UK Sport cut cycling funding

iainf72

Brailsford has come over all a bit Vaughters (ie, unhappy)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/de ... g-olympics

Although, from a business perspective it makes sense. Cut funding in something you're good at already and expect the same results with less money. Invest in area's you're not so good at.

Tusher

And many organisations/charities who were previously funded by local authorities and business are now finding their funding cut in the recession and closely studying the Lottery application form in desperation.

Not that I'm happy at all that cycling's funding is going to be cut.

cougie

I dont agree with the logic here.

We lead the world in track cycling - the games are only 2 years away. Our riders will already be at a good level of performance - to cut a budget thats already been set will see things cut - maybe physios, bike hardware, training camps. They could make a difference to riders performances.

On the other side - you can throw as much money as you like at other sports - but you cant expect them to go from no hopers to gold medallists in 2 years - its a steady progression, and 2 years is too short a time.


Anyway - the IOC has butchered the track programme - so Team GB wont be quite as golden as they were in Beijing.

Tusher

I was thinking of the Lottery funding as a pie that has to be cut up but with more people wanting a slice. And I can only see sport in general as loosing out int he long run.

Although I do agree that what cash is left for sport should go to the 'guaranteed' sports rather than the ones GB is just going to turn up for.

mididoctors

cougie wrote:

I dont agree with the logic here.

We lead the world in track cycling - the games are only 2 years away. Our riders will already be at a good level of performance - to cut a budget thats already been set will see things cut - maybe physios, bike hardware, training camps. They could make a difference to riders performances.

On the other side - you can throw as much money as you like at other sports - but you cant expect them to go from no hopers to gold medallists in 2 years - its a steady progression, and 2 years is too short a time.


Anyway - the IOC has butchered the track programme - so Team GB wont be quite as golden as they were in Beijing.

+1

and remember the other guys are going to step up and emulate your methodology

you have to keep your foot on the gas

lucybears

Privately some within Britain’s Olympic effort have voiced concerns that the Team Sky project, which like the track outfit is led by performance director Dave Brailsford, might dilute the focus of an operation that was all-conquering in Beijing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... m-Sky.html

John Stevenson

Why should elite athletes get public funding at all?

cougie

If they dont - we wouldnt get any medals - no coverage - cycling out of the public eye - less intereste - less bike sales - less cycling mags - less cycling forums.... :shock:

Tusher

........and national sporting success does trickle down. Paula = more women jogging, Brad+Cav et al = more cyclists and so on.

Which makes for a healthier nation...........which makes for less pressure on the NHS and so on.

That's the theory anyway.

afx237vi

cougie wrote:

If they dont - we wouldnt get any medals - no coverage - cycling out of the public eye - less intereste - less bike sales - less cycling mags - less cycling forums.... :shock:

Really? What is the ratio of discussion here between a) commercially funded pro cycling and b) publicly funded Olympic stuff?

People only care about the Olympics for two weeks every four years.

blazing_saddles

afx237vi wrote:

Really? What is the ratio of discussion here between a) commercially funded pro cycling and b) publicly funded Olympic stuff?

People only care about the Olympics for two weeks every four years.

I'm sure we'd all be pretty upset if half the sponsors withdrew from our branch of the sport.

Track relies on funding and, while it may be for targetting the Olympics, it also supports the worlds and WC.

Like the Tour, the Olympics are the showcase.
No success there, can only have a negative knock on effect.

lucybears

afx237vi wrote:

People only care about the Olympics for two weeks every four years.

yes, but "£26.4 million in public funding between now and 2013 to support the Olympic effort." will be seen by some as a bargain

afx237vi

lucybears wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

People only care about the Olympics for two weeks every four years.

yes, but "£26.4 million in public funding between now and 2013 to support the Olympic effort." will be seen by some as a bargain

In what way? How much of that actually gets down to the grass roots of the sport?

Blazing Saddles: I understand that, but the difference is that the Tour is the showcase for a fully-functional, self-sustaining professional sport... the Olympics is the showcase for what, a couple of world cup meets that no-one pays the blindest bit of attention to?

I'm being negative again, but I'm really not sure it's worth all that public money. Shouldn't a sport try and stand on it's own two feet instead of being propped up by public cash? If it can't attract private sponsors on its own merits... well, maybe the Olympics would be more appealing if it stuck to its amateur ideals.

calvjones

Wot afx said. Cycling is the opera of sport

mididoctors

afx237vi wrote:

lucybears wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

People only care about the Olympics for two weeks every four years.

yes, but "£26.4 million in public funding between now and 2013 to support the Olympic effort." will be seen by some as a bargain

In what way? How much of that actually gets down to the grass roots of the sport?

Blazing Saddles: I understand that, but the difference is that the Tour is the showcase for a fully-functional, self-sustaining professional sport... the Olympics is the showcase for what, a couple of world cup meets that no-one pays the blindest bit of attention to?

I'm being negative again, but I'm really not sure it's worth all that public money. Shouldn't a sport try and stand on it's own two feet instead of being propped up by public cash? If it can't attract private sponsors on its own merits... well, maybe the Olympics would be more appealing if it stuck to its amateur ideals.

the amateur ideal is a load of tosh and always was

and the olympics is not unappealing??? ..it gets massive viewing figures

Birillo

I'm being negative again, but I'm really not sure it's worth all that public money.

Yes, let's go back to the good old days. Remember the Olympics when Britain only won one gold medal - thanks to a horse?

simon_e

afx237vi wrote:

I'm really not sure it's worth all that public money.

The Olympics is professional sport, it's just that it is mostly funded by countries not companies.

It is very easy to underestimate the effect the Olympics has on grassroots sport. However, you only have to ask a Go-Ride coach about the increase of interest after Beijing; or even see how many kids in school have heard of Bradley Wiggins. A successful Olympic gold medallist making an impression in the world's biggest sporting event is huge.

The BBC coverage of the track World Cup and Mendrisio may not have even existed without the success of Team GB to date. They want to show the public some British sporting success and track cycling has it in spades.

£26 million is s a drop in the ocean of public finance. To give a basis for comparison, it is one quarter of the projected cost of the 3.7 mile North West Relief Road around Shrewsbury. This is an additional 'ring road' skirting the town where I live which IMO is unnecessary. Shrewsbury already has a ring road and a dual carriageway bypass. We don't need no stinkin' road :evil:

Using money on sport may be hard for us to quantify, and I'm not saying this is the ideal way to spend it (is there one?), but the trickledown effect does happen.

Pross

John Stevenson wrote:

Why should elite athletes get public funding at all?

Cos then we'd be back in the dark days of pre-lottery funding with our top riders having to hold down jobs and fit in training in between. Surely the evolution over the last 15 years shows that the funding is worthwhile?

afx237vi

mididoctors wrote:

the amateur ideal is a load of tosh and always was

and the olympics is not unappealing??? ..it gets massive viewing figures

So why don't those viewing figures move from the Olympics to the world cup, or the grand prix swimming / athletics / gymnastics events?

The Olympics is popular because of the jingoistic "Team GB" guff, not because of the sport.

Pross

afx237vi wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

the amateur ideal is a load of tosh and always was

and the olympics is not unappealing??? ..it gets massive viewing figures

So why don't those viewing figures move from the Olympics to the world cup, or the grand prix swimming / athletics / gymnastics events?

The Olympics is popular because of the jingoistic "Team GB" guff, not because of the sport.

Because the coverage isn't well publicised / is only on Sky or red button and all sports have greater viewing figures for their blue ribband events (World Cup football / rugby, Ashes cricket, Wimbledon, athletics worlds etc.).

afx237vi

Pross wrote:

John Stevenson wrote:

Why should elite athletes get public funding at all?

Cos then we'd be back in the dark days of pre-lottery funding with our top riders having to hold down jobs and fit in training in between. Surely the evolution over the last 15 years shows that the funding is worthwhile?

Worthwile to whom? Cyclists and cycling fans. I'm sure the majority of the population couldn't give a stuff that Britain has a good track cycling team.

Re Simon E's point: Yeah £26 million is a drop in the ocean compared to some of the other wastes of time that the Government spends our money, but it's still hell of a lot. And I obviously agree that some money should be used to finance grassroots sport... I just have doubts about it's use in elite sports.

afx237vi

Pross wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

the amateur ideal is a load of tosh and always was

and the olympics is not unappealing??? ..it gets massive viewing figures

So why don't those viewing figures move from the Olympics to the world cup, or the grand prix swimming / athletics / gymnastics events?

The Olympics is popular because of the jingoistic "Team GB" guff, not because of the sport.

Because the coverage isn't well publicised / is only on Sky or red button and all sports have greater viewing figures for their blue ribband events (World Cup football / rugby, Ashes cricket, Wimbledon, athletics worlds etc.).

The public gets what the public wants. Why are people willing to pay £30 a month to watch football or cricket, but not willing to push the red button to watch cycling? That is not due to a lack of publicity.

Pross

afx237vi wrote:

Pross wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

the amateur ideal is a load of tosh and always was

and the olympics is not unappealing??? ..it gets massive viewing figures

So why don't those viewing figures move from the Olympics to the world cup, or the grand prix swimming / athletics / gymnastics events?

The Olympics is popular because of the jingoistic "Team GB" guff, not because of the sport.

Because the coverage isn't well publicised / is only on Sky or red button and all sports have greater viewing figures for their blue ribband events (World Cup football / rugby, Ashes cricket, Wimbledon, athletics worlds etc.).

The public gets what the public wants. Why are people willing to pay £30 a month to watch football or cricket, but not willing to push the red button to watch cycling? That is not due to a lack of publicity.

It is if you don't know it's on the red button!

As for people not giving a stuff about having a good track team it didn't seem that way when they were racking up gold medals at the Olympics not to mention the small matter of the public voting Chris Hoy SPOTY 08. The track scene in my part of the world is flourishing having been fairly non-existent when I started cycling. Yres, the swanky new velodrome has helped but I still feel that success breeds success.

top_bhoy

Given the overall cost to the public purse of getting and hosting the 2012 Olympics, the level of funding to complete the show is neglible. I think there is another point to be made however in the way sports funding is handled. It is entirely correct that athletes from all sports are funded to some extent and not simply the most marketable.

I don't particulalry agree with the funding of education through student loans but if it does exist, what I would like to see is for athletes funding to be treated in the same way as student loans ie in later life, once the athlete reaches a certain income level - in whatever area of life that occurs, then they are expected to repay money they received, back. It is unfair for athletes to be treated differently from students.

Stone Glider

The cuts will not have a great affect on 2012. The talent that has been developed and nurtured in the past many years will not disappear all at once. Brazil in 2016 might be disappointing and 2020 will be zero.

That's OK as far as politicians are concerned, they won't be around then, tough on the rest of us though The riders likely to suffer most are probably fourteen to eighteen at present. Enjoy the DVD's as thats probably as close as you will get to top level competition if things stay as presently arranged.

simon_e

Try booking a session at Newport velodrome!

Apart from the appeal to regular cyclists, my LBS is shifting more C2W bikes than ever while more kids recognise (and admire) pro cyclists than I've ever known. To suggest that the success of the Olympics and now Wiggins' 4th at the TdF plus Cavendish's stage haul (and now SPOTY shortlist) isn't interesting for the general sport-watching public seems odd to me. It appears Wiggins has noticed.

Before the 2008-2009 track series on the BBC cycling just wasn't really on the radar for most of the public, but the success followed by Olympic medal haul has changed all that. Hoy gets a knighthood and the hugely popular SPOTY 2008 (40% of the vote and an estimated 9.8 million viewers for the announcement of his win). And three other cyclists - Nicole Cooke, Wiggins and Rebecca Romero - were on the shortlist.

Look at the reception Wiggins had at the ToB and the coverage his move to the newly-formed Sky road team has generated. That's surely another first in my lifetime. Do you think that Richard Moore's book "Heroes, Villains and Velodromes", which apparently flew off the shelves last year, has only been read by keen cyclists?

Whether you like it or not, jingoism sells because generally we want *our* team/nation/competitor to win. Think of England in (and ever since) 1966, or the whole basis of English league football, it's all quite tribal. That's something I like about cycling, it doesn't have the same mentality... if you don't count the Basques

The most popular sports are, barring cricket, afternoon/evening 90-minute (or shorter) events in a fixed arena. Easy to cover and understand: score more goals/run faster/bigger hitter=best. Even I can enjoy a good goal, but most fans have to 'get' the complexity of road cycle sport aka chess on wheels to enjoy it. Most poeple can't be bothered, they'd rather sit and cheer for their chosen team, however well, badly or indifferently it performs. It helps them feel they belong. I don't think like that but many do.

And £26 million (over 4 years) really IS small change in public finances, and even within sport!