Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

I didn't even know Collins dictionary included the term 'financial doping'.

Did I say Collins dictionary? Bloody hell, me and my typing. Colin will never forgive me.

Wow, you're picking me up on a failure to use 'the' in front of Collins on an internet forum? Can i at least have one point for capitalisation?

 

[Parker]

Re:

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?

They're not 'injecting' their own money though. They are buying sponsorship. Financial doping would be if the team were sponsored by, for example, Tesco and but Sky plc were then ploughing in an extra few million with nothing in return. It's only Financial Doping in the current scenario if Sky are clearly paying far more for the sponsorship than it is worth. And I think you would be hard-pressed to make that case on the current accounts.

The second scenario refers to rich Arabs at teams like Manchester City and PSG gifting money to the club, thereby skewing the market.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

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

You are seeking to move the goal-posts. I raised no issue with sponsorship income. Financial doping references income that does not come from a third party. And cycling teams can and do survive solely on third party revenues. Just ask Patrick Lefevere.

Ok, got it now...thats the question that i was clumsily asking, ie. is the issue that Team Sky's owners and sponsors are actually one and the same

 

[yaco]

Would have thought that at least half the teams rely on third party revenues - It's just that some attract higher third revenues - The more pertinent issue is whether has any 'ballpark' figures' showing the growth or decline of third party revenues say in the last 50 years.

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

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.

That's not answering the posters question is it, maybe start with that

 

[deviant]

Re: Sky

Financial doping...wow, just wow.

Some posters in here are desperate to throw everything they can at Sky.

They are a well funded team, whether their money comes from revenue, sponsorship or the owners is largely irrelevant...if it's accounted for properly and legal then it's within the rules and not 'doping'...there is nothing stopping any other financially wealthy owner coming into the sport and laying on a budget of £50m per year and buying up good riders and staff...is the Sky situation any different from the Bahrain team that are new comers to the sport and set up and bankrolled by the Bahrain government/royal family?...or Katusha that was set up to promote Russian cycling by the Russian Global Cycling Project and funded with Makarov's oil and gas money?...or Astana which was also a new team in 2007 and uses state money to fund the team?...

They are all relative newcomers and have all thrown money around with no discernable income other than the owner's money...although in all of those teams you can make a case that Astana are publicizing their country and the revenue will be indirect in the form of investment and tourism in the country, same for Bahrain who could argue the case for publicizing their country, investment and tourism, Sky could claim having their logo all over the place may encourage people to go with Sky for their T.V./internet package etc etc...in short there are several teams in the pro tour who have no discernable income and appear to be vanity projects by their owners...Sky are not unique in this but don't let get in the way of a good bashing....Kazakhstan has vast mineral, oil and gas wealth, there is nothing stopping the Kazakh government from doubling their budget and beating Sky at their own game.

If fans have such a problem with the 'sugar daddy' role in cycling they should petition the governing bodies for a limit to budgets and/or an upper salary limit for riders...but claiming it is doping of any kind is stretching the definition to the point it becomes meaningless.

What's next?...team turns up with new drag friendly kit better than anybody else's...are they 'kit doping'?

Team turns up with the most aero efficient bike in the peleton...are they 'aero doping'?

Team uses protein supplements, vitamins and minerals, employs a dietician...are they 'nutrition doping'?

Bizarre.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Sky

Financial doping...wow, just wow.

Some posters in here are desperate to throw everything they can at Sky.

They are a well funded team, whether their money comes from revenue, sponsorship or the owners is largely irrelevant...if it's accounted for properly and legal then it's within the rules and not 'doping'...there is nothing stopping any other financially wealthy owner coming into the sport and laying on a budget of £50m per year and buying up good riders and staff...is the Sky situation any different from the Bahrain team that are new comers to the sport and set up and bankrolled by the Bahrain government/royal family?...or Katusha that was set up to promote Russian cycling by the Russian Global Cycling Project and funded with Makarov's oil and gas money?...or Astana which was also a new team in 2007 and uses state money to fund the team?...

They are all relative newcomers and have all thrown money around with no discernable income other than the owner's money...although in all of those teams you can make a case that Astana are publicizing their country and the revenue will be indirect in the form of investment and tourism in the country, same for Bahrain who could argue the case for publicizing their country, investment and tourism, Sky could claim having their logo all over the place may encourage people to go with Sky for their T.V./internet package etc etc...in short there are several teams in the pro tour who have no discernable income and appear to be vanity projects by their owners...Sky are not unique in this but don't let get in the way of a good bashing....Kazakhstan has vast mineral, oil and gas wealth, there is nothing stopping the Kazakh government from doubling their budget and beating Sky at their own game.

If fans have such a problem with the 'sugar daddy' role in cycling they should petition the governing bodies for a limit to budgets and/or an upper salary limit for riders...but claiming it is doping of any kind is stretching the definition to the point it becomes meaningless.

What's next?...team turns up with new drag friendly kit better than anybody else's...are they 'kit doping'?

Team turns up with the most aero efficient bike in the peleton...are they 'aero doping'?

Team uses protein supplements, vitamins and minerals, employs a dietician...are they 'nutrition doping'?

Bizarre.

Brilliant, my thoughts exactly. Unfortunately though it seems both you and i are wrong, just ask Colin to show you his dictionary if you dont believe me :lol:

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

I didn't even know Collins dictionary included the term 'financial doping'.

Did I say Collins dictionary? Bloody hell, me and my typing. Colin will never forgive me.

Wow, you're picking me up on a failure to use 'the' in front of Collins on an internet forum? Can i at least have one point for capitalisation?

Or it could have been a joke...you seem very quick to rule out alternatives, especially more likely ones...

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

They're not 'injecting' their own money though. They are buying sponsorship. Financial doping would be if the team were sponsored by, for example, Tesco and but Sky plc were then ploughing in an extra few million with nothing in return. It's only Financial Doping in the current scenario if Sky are clearly paying far more for the sponsorship than it is worth. And I think you would be hard-pressed to make that case on the current accounts.

The second scenario refers to rich Arabs at teams like Manchester City and PSG gifting money to the club, thereby skewing the market.

What they are buying is open to debate: can owner-sponsors' financial decisions really be considered commercial or shouldn't we consider all the other reasons for their engagement? It's not just 'Arabs' skewing the market...

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

I didn't even know Collins dictionary included the term 'financial doping'.

Did I say Collins dictionary? Bloody hell, me and my typing. Colin will never forgive me.

Wow, you're picking me up on a failure to use 'the' in front of Collins on an internet forum? Can i at least have one point for capitalisation?

Or it could have been a joke...you seem very quick to rule out alternatives, especially more likely ones...

Whoops. My first instinct was that it was a joke which i found quite funny. Then i noticed another response to one of my other posts from you that led me to think you were perhaps having a bit of a go at me.

Its all so difficult this forum business, trying to weigh up peoples meanings and motives from just a few short written words

Apologies if i got it wrong again...perhaps i should have just stuck to lurking :redface:

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Would have thought that at least half the teams rely on third party revenues - It's just that some attract higher third revenues - The more pertinent issue is whether has any 'ballpark' figures' showing the growth or decline of third party revenues say in the last 50 years.

Did you mean to say that half the teams rely on owner-sponsor revenue, not third party? Yes, there are other teams financed in the same fashion as Sky. Some at close to the same level. Does the fact that others are doing it - financial doping - mean it's a level playing field and so we should just ignore it and move along, enjoy the show?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Sky

Financial doping...wow, just wow.

Some posters in here are desperate to throw everything they can at Sky.

Did you actually read what I posted? Why is any attempt at discussion that is less than fanboy fawning instantly dismissed by some as a desperate attempt to throw everything at Sky?

They are a well funded team, whether their money comes from revenue, sponsorship or the owners is largely irrelevant...if it's accounted for properly and legal then it's within the rules and not 'doping'...there is nothing stopping any other financially wealthy owner coming into the sport and laying on a budget of £50m per year and buying up good riders and staff...is the Sky situation any different from the Bahrain team that are new comers to the sport and set up and bankrolled by the Bahrain government/royal family?...or Katusha that was set up to promote Russian cycling by the Russian Global Cycling Project and funded with Makarov's oil and gas money?...or Astana which was also a new team in 2007 and uses state money to fund the team?...

Once again, we have someone dismissing the notion of financial doping with the level playing field argument. Come on kids, what's next, the most audited team in the sport and never got a qualified audit report?

If fans have such a problem with the 'sugar daddy' role in cycling they should petition the governing bodies for a limit to budgets and/or an upper salary limit for riders...but claiming it is doping of any kind is stretching the definition to the point it becomes meaningless.

Well, for a petition to have any impact it would need support and to get support will require at least some debate. And yet here you are, seeking to shut down the debate necessary for the lobbying you suggest. Curiouser and curiouser.

What's next?...team turns up with new drag friendly kit better than anybody else's...are they 'kit doping'?

Team turns up with the most aero efficient bike in the peleton...are they 'aero doping'?

Team uses protein supplements, vitamins and minerals, employs a dietician...are they 'nutrition doping'?

Actually, all of this is open to debate too.

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

Would have thought that at least half the teams rely on third party revenues - It's just that some attract higher third revenues - The more pertinent issue is whether has any 'ballpark' figures' showing the growth or decline of third party revenues say in the last 50 years.

Did you mean to say that half the teams rely on owner-sponsor revenue, not third party? Yes, there are other teams financed in the same fashion as Sky. Some at close to the same level. Does the fact that others are doing it - financial doping - mean it's a level playing field and so we should just ignore it and move along, enjoy the show?

I was referring to 'sugar daddy' or whole of Government investment in cycling teams, so in other words not ahrd-bitten sponsorship that still drive most of the peleton - You can't stop this group from spending money how they see fit - And it's this group of people who help some cycling teams survive or in other cases give them a comparative advantage - I'm still interested to compare today's situation to say 30 or 40 years ago - I wonder if it's much different ?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

I was referring to 'sugar daddy' or whole of Government investment in cycling teams, so in other words not ahrd-bitten sponsorship that still drive most of the peleton - You can't stop this group from spending money how they see fit - And it's this group of people who help some cycling teams survive or in other cases give them a comparative advantage - I'm still interested to compare today's situation to say 30 or 40 years ago - I wonder if it's much different ?

I think I mentioned some of this on the finance thread so excuse the repetition: back in the way-way back, all teams were owned by their sponsors, all teams were industry affairs (bike companies). When the bicycle industry collapsed after WWII, the extra-sportif sponsors came in. Some of these came in on a purely commercial basis. Some came in for other reasons. Cycling went from being based on commercial decisions - the team and the team's wins sold bicycles and kit - to something much more complicated. And it's been getting more complicated since, as we've moved from low-key sugar daddies like the Knörr family (KAS) to the likes of Bernard Tapie (La Vie Claire) and on to the likes of Oleg Tinkov. Today, maybe we're in a new phase with the National Trade Team model (Sky, Astana, Bahrain, Katusha, UAE).

You can't - and probably shouldn't - seek to stop 'fans' of the sport deciding to back a team for reasons that are not entirely commercial: who is to be the arbiter of what a real commercial decision is, anyway, especially where marketing is concerned? But - to cross with the topic of the finance thread - should we be concerned about the level of non-commercial support? We can't ban financial doping - it's too amorphous a thing to ban - but can we seek to control it, to level the playing field for the many, not just the few?

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

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.

That's not answering the posters question is it, maybe start with that

It was a rhetorical question

 

[samhocking]

Re: Sky

If we take AG2R who are one of the few teams like Sky to publish accounts, as a comparison to Sky, their budget rises by about 1M a year even without Tour success and it seems inline with what you would expect for a team that size to need extra each season to remain competitive.

As for Sky, their budget has risen significantly, but only in years just before a Tour win, In 2014 when Sky didn't win, their budget for 2015 was the same as 2014. As much as you want to believe Sky's success comes with a bigger budget, it's more their bigger budget comes from the Tour success. Clearly 2016 sees the first significant change in budget since Wiggins in 2012.

I really don't see what the issue is with their budget. They win, they get more money to spend the following year and on two occasions in 2012 and 2016 Sky Corp have invested significantly more and that seems to have generated more sponsorship exposure via rider success, the second time in various races outside Tour de France.

It might not be liked, but success is simply generating revenue, just like more sales should in any company running to a managed budget. It's upto others to find sponsors to compete. If they can't, then is that Sky's problem. Nothing is unique about Sky. Telefonica who sponsor Movistar are 4 times the size of Sky PLC for example. Why don't they just raise there title sponsorship a few million to match sky if it's just a budget calculation to win Tour de France with more sponsorship revenue to a team?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Sky

As for Sky, their budget has risen significantly, but only in years just before a Tour win, In 2014 when Sky didn't win, their budget for 2015 was the same as 2014. As much as you want to believe Sky's success comes with a bigger budget, it's more their bigger budget comes from the Tour success. Clearly 2016 sees the first significant change in budget since Wiggins in 2012.

I'm really not sure why your focus is on the relative change in the budget year-on-year and not the overall size of the budget - in Euro, compared to other teams - but let's play your game.

You suggest a link between performance and payment. Why isn't there a link in the actual year? Other teams pay performance bonuses, yet you seem to be suggesting Sky don't. Look at the 2014 figure: there should be no performance bonus, so there should be a drop when compared to 2013 and 2015.

That, though, is just one part of the problem. You seem to be taking your opinion from INRNG here. Unfortunately, INRNG is wrong. The 2014/2015 'flat' budget is a myth.

A large part of Sky's budget is in Euro: how much, we don't know. They report in Pounds. If - doing something rather crude and blunt, but effective nonetheless - we try and turn Pounds back into Euro using relevant exchange rates we get a budget in 2013 of €26 m and a budget in 2014 of €30 m and in 2015 a budget of €34 m. In other words, part of the reason the 2014/15 budgets look flat when reported in Pounds is that there were significant currency fluctuations that got hidden in the conversion. How much, we don't know as we don't know how much of Sky's spend is in Euro and how much is in Pounds.

The simple fact is, that though Sky are transparent in terms of being legally required to publish accounts, they're not really all that transparent as they effectively have two budgets, Euro and Pounds, and reading only the report converted into Pounds we miss out the effect of currency changes when comparing annual changes. Which takes us back to the actual question I asked in my original post.

 

[MatParker117]

Re:

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?

Sky back the team as a form of advertising as is the case with all cycling teams. A study commissioned by this website found that for the £31 million Sky spends on the team, the team's success generates more than $500 million in equivalent advertising. The team is more than value for money.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

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?

Sky back the team as a form of advertising as is the case with all cycling teams. A study commissioned by this website found that for the £31 million Sky spends on the team, the team's success generates more than $500 million in equivalent advertising. The team is more than value for money.

I've always found that a bit funny, reporting as equivalent advertising dollars. The reason is because this is non-targetted advertising. Cycling fans will see the Sky logo (impressions) X billion times, which is equivalent to Y million in advertising cost. But what is the demographic (global, national, and local) that Sky wishes to reach, and what is the corresponding demographic of those impressions? Really, these values should be weighted by an "effectiveness" factor. It's kind of like saying that a manufacturer of feminine hygiene products got a billion worth of advertising by sponsoring a champion MMA fighter...

John Swanson

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Sky back the team as a form of advertising as is the case with all cycling teams.

Why Sky backs the team is open to debate. Is it a purely commercial decision, designed to sell whatever it is they sell, or is it a prestige thing, designed to grease the rails of power by the purchase of national pride? As for it being the case that it is a commercial decision for all other teams: that is nonsense and you know it is nonsense. There are many reasons to get into sports sponsorship, a commercial reason is just one.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

A study commissioned by this website found that for the £31 million Sky spends on the team, the team's success generates more than $500 million in equivalent advertising. The team is more than value for money.

Even if one agreed with the assumptions made in that report, so what? Here's Bob Stapleton recently:

“The traditional value of visual and naming rights, measured by impressions, is being eclipsed by targeted digital and social media that have a quantifiable element and engagement that impressions can’t match,” said Stapleton. The days of measuring sponsorship value by the number of TV views are effectively over, and as a consequence, Stapleton believes that interest from companies who would have previously considered sponsoring cycling is waning. “The typical previous sponsorship candidates for pro cycling now have many other and potentially richer target marketing alternatives available to them,” he added.

On the actual size of the TV audience - which is critical when people are plucking out of thin air magic numbers like $500 m - you should note that in The Economics of Professional Road Cycling Daam Van Reeth offered some sobering analysis of the current TV situation. An IFM/Repucom report was cited which suggests that as much as 57% of the reported audience for 2012 WorldTour races came from news broadcasts while the live audience was as low as 13% of the reported audience (8% watched on highlights shows and the other 22% came across the races in magazine shows, alongside other sports).

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

A study commissioned by this website found that for the £31 million Sky spends on the team, the team's success generates more than $500 million in equivalent advertising. The team is more than value for money.

Even if one agreed with the assumptions made in that report, so what? Here's Bob Stapleton recently:

“The traditional value of visual and naming rights, measured by impressions, is being eclipsed by targeted digital and social media that have a quantifiable element and engagement that impressions can’t match,” said Stapleton. The days of measuring sponsorship value by the number of TV views are effectively over, and as a consequence, Stapleton believes that interest from companies who would have previously considered sponsoring cycling is waning. “The typical previous sponsorship candidates for pro cycling now have many other and potentially richer target marketing alternatives available to them,” he added.

On the actual size of the TV audience - which is critical when people are plucking out of thin air magic numbers like $500 m - you should note that in The Economics of Professional Road Cycling Daam Van Reeth offered some sobering analysis of the current TV situation. An IFM/Repucom report was cited which suggests that as much as 57% of the reported audience for 2012 WorldTour races came from news broadcasts while the live audience was as low as 13% of the reported audience (8% watched on highlights shows and the other 22% came across the races in magazine shows, alongside other sports).

Makes sense.

I always felt that cycling vastly overstates how many people actually watch.

I mean in the UK if cycling was remotely popular the TDF wouldn't be on a frickin backup channel.

 

[Robert5091]

Re: Sky

But how much would it cost Sky for the hours on TV if it were normal advertising? As TdF is between football seasons in July it's a good "filler".

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Sky

But how much would it cost Sky for the hours on TV if it were normal advertising?

Ignoring the fact that it's not 'normal' advertising - France Télévision 2 or whatever the channel it's broadcast on wouldn't just run five hours of ads with Richard Virenque gibbering over them, not even on a quiet day - the cost to Sky would be, as MattParker117 said, over $500 million. To be imprecise - for there is no way anyone could pretend that this number is in any way precise - there was $556m of 'advertising' spread over TV, Print, and Online.

The TV hours totalled 68,000 for the year across 175 countries. The Tour de France accounted for 79.9% of the TV hours. For Sky's exposure, it was 86.7% of the total.

A note on the calculation:

Brand exposure ($) is calculated using the following inputs:
● TV, print and online audience measurement
● Media advertising rates by market and media channel
● Weight of exposure calculated by measuring the size, location, duration and legibility of sponsor branding in each medium

And to put Sky's return here in context, there's this:

Team Sky finished the 2012 season with 38% more points than its nearest competitor (Katusha) in the UCI WorldTour team rankings, but in terms of media exposure the British team completely dominated. Team Sky generated over $550m of equivalent advertising value to its sponsors, over four times that of its nearest competitor. The average WorldTour team delivered $88.4m of media exposure, with the majority (84%) delivered through TV broadcasts and the remainder across print and online. Inevitably Team Sky’s high value skews the market and many team values delivering exposure between the $35m-$50m mark.

In other words, for some teams, the sponsors would be better off spending the money on buying ad breaks than sticking their names on jerseys.

(Cue the fanboy backlash at CN's report claiming that "Sky’s high value skews the market" - say it loud and say it proud: "Level playing field!")

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Re: Re:

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.

Except it isn't being flown, it's being statically displayed. They're holding the hoist to the right so if it were to be flown in this orientation, the pole would have to be to the right. Which puts St Patrick superior to St Andrew on the hoist side, which is upside-down. They're displaying the reverse side, not the obverse.