McQuaid (and his wallet) love Lance!

donrhummy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/feedarticle/8593937

Lance Armstrong's comeback has boosted media coverage of cycling and it would be great if he would stay around for another year, the president of the International Cycling Union said on Monday.

"He brings more media interest, regardless of people's opinion on what he has done or not done -- which was not proven," Pat McQuaid told Reuters.

"I would like him to stay one more year. It would mean (from now), 18 more months of media interest," said McQuaid.

My question to him then is, what will you do to keep as large a percentage as possible of those new viewers and media members after he leaves?

drenkrom

"I love Lance. He does my job for me." :roll:

iainf72

Here's a question. If cycling was a company

If Lance were the CEO of cycling
And McQuaid was the Chairman
And we're the shareholders

What would we be concerned about from Pat's statement?

(if you need a clue, think about Steve Jobs position at Apple)

donrhummy

iainf72 wrote:

Here's a question. If cycling was a company

If Lance were the CEO of cycling
And McQuaid was the Chairman
And we're the shareholders

What would we be concerned about from Pat's statement?

(if you need a clue, think about Steve Jobs position at Apple)

Exactly, that's my point. We don't want this to be like Bismark where Prussia's power and standing in the world was due entirely to him and when he left it all went kaput. What is McQuaid doing to keep even 10% of the Lance-gains after he leaves? What studies are being done to discover what's keeping them interested? Is he collecting every non-regular journalist's contact info so he can shmooze/coax them back after Lance leaves?

dennisn

donrhummy wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Here's a question. If cycling was a company

If Lance were the CEO of cycling
And McQuaid was the Chairman
And we're the shareholders

What would we be concerned about from Pat's statement?

(if you need a clue, think about Steve Jobs position at Apple)

Exactly, that's my point. We don't want this to be like Bismark where Prussia's power and standing in the world was due entirely to him and when he left it all went kaput. What is McQuaid doing to keep even 10% of the Lance-gains after he leaves? What studies are being done to discover what's keeping them interested? Is he collecting every non-regular journalist's contact info so he can shmooze/coax them back after Lance leaves?

Lance is the big deal right now. Key words being right now. After he's gone interest in
cycling may decline somewhat. I don't know if that's anything anyone can prevent.
In sports, like businesses, ups and downs and the like are part of the game. Maybe after Lance, a new "star" will hit the scene in a few years and Lance, like many stars before him, will still get his name mentioned and make appearances but everyone will be talking
about "that new guy".

donrhummy

dennisn wrote:

donrhummy wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Here's a question. If cycling was a company

If Lance were the CEO of cycling
And McQuaid was the Chairman
And we're the shareholders

What would we be concerned about from Pat's statement?

(if you need a clue, think about Steve Jobs position at Apple)

Exactly, that's my point. We don't want this to be like Bismark where Prussia's power and standing in the world was due entirely to him and when he left it all went kaput. What is McQuaid doing to keep even 10% of the Lance-gains after he leaves? What studies are being done to discover what's keeping them interested? Is he collecting every non-regular journalist's contact info so he can shmooze/coax them back after Lance leaves?

Lance is the big deal right now. Key words being right now. After he's gone interest in
cycling may decline somewhat. I don't know if that's anything anyone can prevent.
In sports, like businesses, ups and downs and the like are part of the game. Maybe after Lance, a new "star" will hit the scene in a few years and Lance, like many stars before him, will still get his name mentioned and make appearances but everyone will be talking
about "that new guy".

It's all about what you do with it and how you package it. The NBA was struggling before Michael Jordan and he revitalized it and made it huge but the NBA got REAL smart in their moves to popularize the sport to a new audience and look - it's bigger now than during MJ's reign.

dennisn

donrhummy wrote:

dennisn wrote:

donrhummy wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Here's a question. If cycling was a company

If Lance were the CEO of cycling
And McQuaid was the Chairman
And we're the shareholders

What would we be concerned about from Pat's statement?

(if you need a clue, think about Steve Jobs position at Apple)

Exactly, that's my point. We don't want this to be like Bismark where Prussia's power and standing in the world was due entirely to him and when he left it all went kaput. What is McQuaid doing to keep even 10% of the Lance-gains after he leaves? What studies are being done to discover what's keeping them interested? Is he collecting every non-regular journalist's contact info so he can shmooze/coax them back after Lance leaves?

Lance is the big deal right now. Key words being right now. After he's gone interest in
cycling may decline somewhat. I don't know if that's anything anyone can prevent.
In sports, like businesses, ups and downs and the like are part of the game. Maybe after Lance, a new "star" will hit the scene in a few years and Lance, like many stars before him, will still get his name mentioned and make appearances but everyone will be talking
about "that new guy".

It's all about what you do with it and how you package it. The NBA was struggling before Michael Jordan and he revitalized it and made it huge but the NBA got REAL smart in their moves to popularize the sport to a new audience and look - it's bigger now than during MJ's reign.

I agree. It could happen in cycling. Although in basketball it didn't hurt that Lebron came on the scene not long after Mike J. Now Mike is doing underwear commercials(for a ton of money) and Lebron is shooting hoops, for a ton of money.