• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1375 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
If Tinkov found a 10M item that would boost his riders across the board you don't think he'd do it in a heart beat?

He was the only person selling the tri-GT concept.

He has no shame in winning everything if he could. None at all.

The "bigger budget" argument is a furphy.

Certainly meaningless without specifics on what that money is buying and how it increases performance. Money doesn't magically turn into watts.
 
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
TheSpud said:
I disagree on the Tinkoff budget comparison : €33m v €27m is not the same, its 22% more - that is a big big difference. I can't comment on the others though.

This is frustrating to read.

Neither of them have budgets.

Both Tinkov and Sky spend money as and when they need to. It's not a budget allocated at the start of the year and then they can't spend any more.

Just coz Tinkov says a number (which I would suggest was inflated anyway) doesn't mean he doesn't have more to spend - to match or surpass Sky's alleged budget if he needed / wanted to. It's his money. He controls it entirely.

You might be right on Tinkoff but I would bet that Sky have a defined budget with plans for the year, etc. Sport is a business nowadays and businesses need to budget - I doubt News Corp will be signing extra cheques as and when DB thinks he needs more stuff. Companies (that sponsor) dont work that way - they want certainty of spend.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
As described here:
Of course a company can avoid making a profit by paying the money out to its staff but in the case of Team Sky it seems they operate instead by drawing down on cash from Sky UK and others as and when it’s needed rather than the alternative model used by some teams which rent out naming rights and jersey space in return for a settled sum per year. Now onto the money that flows into the team’s coffers.

http://inrng.com/2015/07/team-sky-budget-finances/
 
Jul 17, 2015
771
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Astana, Katusha, Tinkoff and BMC are at least as rich as TeamSky as was pointed out previously.

.

Tinkov disagrees

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/author/oleg-tinkov-chapeau-to-team-sky-but-theyre-going-to-kill-the-business/

"Their strength in not actually the money, as other people have said. We have similar budgets; we spend 27 million Euro, while they have about 33 million Euro. The fundamental difference between Team Sky and other teams is that they have a long-term project. They’ve got a minimum of a five-year plan, if not even ten years thanks to a commitment from Murdoch’s empire.

The thing Dave Brailsford is doing so well is planning for the future. He’s investing in new riders but also looking for new technology that will help his team. Most team, including us, live almost year to year. When you have a short-term project, you don’t invest for the future, you don’t invest in young rider who might not win for a few years. It’s all about survival. It would be the same in the business world. There’s no chance for a team with a one-year plan to fight against another that can plan for five or ten years ahead. "
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
You might be right on Tinkoff but I would bet that Sky have a defined budget with plans for the year, etc. Sport is a business nowadays and businesses need to budget - I doubt News Corp will be signing extra cheques as and when DB thinks he needs more stuff. Companies (that sponsor) dont work that way - they want certainty of spend.

I didn't know who JF "Jeff" Bernard was, but not everything I post is without foundation ;)
 
Mar 18, 2009
324
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
wendybnt said:
Why would a winning team tell the truth about their training and testing techniques?

Clean or dirty the answer is the same, so the lack of answers, or the provision of misleading or untruthful answers isn't going to tell you anything about the cleanliness or the dirtiness of the team.

This applies to any team in any sport.

This ... ^
No. Not this...^ This^ is more PR smoke. It says, since everyone lies but not everyone dopes, then those who lie don't necessarily dope. But let's face it, those who don't dope don't need to lie and those caught lying about doping probably are... doping.
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
Personally (and RF will have seen me say this before) I don't discount that they are being chemically helped, but that they are really pushing the boundaries of what is legal (and are probably past the boundary of what is ethical).

In the past, some or all of : Xenon, Telmisartan, Tramadol, Ventolin, OOC cortisone, Thyroid medicine perhaps, etc. together with the special Ketones. The 'legal' drugs that get you a performance increase. I believe that is where the Leinders connection comes in - hire a doping doctor who knows what is what (ie what is grey and what isnt) and knows Zorzoli as well (who would also know the grey areas). I don't believe they are abusing TUEs in competition (lets not cover the TdR one again) since that kind of information could easily be leaked / found out.

All quite possible. You can't just ignore the sketchy and clearly covered up IC cortisone however. But I would agree that some of that is likely in their approach. The notion that because there's no leak there's no cheating doesn't wash, simply not logical.

That said, the simpler explanation is that they're also or instead just using AICAR and other drugs to cut weight and microdosing EPO. None of which is detectable.
 
Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
As described here:
Of course a company can avoid making a profit by paying the money out to its staff but in the case of Team Sky it seems they operate instead by drawing down on cash from Sky UK and others as and when it’s needed rather than the alternative model used by some teams which rent out naming rights and jersey space in return for a settled sum per year. Now onto the money that flows into the team’s coffers.

http://inrng.com/2015/07/team-sky-budget-finances/

That doesnt mean it is bottomless ...
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
Dear Wiggo said:
As described here:
Of course a company can avoid making a profit by paying the money out to its staff but in the case of Team Sky it seems they operate instead by drawing down on cash from Sky UK and others as and when it’s needed rather than the alternative model used by some teams which rent out naming rights and jersey space in return for a settled sum per year. Now onto the money that flows into the team’s coffers.

http://inrng.com/2015/07/team-sky-budget-finances/

That doesnt mean it is bottomless ...

Which would be a useful response if it had any relation to anything I said.

I am saying Tinkov could match Sky if he could pay for something that would make his team perform better. If you disagree, you are effectively saying Tinkov's desire to win is less than Brailsford's, and we will have to agree to disagree there.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
TheSpud said:
Personally (and RF will have seen me say this before) I don't discount that they are being chemically helped, but that they are really pushing the boundaries of what is legal (and are probably past the boundary of what is ethical).

In the past, some or all of : Xenon, Telmisartan, Tramadol, Ventolin, OOC cortisone, Thyroid medicine perhaps, etc. together with the special Ketones. The 'legal' drugs that get you a performance increase. I believe that is where the Leinders connection comes in - hire a doping doctor who knows what is what (ie what is grey and what isnt) and knows Zorzoli as well (who would also know the grey areas). I don't believe they are abusing TUEs in competition (lets not cover the TdR one again) since that kind of information could easily be leaked / found out.

All quite possible. You can't just ignore the sketchy and clearly covered up IC cortisone however. But I would agree that some of that is likely in their approach. The notion that because there's no leak there's no cheating doesn't wash, simply not logical.

That said, the simpler explanation is that they're also or instead just using AICAR and other drugs to cut weight and microdosing EPO. None of which is detectable.

Well the TdR TUE was leaked - wouldn't be difficult for that person to leak the others. In fact if they were outraged at the TdR one wouldn't they leak any of the others that they knew (or could get to know about)?

Why is it simpler to say they are using Aicar? Its banned and its very expensive - ANY hint or evidence (wrappers, syringes, etc.) that they were using it would be high risk. Why not go cheaper, legal and simpler? And as for detectability? Telmisartan isn't detectable / tested for as its not prohibited ...
 
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
TheSpud said:
Dear Wiggo said:
As described here:
Of course a company can avoid making a profit by paying the money out to its staff but in the case of Team Sky it seems they operate instead by drawing down on cash from Sky UK and others as and when it’s needed rather than the alternative model used by some teams which rent out naming rights and jersey space in return for a settled sum per year. Now onto the money that flows into the team’s coffers.

http://inrng.com/2015/07/team-sky-budget-finances/

That doesnt mean it is bottomless ...

Which would be a useful response if it had any relation to anything I said.

I am saying Tinkov could match Sky if he could pay for something that would make his team perform better. If you disagree, you are effectively saying Tinkov's desire to win is less than Brailsford's, and we will have to agree to disagree there.

No I'm saying that I dont think Sky resources are bottomless ... to say they dont have budget set for the year, in my view, is nonsense.

Tinkov, as an individual, probably could match if he wanted to - I dont know his motivations as to why he doesnt (other than its his own money - or at least from his companies). Its his words that were quoted so who knows.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
No I'm saying that I dont think Sky resources are bottomless ... to say they dont have budget set for the year, in my view, is nonsense.

Tinkov, as an individual, probably could match if he wanted to - I dont know his motivations as to why he doesnt (other than its his own money - or at least from his companies). Its his words that were quoted so who knows.

At a guess because it's unnecessary.

TheSpud said:
I also do think they are pursuing the 'MGs' on the bikes / kit as well - people scoff, but if they could get a 1%-1.5% boost by spending more than others (and they do have a BIG budget) then why not? Its like F1 - teams spend millions for small gains. In cycling terms if it saves a rider 1%-1.5% of their energy then its probably seen by Sky as being worth it - after all every second could count, ask LeMond & Fignon (RIP).

Big budget doesn't mean anything much.

BMC is in a similar position as Tinkov. It's Och's team and company. Not as Russian as Tinkov, but if they could spend more and rider higher up the podium I don't think any of those teams would ignore / avoid.
 
Jun 8, 2015
306
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

wendybnt said:
Benotti69 said:
Astana, Katusha, Tinkoff and BMC are at least as rich as TeamSky as was pointed out previously.

.

Tinkov disagrees

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/author/oleg-tinkov-chapeau-to-team-sky-but-theyre-going-to-kill-the-business/

"Their strength in not actually the money, as other people have said. We have similar budgets; we spend 27 million Euro, while they have about 33 million Euro. The fundamental difference between Team Sky and other teams is that they have a long-term project. They’ve got a minimum of a five-year plan, if not even ten years thanks to a commitment from Murdoch’s empire.

The thing Dave Brailsford is doing so well is planning for the future. He’s investing in new riders but also looking for new technology that will help his team. Most team, including us, live almost year to year. When you have a short-term project, you don’t invest for the future, you don’t invest in young rider who might not win for a few years. It’s all about survival. It would be the same in the business world. There’s no chance for a team with a one-year plan to fight against another that can plan for five or ten years ahead. "

Exactly, wendy.

Do the clinic posters believe what Tinkov is saying or not?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
No I'm saying that I dont think Sky resources are bottomless ...

It's like talking to a post. A deaf one. I did not ever say their resources are bottomless.

TheSpud said:
to say they dont have budget set for the year, in my view, is nonsense.

If you disagree with inrring, that's all well and good. I don't, so we're at odds there, but again, given their success, I doubt Brailsford is getting requests for cash knocked back. Their carpark filling fleet of motorhomes is testament to that.
 
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
TheSpud said:
No I'm saying that I dont think Sky resources are bottomless ... to say they dont have budget set for the year, in my view, is nonsense.

Tinkov, as an individual, probably could match if he wanted to - I dont know his motivations as to why he doesnt (other than its his own money - or at least from his companies). Its his words that were quoted so who knows.

At a guess because it's unnecessary.

TheSpud said:
I also do think they are pursuing the 'MGs' on the bikes / kit as well - people scoff, but if they could get a 1%-1.5% boost by spending more than others (and they do have a BIG budget) then why not? Its like F1 - teams spend millions for small gains. In cycling terms if it saves a rider 1%-1.5% of their energy then its probably seen by Sky as being worth it - after all every second could count, ask LeMond & Fignon (RIP).

Big budget doesn't mean anything much.

BMC is in a similar position as Tinkov. It's Och's team and company. Not as Russian as Tinkov, but if they could spend more and rider higher up the podium I don't think any of those teams would ignore / avoid.

The difference between Sky and Tinkov & BMC is that for the latter two it is their own money, for Sky its someone elses. That does make people act differently - esp. if DB for example was bonused on GT wins, etc.
 
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
TheSpud said:
No I'm saying that I dont think Sky resources are bottomless ...

It's like talking to a post. A deaf one. I did not ever say their resources are bottomless.

TheSpud said:
to say they dont have budget set for the year, in my view, is nonsense.

If you disagree with inrring, that's all well and good. I don't, so we're at odds there, but again, given their success, I doubt Brailsford is getting requests for cash knocked back. Their carpark filling fleet of motorhomes is testament to that.

"Of course a company can avoid making a profit by paying the money out to its staff but in the case of Team Sky it seems they operate instead by drawing down on cash from Sky UK and others as and when it’s needed rather than the alternative model used by some teams which rent out naming rights and jersey space in return for a settled sum per year. Now onto the money that flows into the team’s coffers."

Gives the impression its bottomless ...

I have no beef with you - we disagree, we are debating, we haven't (quite) descended to a p1ssing match, so maybe lets leave it there ?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
"Of course a company can avoid making a profit by paying the money out to its staff but in the case of Team Sky it seems they operate instead by drawing down on cash from Sky UK and others as and when it’s needed rather than the alternative model used by some teams which rent out naming rights and jersey space in return for a settled sum per year. Now onto the money that flows into the team’s coffers."

Gives the impression its bottomless ...

I have no beef with you - we disagree, we are debating, we haven't (quite) descended to a p1ssing match, so maybe lets leave it there ?

So the sky fan site inrring is wrong and spud is right.

Gotcha.

Yes, let's leave it there.
 
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
If you disagree with inrring, that's all well and good. I don't, so we're at odds there, but again, given their success, I doubt Brailsford is getting requests for cash knocked back. Their carpark filling fleet of motorhomes is testament to that.

Agree on that. I doubt Jag hand over any money - just a few (lots) of cars. And I doubt they are included in the €33m that is quoted as the Sky budget - now that may be the same for other teams, I dont know, but I'd be surprised if others paid full price (if anything) for cars, buses, etc.
 
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
TheSpud said:
"Of course a company can avoid making a profit by paying the money out to its staff but in the case of Team Sky it seems they operate instead by drawing down on cash from Sky UK and others as and when it’s needed rather than the alternative model used by some teams which rent out naming rights and jersey space in return for a settled sum per year. Now onto the money that flows into the team’s coffers."

Gives the impression its bottomless ...

I have no beef with you - we disagree, we are debating, we haven't (quite) descended to a p1ssing match, so maybe lets leave it there ?

So the sky fan site inrring is wrong and spud is right.

Gotcha.

Yes, let's leave it there.

Stupid comment.

They said "it seems they are" - so they don't know.
 
Jun 8, 2015
306
0
0
Visit site
What Spud says is in line with what Tinkov is trying to claim and explain in the link wendy posted.

A Murdoch Empire backed cycling entity would have a distinct financial advantage over BMC and Tinkov or any other team.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Re:

jalep said:
What Spud says is in line with what Tinkov is trying to claim and explain in the link wendy posted.

A Murdoch Empire backed cycling entity would have a distinct financial advantage over BMC and Tinkov or any other team.

But it is irrelevant when it comes to performance.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
Dear Wiggo said:
TheSpud said:
"Of course a company can avoid making a profit by paying the money out to its staff but in the case of Team Sky it seems they operate instead by drawing down on cash from Sky UK and others as and when it’s needed rather than the alternative model used by some teams which rent out naming rights and jersey space in return for a settled sum per year. Now onto the money that flows into the team’s coffers."

Gives the impression its bottomless ...

I have no beef with you - we disagree, we are debating, we haven't (quite) descended to a p1ssing match, so maybe lets leave it there ?

So the sky fan site inrring is wrong and spud is right.

Gotcha.

Yes, let's leave it there.

Stupid comment.

They said "it seems they are" - so they don't know.

As stupid as "drawing down as and when needed" == bottomless?

No one's saying it's bottomless.

If they have a max spend it's hidden. The money they spent is unlikely to be their predetermined budget - it's what they spent. If a Brit rider miraculously rode out of his skin - say like Wiggo in 2009 - they can manage to rustle up whatever pounds transfer fee they need (2M at the time).

No way could they have budgeted that as it'd be some random amount determined by JV.

Regardless, to say Sky have a big budget and it allows them to ride faster uphill than Tinkov or BMC just doesn't gel with me at all.
 
Jul 17, 2015
771
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
jalep said:
What Spud says is in line with what Tinkov is trying to claim and explain in the link wendy posted.

A Murdoch Empire backed cycling entity would have a distinct financial advantage over BMC and Tinkov or any other team.

But it is irrelevant when it comes to performance.

Tinkov is saying the Sky financial model gives it a huge advantage. He cites innovative technology and investing in younger riders with potential.

In the broadest terms this is precisely about performance, if it isn't then what is it about?

At the same time, i'll accept anybody's opinion who views individual performances of individual Sky riders with suspicion.
 
Jun 8, 2015
306
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
jalep said:
What Spud says is in line with what Tinkov is trying to claim and explain in the link wendy posted.

A Murdoch Empire backed cycling entity would have a distinct financial advantage over BMC and Tinkov or any other team.

But it is irrelevant when it comes to performance.

oleg-tinkov-chapeau-to-team-sky-but-theyre-going-to-kill-the-business ...the cycling news article = link wendy posted earlier.

You don't think there is an advantage when it comes to performance having a 5- 10 yr. budget and ability to be secure planning into the future? That's the very point Tinkov is making.
 

TRENDING THREADS