Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1540 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

StyrbjornSterki said:
Is Froome (rhymes with "zoom") availing himself of this opportunity to secretly confirm the rumours that he is not British? Because they're holding the flag upside-down and backwards.
Is it like, when it's done by the US, that it's a secret request for help? :lol:
 
Re: Re:

Robert5091 said:
StyrbjornSterki said:
Is Froome (rhymes with "zoom") availing himself of this opportunity to secretly confirm the rumours that he is not British? Because they're holding the flag upside-down and backwards.
Is it like, when it's done by the US, that it's a secret request for help? :lol:
Actually yes, flying the Union Jack upside down is a distress signal. It's also a fairly secret one as you can only recognise it is you have been told how. Most think the flag is symmetrical or at least the same either way up, but it isn't. Obviously there's no "backwards" for a flying flag.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Robert5091 said:
StyrbjornSterki said:
Is Froome (rhymes with "zoom") availing himself of this opportunity to secretly confirm the rumours that he is not British? Because they're holding the flag upside-down and backwards.
Is it like, when it's done by the US, that it's a secret request for help? :lol:
Actually yes, flying the Union Jack upside down is a distress signal. It's also a fairly secret one as you can only recognise it is you have been told how. Most think the flag is symmetrical or at least the same either way up, but it isn't. Obviously there's no "backwards" for a flying flag.
Similar to when Team GB had the 2012 Kit with the flag upside down :lol:
 
Re:

Breh said:
5th in Paris Roubaix
13th on the Angliru
6th in the WC ITT, 8seconds slow for a medal.

Piss off.
Moscon is more suspicious than most at this point. In fact if I were to name one top rider who might get nabbed by a control it would be him. Interestingly not because I think he's on some kind of Sky program. If he is doing something out of the ordinary I suspect he's freelancing.

Far more offensive, however, is the incident with Reza.
 
Re:

Breh said:
I don't like him. This was another display of disgusting cheating imo.

Racist, world beater, car tower,...
He certainly doing himself proud. Under Cookson there’s no punishment for racism, day one after Cookson leaves Moscan is banged up for blatant cheating.
 
Re: Sky

"If you’re a cheat, you're a cheat, you're not half a cheat. You wouldn't say, 'I'll cheat here but I'm not going to cheat over there; I'll cheat on a Monday but not on a Tuesday"

Who was it that said that again?
 
Re: Sky

Jacques (7 ch) said:
"If you’re a cheat, you're a cheat, you're not half a cheat. You wouldn't say, 'I'll cheat here but I'm not going to cheat over there; I'll cheat on a Monday but not on a Tuesday"

Who was it that said that again?
Where is SDB? We’ve lost him.
 
Re: Sky

Rollthedice said:
thehog said:
Jacques (7 ch) said:
"If you’re a cheat, you're a cheat, you're not half a cheat. You wouldn't say, 'I'll cheat here but I'm not going to cheat over there; I'll cheat on a Monday but not on a Tuesday"

Who was it that said that again?
Where is SDB? We’ve lost him.
Where is Freeman's laptop?
I feel sorry for Sky, in between wiping all the hard drives and dropping Freeman’s laptop off the Tower Brodge they probably found endless Cookson selfies on the BC computer equipment.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Breh said:
5th in Paris Roubaix
13th on the Angliru
6th in the WC ITT, 8seconds slow for a medal.

Piss off.
Thankfully with Cookson gone, the Sky riders protection has gone with it :cool:

BREAKING - @GianniMoscon was DSQ in the official final order #Bergen2017
It's easy enough to disqualify someone who finished 29th in a one-day race. Moscon himself won't give a damn. The question is, what would they have done if he'd won the race, or if it had been in a GT, i.e., if the DSQ would have had consequences for anyone.
 
Financial doping?

Sky's 2016 accounts show income of GBP 31.084 m, compared to 2015's GBP 24.442 m

Wages - for staff and riders - went from GBP 17.982 m in 2015 to GBP 24.338 m in 2016.

Some obvious comments: Froome was on a new contract, which presumably had a tidy bump. Kwiatkowski and Landa arrived.

Another obvious comment: Wiggins left.

A less obvious comment: in 2015, Sky's budget was approx EUR 33 m, using either the year end exchange rate or an average for the year. The 2016 budget comes out at between EUR 36 m and EUR 38 m depending on whether you use the year end rate or an average for the year. So, when comparing Sky with the all other Euro-denominated budgets, their budget has risen by between EUR 3m and EUR 5 m.

The post Brexit tanking of the British pound was always going to show up in Sky's accounts. The question is, how much of an impact was it?
 
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Financial doping?

Sky's 2016 accounts show income of GBP 31.084 m, compared to 2015's GBP 24.442 m

Wages - for staff and riders - went from GBP 17.982 m in 2015 to GBP 24.338 m in 2016.

Some obvious comments: Froome was on a new contract, which presumably had a tidy bump. Kwiatkowski and Landa arrived.

Another obvious comment: Wiggins left.

A less obvious comment: in 2015, Sky's budget was approx EUR 33 m, using either the year end exchange rate or an average for the year. The 2016 budget comes out at between EUR 36 m and EUR 38 m depending on whether you use the year end rate or an average for the year. So, when comparing Sky with the all other Euro-denominated budgets, their budget has risen by between EUR 3m and EUR 5 m.

The post Brexit tanking of the British pound was always going to show up in Sky's accounts. The question is, how much of an impact was it?
Sorry, am i missing some brewing scandal here. All i see is a story about one of/if not the most successful team in the peloton continuing to increase their budget to retain and recruit the best staff and riders available.

So Financial Doping?? Unless i'm missing the point, and whatever else Sky are guilty of, there's nothing to see here. Is there?
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
fmk_RoI said:
Financial doping?

Sky's 2016 accounts show income of GBP 31.084 m, compared to 2015's GBP 24.442 m

Wages - for staff and riders - went from GBP 17.982 m in 2015 to GBP 24.338 m in 2016.

Some obvious comments: Froome was on a new contract, which presumably had a tidy bump. Kwiatkowski and Landa arrived.

Another obvious comment: Wiggins left.

A less obvious comment: in 2015, Sky's budget was approx EUR 33 m, using either the year end exchange rate or an average for the year. The 2016 budget comes out at between EUR 36 m and EUR 38 m depending on whether you use the year end rate or an average for the year. So, when comparing Sky with the all other Euro-denominated budgets, their budget has risen by between EUR 3m and EUR 5 m.

The post Brexit tanking of the British pound was always going to show up in Sky's accounts. The question is, how much of an impact was it?
Sorry, am i missing some brewing scandal here. All i see is a story about one of/if not the most successful team in the peloton continuing to increase their budget to retain and recruit the best staff and riders available.

So Financial Doping?? Unless i'm missing the point, and whatever else Sky are guilty of, there's nothing to see here. Is there?
Nothing to see here, move along folks. Keep moving.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
fmk_RoI said:
Financial doping?

Sky's 2016 accounts show income of GBP 31.084 m, compared to 2015's GBP 24.442 m

Wages - for staff and riders - went from GBP 17.982 m in 2015 to GBP 24.338 m in 2016.

Some obvious comments: Froome was on a new contract, which presumably had a tidy bump. Kwiatkowski and Landa arrived.

Another obvious comment: Wiggins left.

A less obvious comment: in 2015, Sky's budget was approx EUR 33 m, using either the year end exchange rate or an average for the year. The 2016 budget comes out at between EUR 36 m and EUR 38 m depending on whether you use the year end rate or an average for the year. So, when comparing Sky with the all other Euro-denominated budgets, their budget has risen by between EUR 3m and EUR 5 m.

The post Brexit tanking of the British pound was always going to show up in Sky's accounts. The question is, how much of an impact was it?
Sorry, am i missing some brewing scandal here. All i see is a story about one of/if not the most successful team in the peloton continuing to increase their budget to retain and recruit the best staff and riders available.

So Financial Doping?? Unless i'm missing the point, and whatever else Sky are guilty of, there's nothing to see here. Is there?
For a newbie, you sure developed an attitude very fast.
 
For the slow learners in the audience - or quick learners, even - let's define terms. Financial doping. What is it? According to the Collins dictionary it's
1. the situation in which a sports franchise borrows heavily in order to contract and pay high-performing players, jeopardizing their long-term financial future

2. the situation in which the owner of a sports franchise invests his or her own personal wealth into securing high-performing players, rather than relying on the revenue the franchise is able to generate for itself
Have Sky borrowed heavily? No. So we'll nix that line. Have the owners injected their own wealth? Well, Sky - Tour Racing Limited - is owned by Sky (85%) and 21st Century Fox (15%). Are Sky and Fox injecting their own money into the team, rather than letting the team survive on revenue it is able to generate from other sources? Well, in 2011, owner money accounted for 63% of all income. By 2016 that has risen to 75%. So, you know, I think we should at least be open to the possibility that I might actually have used the correct term, don't you?
 
Re: Re:

veganrob said:
brownbobby said:
fmk_RoI said:
Financial doping?

Sky's 2016 accounts show income of GBP 31.084 m, compared to 2015's GBP 24.442 m

Wages - for staff and riders - went from GBP 17.982 m in 2015 to GBP 24.338 m in 2016.

Some obvious comments: Froome was on a new contract, which presumably had a tidy bump. Kwiatkowski and Landa arrived.

Another obvious comment: Wiggins left.

A less obvious comment: in 2015, Sky's budget was approx EUR 33 m, using either the year end exchange rate or an average for the year. The 2016 budget comes out at between EUR 36 m and EUR 38 m depending on whether you use the year end rate or an average for the year. So, when comparing Sky with the all other Euro-denominated budgets, their budget has risen by between EUR 3m and EUR 5 m.

The post Brexit tanking of the British pound was always going to show up in Sky's accounts. The question is, how much of an impact was it?
Sorry, am i missing some brewing scandal here. All i see is a story about one of/if not the most successful team in the peloton continuing to increase their budget to retain and recruit the best staff and riders available.

So Financial Doping?? Unless i'm missing the point, and whatever else Sky are guilty of, there's nothing to see here. Is there?
For a newbie, you sure developed an attitude very fast.
Sorry, not my intention to offend anyone, just trying to fit in with the group like any new kid would ;)
 
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
For the slow learners in the audience - or quick learners, even - let's define terms. Financial doping. What is it? According to the Collins dictionary it's
1. the situation in which a sports franchise borrows heavily in order to contract and pay high-performing players, jeopardizing their long-term financial future

2. the situation in which the owner of a sports franchise invests his or her own personal wealth into securing high-performing players, rather than relying on the revenue the franchise is able to generate for itself
Have Sky borrowed heavily? No. So we'll nix that line. Have the owners injected their own wealth? Well, Sky - Tour Racing Limited - is owned by Sky (85%) and 21st Century Fox (15%). Are Sky and Fox injecting their own money into the team, rather than letting the team survive on revenue it is able to generate from other sources? Well, in 2011, owner money accounted for 63% of all income. By 2016 that has risen to 75%. So, you know, I think we should at least be open to the possibility that I might actually have used the correct term, don't you?
I like to class myself as a quick learner so i guess i owe you an apology!

I didn't even know Collins dictionary included the term 'financial doping'. On the basis of your explanation above i would indeed agree you used the correct term.

I may have an attitude, but i'm not afraid to admit when i was wrong...

So furthering the discussion, do any teams really survive on income generated? Don't they all rely on sponsorship?

Or is it the conflict/ joined interests of owners/sponsors that's the problem. Are there any rules on Financial Fair Play (similar to those in football) in pro cycling?

Genuine questions, not trying to pick an argument, just not a subject i know much about...
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY