Team Ineos Discussion thread

Page 16 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

rm7

Mar 14, 2015
964
0
0
Yesterday on danish TV2 they said that SKY in 2015 paid 180 mio. DKK in wages only. That's around 17 mill. pounds.

That's more than most of the WT's budget for the whole organization.
 
Sky's public accounts are more detailed than those of most teams. Budget went from approximately 18.25 million euro in 2010 to approximately 30.6 million euro in 2014. And has probably continued to rise in the following two years. So yes, they are spending an unbelievable amount and the problem is getting worse. I would be surprised if their 2016 declared budget is less than 35 million euro.

Their wealth alone isn't the only issue. There have been other rich teams and some of them have spent foolishly. But they have the best GC rider plus a huge budget to buy support riders for him. And that combination is deadly, both to rivals and to entertainment.
 
Re:

Zinoviev Letter said:
Sky's public accounts are more detailed than those of most times. Budget went from approximately 18.25 million euro in 2010 to approximately 30.6 million euro in 2014. And has probably continued to rise in the following two years. So yes, they are spending an unbelievable amount and the problem is getting worse. I would be surprised if their 2016 declared budget is less than 35 million euro.

Their wealth alone isn't the only issue. There have been other rich teams and some of them have spent foolishly. But they have the best GC rider plus a huge budget to buy support riders for him. And that combination is deadly, both to rivals and to entertainment.
Tinkoff is a good example Sagan's salary could of bought three excellent climbing domestiques. Sjy appear to be to be the only team to have heard of scouting.
 
the was a post on Inner Ring with Sky's latest accounts...

if i remember rightly their budget went down this year for the first time, but it's still high compared to most wt teams
 
Re: Re:

MatParker117 said:
Zinoviev Letter said:
Sky's public accounts are more detailed than those of most times. Budget went from approximately 18.25 million euro in 2010 to approximately 30.6 million euro in 2014. And has probably continued to rise in the following two years. So yes, they are spending an unbelievable amount and the problem is getting worse. I would be surprised if their 2016 declared budget is less than 35 million euro.

Their wealth alone isn't the only issue. There have been other rich teams and some of them have spent foolishly. But they have the best GC rider plus a huge budget to buy support riders for him. And that combination is deadly, both to rivals and to entertainment.
Tinkoff is a good example Sagan's salary could of bought three excellent climbing domestiques. Sjy appear to be to be the only team to have heard of scouting.
I don't think that Sagan counts as spending foolishly. Hiring him is spending on a different objective, but he does actually produce the goods when it comes to that different objective. BMC are a better example of a team spending a lot of money without much to show for it.
 
Re: Re:

Zinoviev Letter said:
MatParker117 said:
Zinoviev Letter said:
Sky's public accounts are more detailed than those of most times. Budget went from approximately 18.25 million euro in 2010 to approximately 30.6 million euro in 2014. And has probably continued to rise in the following two years. So yes, they are spending an unbelievable amount and the problem is getting worse. I would be surprised if their 2016 declared budget is less than 35 million euro.

Their wealth alone isn't the only issue. There have been other rich teams and some of them have spent foolishly. But they have the best GC rider plus a huge budget to buy support riders for him. And that combination is deadly, both to rivals and to entertainment.
Tinkoff is a good example Sagan's salary could of bought three excellent climbing domestiques. Sjy appear to be to be the only team to have heard of scouting.
I don't think that Sagan counts as spending foolishly. Hiring him is spending on a different objective, but he does actually produce the goods when it comes to that different objective. BMC are a better example of a team spending a lot of money without much to show for it.
BMC are known to overpay a bit, but I am not sure that they have big money contracts on the books apart from Van Garderen/Gilbert/Van Avermaet/Porte
 
The core of the problem isn't going to go away. There has been a rapid rise in team budgets at the top end of the WT, led by Sky but not exclusive to Sky. There is no way for any team not financed by an oligarch, a state or perhaps two very big spending commercial sponsors to compete because there simply aren't very many companies out there for which that kind of spending on a mid size sport like cycling makes commercial sense.

From an entertainment point of view, it would be desirable to impose a budget or salary cap on teams, so as to prevent the hoarding of fringe GC riders as superdomestiques. But from a practical point of view, such a cap would be completely unenforceable in a multi-national sport. This situation is probably going to get worse, not better. And if Sky collapsed, it would just be some other super-team leading the charge. The underlying tendency wouldn't alter.
 
SKY budget is big but they spend alot on support ...plus they have alot of riders on very good salaries but I am sure alot would get the same salary else where

Its not just the money ..(.isn't there a possibility that after 2017 SKY may not continue as sponsors ?)

BMC have a very good budget but their team is not the same at the Tour....maybe becasue they spend money on Gilbert, GVA etc ....SKY likes to buy climbing doms

Their scientific and management approach has much to do with it .they seem to get the best out of riders at the Tour ..plus they are lucky to have had first Wiggins and then Froome come along in cycling when they have done
They didn't develop either ...they don't really develop they buy

I am always surprised why riders like Landa & Kwait would go to SKY ....it would not be my choice If I wanted to lead a GT...too much competition and you probably end up on the train

For instance Landa got a chance this year at the Giro ...next year he will probably have to give way to SKY's new signing

I remember Brailsford sounding rather cavalier about rider turnover....happy if they want to move on
almost like saying ...Its not personal its just business
 
When Wiggins won, Sky were 3rd most expensive team behind Trek & BMC. Obviously different today, but any team who'd won Tour several times would now be commanding more sponsorship money until they stop winning. It's exactly like British Cycling & Team GB over the last 12 years. Win more medals, get more funding, win less medals, get less funding. If you believe in Sky's marginal gains, then the money is going there, if you believe it's better riders, then the money is going there, otherwise you believe it's going somewhere else and influencing their success rate in grand tours. Personally, I'm not comfortable with the F1 analogy. F1 is purely about buying a better car to go faster. In cycling, buying a better bike doesn't work. You can buy better riders, but they've still got to pedal faster than they did in a previous team to make the difference and the bike won't achieve that.
 
Re:

Zinoviev Letter said:
Sky's public accounts are more detailed than those of most teams. Budget went from approximately 18.25 million euro in 2010 to approximately 30.6 million euro in 2014. And has probably continued to rise in the following two years. So yes, they are spending an unbelievable amount and the problem is getting worse. I would be surprised if their 2016 declared budget is less than 35 million euro.

Their wealth alone isn't the only issue. There have been other rich teams and some of them have spent foolishly. But they have the best GC rider plus a huge budget to buy support riders for him. And that combination is deadly, both to rivals and to entertainment.
Thanks, I've had a look at their 2014 accounts, but can't find much on other teams. I was under the impression that their dull dominance was more due to how focussed their spending is, and ability to maximise rider's ability (by whatever means), than the actual total spend. I mean, i remember Poels doing a similar thing to today when he was at QS, basically neutralising I think it was Zoncolan, for Uran.

Also interesting to note how little they spend on 'research', given that's the cornerstone of Brailsford's shtick.
 
Cheers for the detailed replies.

A bit tangential but now I'm considering if it would be possible for a cycling to introduce a different model, similar to other sports, where contracts are longer and transfer fees involved. So for example if Landa had 3 years remaining on his contract at the end of last year he would've commanded a huge fee probably beyond budget. Or Kwiatkowski previously etc.

I guess the transitory nature of sponsors is preventative here.

I know a salary cap has been mooted in the past. Haven't been following so much in recent years, any movement on that?
 
Re: Re:

alspacka said:
Zinoviev Letter said:
Sky's public accounts are more detailed than those of most teams. Budget went from approximately 18.25 million euro in 2010 to approximately 30.6 million euro in 2014. And has probably continued to rise in the following two years. So yes, they are spending an unbelievable amount and the problem is getting worse. I would be surprised if their 2016 declared budget is less than 35 million euro.

Their wealth alone isn't the only issue. There have been other rich teams and some of them have spent foolishly. But they have the best GC rider plus a huge budget to buy support riders for him. And that combination is deadly, both to rivals and to entertainment.
Thanks, I've had a look at their 2014 accounts, but can't find much on other teams. I was under the impression that their dull dominance was more due to how focussed their spending is, and ability to maximise rider's ability (by whatever means), than the actual total spend. I mean, i remember Poels doing a similar thing to today when he was at QS, basically neutralising I think it was Zoncolan, for Uran.

Also interesting to note how little they spend on 'research', given that's the cornerstone of Brailsford's shtick.
All that research comes basically for free from British Cycling from the last 20 years on the track. Basically Sky pay British Cycling or their staff on a consultancy basis. They are largely the same thing from a research and rider development standpoint.

It's interesting that British Cycling U23 Development Road team, which more or less has been a feeder team for the pro peloton and obviously the British core of Team Sky for last 6 years, which is where Cavendish, Thomas, Stannard, Rowe, Dowsett, Yates, Kennaugh etc etc etc have all come from have a policy, that any rider in that U23 Road Development Team must also complete two years on the track in Manchester first to decide if they will make it in the U23 development team and get invited to Italy. All of that rider data from the track is passed onto Sky I believe.

There's a video somewhere of Brailsford, way before Team Sky was announced, but him saying he would love to start a road team next. A member of the audience asked "but we only have track riders in UK". Brailsford immediately said "We've got 12 years of training data on Wiggins and the workload he is able to maintain day after day for the team pursuit tells us that he could win the Tour de France". Brailsford did say, the problem is, Wiggins head is not capable of winning Tour de France because he can only maintain the workload required when he has decided to win something and so unless we can persuade him to try and win Tour de France, we don't have a rider capable from the track looking at their numbers. 8 years later Team Sky emerged and 2 years after that Wiggins won Tour de France.
 
Re:

alspacka said:
I know a salary cap has been mooted in the past. Haven't been following so much in recent years, any movement on that?
Salary caps are only barely enforceable in sports competitions between teams that are large, stable, institutions, all operating in one country, under one set of laws. Even under those circumstances teams spend a lot of energy and ingenuity getting around said caps. A cap in a sport like cycling, with dozens of essentially ephemeral teams based in large numbers of countries, with wildly different legal systems, would be entirely unenforceable.
 
Re: Re:

Zinoviev Letter said:
alspacka said:
I know a salary cap has been mooted in the past. Haven't been following so much in recent years, any movement on that?
Salary caps are only barely enforceable in sports competitions between teams that are large, stable, institutions, all operating in one country, under one set of laws. Even under those circumstances teams spend a lot of energy and ingenuity getting around said caps. A cap in a sport like cycling, with dozens of essentially ephemeral teams based in large numbers of countries, with wildly different legal systems, would be entirely unenforceable.
Due to the wide varience in tax rate and cost of living around the country salary cap has proven to be a failure in US pro sports.
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
It's interesting that British Cycling U23 Development Road team, which more or less has been a feeder team for the pro peloton and obviously the British core of Team Sky for last 6 years, which is where Cavendish, Thomas, Stannard, Rowe, Dowsett, Yates, Kennaugh etc etc etc have all come from have a policy, that any rider in that U23 Road Development Team must also complete two years on the track in Manchester first to decide if they will make it in the U23 development team and get invited to Italy.
How is that policy still in place? Isn't that one of the big reasons they lost Dan Martin to Ireland? Imagine being a young climber and being told you can either waste half your time racing 14 stone guys round in circles in a velodrome, or leave the country.
 
Re:

Catwhoorg said:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/racing/tour-de-france/tour-de-france-team-largest-budget-262275

top #3 are
Team Sky – €35m
Katusha – €32m
BMC – €28m

Average WT budget ~13 million Euros.
based on those estimates i make it 16.75 average
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,092
7
0
Re:

Catwhoorg said:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/racing/tour-de-france/tour-de-france-team-largest-budget-262275

top #3 are
Team Sky – €35m
Katusha – €32m
BMC – €28m

Average WT budget ~13 million Euros.
Anyone know the average without the Big Three?
 
Re: Re:

CheckMyPecs said:
Catwhoorg said:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/racing/tour-de-france/tour-de-france-team-largest-budget-262275

top #3 are
Team Sky – €35m
Katusha – €32m
BMC – €28m

Average WT budget ~13 million Euros.
Anyone know the average without the Big Three?
If you add Tinkoff €25m to the top 3 then the average of the other 18 is about €11m per year.

I'm surprised Katushas budget is so close to Sky.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
3
0
1) Team Sky: 35 miljoen euro
2) Katusha: 32 miljoen euro
3) BMC: 28 miljoen euro
4) Tinkoff: 25 miljoen euro
5) Astana: 20 miljoen euro
6) Etixx-Quick Step: 18 miljoen euro
7) Movistar: 15 miljoen euro
8) Lotto-Soudal: 14 miljoen euro
9) LottoNL-Jumbo: 14 miljoen euro
10) Dimension Data: 13,5 miljoen euro
11) Orica-BikeExchange: 13 miljoen euro
12) Giant-Alpecin: 12,5 miljoen euro
13) Trek-Segafredo en AG2R: 12 miljoen euro
15) Cofidis: 11 miljoen euro
16) IAM Cycling: 10,5 miljoen euro
17) FDJ en Cannondale: 10 miljoen euro
19) Lampre-Merida: 7 miljoen euro
20) Direct-Energie: 6 miljoen euro
21) Bora-Argon 18: 4,5 miljoen euro
22) Fortuneo-Vital Concept: 3,5 miljoen euro
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts