY