Sky support breakaway league?

iainf72
iainf72 Posts: 15,784
edited March 2013 in Pro race
As in BSkyB

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-2 ... eries.html
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
«1

Comments

  • danlikesbikes
    danlikesbikes Posts: 3,898
    Interesting might shake things up a bit
    Pain hurts much less if its topped off with beating your mates to top of a climb.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,157
    It's an interesting development.
    To my mind, cycling is pretty backward in many ways.

    Firstly, it relies on the same sponsor based business plan that it's had for decades rather than the TV based economy of most other sports.
    Secondly, TV coverage of cycling is very vanilla. There's so much more that could be done with it. And Sky are the most innovative sports broadcaster in Europe.

    The breakaway league gets a bad press because of the muted four day races - and rightly so. But keeping and remarketing existing races while introducing experimental four day events where possible should work.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • inkyfingers
    inkyfingers Posts: 4,400
    Agree with you Rich, the current calendar needs revitalising, rather than replacing.

    I know everybody hates Sky and Murdoch, but their sports coverage makes everybody else look frankly amateur.
    "I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 21,815
    inkyfingers wrote:
    Agree with you Rich, the current calendar needs revitalising, rather than replacing.

    I know everybody hates Sky and Murdoch, but their sports coverage makes everybody else look frankly amateur.

    The difference between amateur and professional being money.
    Not everybody can afford Sky's premium prices
    Bottom line is that fans will have to pay up large, or be left with the results page.
    While the sport may gain some "new wave" supporters, it may well lose some (or many) long time
    fans.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • inkyfingers
    inkyfingers Posts: 4,400
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    inkyfingers wrote:
    Agree with you Rich, the current calendar needs revitalising, rather than replacing.

    I know everybody hates Sky and Murdoch, but their sports coverage makes everybody else look frankly amateur.

    The difference between amateur and professional being money.
    Not everybody can afford Sky's premium prices
    Bottom line is that fans will have to pay up large, or be left with the results page.
    While the sport may gain some "new wave" supporters, it may well lose some (or many) long time
    fans.

    I do appreciate that, I was simply talking about quality of coverage, not whether it was the best thing for the sport or not.

    Sponsors will decide the best route for them in the long term. They may decide that as in the case of football it might be better to attract a smaller fan base, but one that has far more money.

    Out of interest, does anybody know how what percentage of households have access to Sky Sports channels?
    "I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)
  • danlikesbikes
    danlikesbikes Posts: 3,898
    Just to add my party I can afford Sky sports, however choose not to as I have no interesting in watching football. golf etc so actively stick with just my Eurosport coverage.

    I do like the fact that it might introduce more races & would be an interesting development if the teams got more money though as I don't think this would be a bad idea.

    Though the more I read the report the more it reminds me of the breakaway snooker league, football, F1 which never came about but did cause the governing bodies to change some of their attics.
    Pain hurts much less if its topped off with beating your mates to top of a climb.
  • jane90
    jane90 Posts: 149
    Genuine question to those long-time fans of the sport, steeped in its history and traditions - would increased commercialisation of the sport be a good thing or a bad thing?
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    jane90 wrote:
    Genuine question to those long-time fans of the sport, steeped in its history and traditions - would increased commercialisation of the sport be a good thing or a bad thing?

    I'm not sure how much more commerical you can make a sport that exists to advertise TBH.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • danlikesbikes
    danlikesbikes Posts: 3,898
    I think it would as we are losing historic races due to not having enough money to run them on.

    Partly as some of the countries running the races such as Spain are in such a poor financial position so you can't blame sponsors for no longer being able to afford to contribute. But same is true in Britain, Italy, France etc so if we can get more money in to the sport by some sort of commercialisation it can only help.
    Pain hurts much less if its topped off with beating your mates to top of a climb.
  • jane90
    jane90 Posts: 149
    I'm hardly in a position to comment, Iain, as I've seen a grand total of half a dozen races, but to a newcomer like myself the sport seems very underfunded compared to the mainstream sports, the organisation haphazard and the TV coverage of mixed quality. Is this a fair impression?
  • danlikesbikes
    danlikesbikes Posts: 3,898
    jane90 wrote:
    I'm hardly in a position to comment, Iain, as I've seen a grand total of half a dozen races, but to a newcomer like myself the sport seems very underfunded compared to the mainstream sports, the organisation haphazard and the TV coverage of mixed quality. Is this a fair impression?

    Underfunded - Yes
    Organisation - No sure think most races are pretty well run
    TV coverage - in Britain its mainly Eurosport who buy the video in from host broadcaster so whilst its not their fault some can be pretty rubbish indeed.
    Pain hurts much less if its topped off with beating your mates to top of a climb.
  • jane90
    jane90 Posts: 149
    Danlikesbikes, so if the teams were better funded, would that be better for the sport? Would it attract better riders and reward them adequately compared to other sports? What are the costs of that happening? Would it turn the riders into spoilt football players, for example, or would the cost of dancing to the bigger sponsors' tune rob the sport of its character?

    I haven't really been impressed with the cycling I've seen on Eurosport so far, it seems to be very cheaply produced but again, I haven't seen enough to comment properly. What are your thoughts of a broadcaster like Sky with a pedigree in excellent sports coverage taking over the rights?
  • northstar
    northstar Posts: 407
    Bad idea, the more money that comes into a sport, the more chance we will see what has happened in the past.
    Training is like fighting with a gorilla. You don’t stop when you’re tired. You stop when the gorilla is tired.
  • inkyfingers
    inkyfingers Posts: 4,400
    northstar wrote:
    Bad idea, the more money that comes into a sport, the more chance we will see what has happened in the past.

    Do you think it should stay the same then? We had a situation where pretty much every top rider was doping in some form, how could it get much worse?
    "I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)
  • danlikesbikes
    danlikesbikes Posts: 3,898
    jane90 wrote:
    Danlikesbikes, so if the teams were better funded, would that be better for the sport? Would it attract better riders and reward them adequately compared to other sports? What are the costs of that happening? Would it turn the riders into spoilt football players, for example, or would the cost of dancing to the bigger sponsors' tune rob the sport of its character?

    I haven't really been impressed with the cycling I've seen on Eurosport so far, it seems to be very cheaply produced but again, I haven't seen enough to comment properly. What are your thoughts of a broadcaster like Sky with a pedigree in excellent sports coverage taking over the rights?

    Eurosport - as I said previously they do not produce any of the TV coverage but purchase either the live race or highlights package from the host broadcaster. I'm not defending them just stating how they get the coverage, the commentators (just see other threads) are a bit like marmite you either love or hate them.

    As for the funding I see it going into 2 areas really;
    Races organisation - which was my original point that the race organisers are struggling to get funding to put on the races & if this increased then the number of races would increase.

    Teams - Think the top teams already have some pretty well paid riders who perhaps we are stating to see the prima donna attitude from.

    The lower level teams are ones that I think do struggle as its the chicken and egg situation they don't have enough money to bring in the talent do not win races and therefore possibly up and coming racers may not want to move to them. There are some teams though that survive on a low budget have some quality racers who may not win that many races but make the races bloody good fun to watch & become hero's to us all. Think of the last few years we have seen many large teams cease to exist due to the cost of funding, some have pulled out due to poor publicity & others are struggling to survive at the top end.

    I don't think funding would bring in more top end riders as I don't think road cycling has riders currently racing that are not at the top of their game or have moved into others sports. Though perhaps we could pinch a few more track riders who knows. You'd have to remember that most of the riders come through the ranks & its often the smaller teams that take them on first & if they are struggling and do not find funding we may well end up missing some of the rising stars of the future as they simply can not get a top level contract and simply stay in the low leagues of cycling.
    Pain hurts much less if its topped off with beating your mates to top of a climb.
  • northstar
    northstar Posts: 407
    inkyfingers wrote:
    northstar wrote:
    Bad idea, the more money that comes into a sport, the more chance we will see what has happened in the past.

    Do you think it should stay the same then? We had a situation where pretty much every top rider was doping in some form, how could it get much worse?

    It's not broken, so why try and fix it?

    Edit: If you think the big money is the way to go, then go ahead but the sport will suffer long term.
    Training is like fighting with a gorilla. You don’t stop when you’re tired. You stop when the gorilla is tired.
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    jane90 wrote:
    Danlikesbikes, so if the teams were better funded, would that be better for the sport? Would it attract better riders and reward them adequately compared to other sports? What are the costs of that happening? Would it turn the riders into spoilt football players, for example, or would the cost of dancing to the bigger sponsors' tune rob the sport of its character?

    I haven't really been impressed with the cycling I've seen on Eurosport so far, it seems to be very cheaply produced but again, I haven't seen enough to comment properly. What are your thoughts of a broadcaster like Sky with a pedigree in excellent sports coverage taking over the rights?


    For some of the teams it can be a precarious existence on the sponsorship front. Teams can - and do - disappear, and others have anxious times as their management seek replacement sponsors for headline sponsors who pull out. Two examples in 2011: one of the most successful teams, HTC Highroad, folding at the end of the season because they couldnt find a replacement for HTC; and Geox-TMC - began 2011 with their two new sponsors and then in Oct (way way too late in the day) GEOX announced they were withdrawing sponsorship and the team were unable to line up a replacement.

    Right now, Vacansoleil havent confirmed whether they will continue to sponsor the team when the current contract is up. Blanco are of course trying to find a new sponsor. And Orica-GreenEdge are trying to find another sponsor alongside Orica so that Gerry Ryan doesnt have to keep on forking out. Thanks to the economic situation, Euskatel is precarious as are smaller Spanish and Portuguese teams. Italian teams are also vulnerable.

    The thinking is that some revenue sharing would help put teams on a safer footing. Not that the highest paid pros will get more money (though a lot of the domestiques are paid considerably less than people think - but the Cavs, Phil Gils, Evans, Contadors etc massively bump up the 'average' pro salary figures that get quoted)
  • inkyfingers
    inkyfingers Posts: 4,400
    northstar wrote:
    inkyfingers wrote:
    northstar wrote:
    Bad idea, the more money that comes into a sport, the more chance we will see what has happened in the past.

    Do you think it should stay the same then? We had a situation where pretty much every top rider was doping in some form, how could it get much worse?

    It's not broken, so why try and fix it?

    Edit: If you think the big money is the way to go, then go ahead but the sport will suffer long term.

    I didn't say that, as a fan i'm fairly happy with things how they are, albeit i'd like to see the quality of TV coverage improved.

    It's very easy to think of reasons why things shouldn't change, but change doesn't always have to be a bad thing.
    "I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,157
    northstar wrote:
    It's not broken, so why try and fix it?
    But it is broken. HTC, Gerolsteiner, Geox, Credit Agricole, Rabobank, Milram, Cervelo etc can all attest to that. As can many races. And every female cyclist.

    The sport's business model, which is largely unchanged since the days of Desgrange, relies on short term investments from sponsors. The contracts are usually for two or three years at a time, which means there is no long term security.

    Funding from a centralised pot gives a more sustainable and predictable revenue stream. In turn it reduces pressure for results from sponsors and gives the league owners leverage over the teams - both of which can be used to discourage doping. Furthermore, it will balance out the budgets of the teams, thereby promoting competitiveness.

    It's not the amount of money that is the issue, but where it comes from and where it goes to. Currently most TV money goes to ASO shareholders, not the sport.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • northstar
    northstar Posts: 407
    The sport's business model, which is largely unchanged since the days of Desgrange, relies on short term investments from sponsors. The contracts are usually for two or three years at a time, which means there is no long term security.

    As long as sky or any pay tv company are involved things will get worse long term.

    They tried it in Italy, it didn't work.
    Training is like fighting with a gorilla. You don’t stop when you’re tired. You stop when the gorilla is tired.
  • Tom Butcher
    Tom Butcher Posts: 3,830
    RichN95 wrote:
    northstar wrote:
    It's not broken, so why try and fix it?
    But it is broken. HTC, Gerolsteiner, Geox, Credit Agricole, Rabobank, Milram, Cervelo etc can all attest to that. As can many races. And every female cyclist.

    The sport's business model, which is largely unchanged since the days of Desgrange, relies on short term investments from sponsors. The contracts are usually for two or three years at a time, which means there is no long term security.

    Funding from a centralised pot gives a more sustainable and predictable revenue stream. In turn it reduces pressure for results from sponsors and gives the league owners leverage over the teams - both of which can be used to discourage doping. Furthermore, it will balance out the budgets of the teams, thereby promoting competitiveness.

    It's not the amount of money that is the issue, but where it comes from and where it goes to. Currently most TV money goes to ASO shareholders, not the sport.

    Hmm, has a similar business model necessarily done all that in other sports ? Yes I agree that a more predictable, sustainable funding model might open up the possibilities to improve things for women, for competitiveness etc but I look at say football and I don't see that extra money from TV has really helped women, I don't see that football is more competitive - in fact the opposite.
    it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,157
    Tom Butcher wrote:

    Hmm, has a similar business model necessarily done all that in other sports ? Yes I agree that a more predictable, sustainable funding model might open up the possibilities to improve things for women, for competitiveness etc but I look at say football and I don't see that extra money from TV has really helped women, I don't see that football is more competitive - in fact the opposite.

    Ah, but the lack of competitiveness in the Premier League is caused by the extra money paid to the self-perpetuating elite from the Champions League rather than the money from the Premier League itself.
    In turn, the Champions League is pretty competitive - 9 different winners and 14 different finalists in the last 12 years.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    Friebe's just tweeted that the Giro dell'Appennino the latest Italian race to fold...

    At this rate, we're going to need the breakaway league and its new races to add to the ASO / RCS etcs, for a viable race calendar....
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    Friebe's just tweeted that the Giro dell'Appennino the latest Italian race to fold...

    At this rate, we're going to need the breakaway league and its new races to add to the ASO / RCS etcs, for a viable race calendar....

    It's only moved, not folded.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    iainf72 wrote:
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    Friebe's just tweeted that the Giro dell'Appennino the latest Italian race to fold...

    At this rate, we're going to need the breakaway league and its new races to add to the ASO / RCS etcs, for a viable race calendar....

    It's only moved, not folded.


    Ah, just seen Friebe's next tweet correcting himself. Good - thats a race with so much history

    Concern about European races in general still valid. Disappearing at worst, stage races shrinking, hanging on by skin of their teeth from year to year. Not good.
  • dab_32
    dab_32 Posts: 94
    As long as sky or any pay tv company are involved things will get worse long term.

    They tried it in Italy, it didn't work.

    That's a very cynical view and get worse for who?

    More money in the sport means riders can be paid more and not live on a shoe string like many of the domestiques do. It could also mean the setting up of a cyclists union (similar to the PFA in football or or the DA is F1.) This can only be a good thing in the fight against doping and possibly prevent tragedies like Marco Pantani (the PFA have intervention and rehab programmes for footballers with addictions.)

    Currently the majority of the money goes to the races (ASO etc.) This seems really unfair to me as without the riders there would be no event so if they are performing they should get a larger share of the TV revenue.

    I think football has benefited hugely from TV revenue and Sky TV, it is a better safer sport for fans and players. The women's game is now far higher profile that it ever was before Sky were involved.

    The bottom line is more money in the sport means it is higher profile and ultimately more professional. A more professional sport means an all round better experience for the athletes and the fans.
  • northstar
    northstar Posts: 407
    That's a very cynical view and get worse for who?

    No it's not, I want the sport to thrive but in right direction.
    Training is like fighting with a gorilla. You don’t stop when you’re tired. You stop when the gorilla is tired.
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    dab_32 wrote:
    Currently the majority of the money goes to the races (ASO etc.) This seems really unfair to me as without the riders there would be no event so if they are performing they should get a larger share of the TV revenue.

    Who says a larger share will go to the riders? Won't it just go to the team owners?

    As I see it, this is just posturing from the teams as Danlikesbikes says.
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    I'm not so sure

    This feels like it has something behind it

    BSkyB wouldnt bugger around if it was just posturing. And I doubt very much they're doing it just to try to recoup their investment in Team Sky which adds up to just 0.5% of BSkyB's total marketing spend
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    This feels like it has something behind it

    Well yes. It's about control of the sport. The teams want more and the money that goes with it. I doubt the breakaway league will ever happen, it's just a threat. Not that it won't have the desired effect though.

Categories