The big four and the Tour
Comments
-
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19665737#p19665737]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:He's an odd one Mr. Tinkoff.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/oleg-tinkov/oleg-tinkov-chapeau-to-team-sky-but-theyre-going-to-kill-the-business
Does he really never stop to wonder if there's a reason the other GC favourites aren't riding the Giro?
Or when he complains that Sky and their blasted long term planning are killing the sport... Why don't other teams go and hunt huge sponsors and make a long term plan too? If Warrington RL can get Emirates as a shirt sponsor, I really don't see why a team with a 3 week billboard in the biggest annual sporting event in the world can't do the same.
I don't quite get what he's saying. They have similar money to sky but don't plan long term whereas Sky do and that's affecting other teams? He's clearly passionate but strikes me as a loud mouth. Cycling will live long after he's moved on.0 -
Week one will leave the potential realistic winners to 2 at best.
The rest will be decided on the Alp.
Sort of a good prediction.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19665737#p19665737]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:He's an odd one Mr. Tinkoff.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/oleg-tinkov/oleg-tinkov-chapeau-to-team-sky-but-theyre-going-to-kill-the-business
Does he really never stop to wonder if there's a reason the other GC favourites aren't riding the Giro?
Or when he complains that Sky and their blasted long term planning are killing the sport... Why don't other teams go and hunt huge sponsors and make a long term plan too? If Warrington RL can get Emirates as a shirt sponsor, I really don't see why a team with a 3 week billboard in the biggest annual sporting event in the world can't do the same.
I don't quite get what he's saying. They have similar money to sky but don't plan long term whereas Sky do and that's affecting other teams? He's clearly passionate but strikes me as a loud mouth. Cycling will live long after he's moved on.
I think he explains his position reasonably well. It is not really a criticism of Sky, but more of the structure of cycling. He is saying that BMC, Katusha and Europa car may well leave, that his money is likely to run out by the end of 2016, so none of these teams can plan long term. It is an old problem in cycling. His solution might not work, but he is entitled to an opinion.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19665737#p19665737]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:He's an odd one Mr. Tinkoff.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/oleg-tinkov/oleg-tinkov-chapeau-to-team-sky-but-theyre-going-to-kill-the-business
Does he really never stop to wonder if there's a reason the other GC favourites aren't riding the Giro?
Or when he complains that Sky and their blasted long term planning are killing the sport... Why don't other teams go and hunt huge sponsors and make a long term plan too? If Warrington RL can get Emirates as a shirt sponsor, I really don't see why a team with a 3 week billboard in the biggest annual sporting event in the world can't do the same.
I don't quite get what he's saying. They have similar money to sky but don't plan long term whereas Sky do and that's affecting other teams? He's clearly passionate but strikes me as a loud mouth. Cycling will live long after he's moved on.
I think he explains his position reasonably well. It is not really a criticism of Sky, but more of the structure of cycling. He is saying that BMC, Katusha and Europa car may well leave, that his money is likely to run out by the end of 2016, so none of these teams can plan long term. It is an old problem in cycling. His solution might not work, but he is entitled to an opinion.
But surely Sky can't be the only company in the world willing to put up that kind of money for a long term project?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19665778#p19665778]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:
But surely Sky can't be the only company in the world willing to put up that kind of money for a long term project?
I think Inner Ring did a good article on this at some point. Getting sponsorship has always been harder due to doping scandals. F1 (I don't follow it) has also had similar problems, so it is not completely doping related. Advertising is tricky. Remember a lot of sports actually receive money from paying spectators, so the advertising is extra.
It also needs to be a company with a presence in the whole of Europe - I'm always amazed at how rarely I know what the sponsors sell.0 -
Is the "elephant in the room" in this case not the fruitcake Russian bear himself?
Any business putting in the sort of money needed to fund a top-flight pro team for even 3 years is going to do its research. Tinkov makes some fair points, but the guy shrugged his shoulders from the earliest doping positives in his team and has a history erratic behaviour, fall outs and firings. Yes, he's entertaining (in a charming crackpot megalomaniac kind of way), but he seems to be the biggest liability to his own team's future.
Basically, he's blaming Brailsford for being too brilliant a manager with too brilliant a business model and it's making him look bad.0 -
I'm not sure what long-term planning advantage he's claiming Sky have, unless he's suggesting that other teams would have discarded Froome under the pressure of short-term results. The stability is definitely a recruitment advantage for young talent, but then so is not giving rider's their appraisal on Twitter.
He has more of a point when it comes to the ability to prioritise winning the Tour over all other stage-racing concerns But that's a relatively small disadvantage, like having to carry a Majka as stage-winning insurance. If Oleg wanted a team of relentless domestiques like Sky he could acquire and train them, but he'd win fewer stages.
I don't see the unfairness....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
I'm not sure what long-term planning advantage he's claiming Sky have, unless he's suggesting that other teams would have discarded Froome under the pressure of short-term results. The stability is definitely a recruitment advantage for young talent, but then so is not giving rider's their appraisal on Twitter.
He has more of a point when it comes to the ability to prioritise winning the Tour over all other stage-racing concerns But that's a relatively small disadvantage, like having to carry a Majka as stage-winning insurance. If Oleg wanted a team of relentless domestiques like Sky he could acquire and train them, but he'd win fewer stages.
I don't see the unfairness.
Sky chose to unfairly not punt 12 million eurobucks at Peter Sagan. The rotters"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Week one will leave the potential realistic winners to 2 at best.
The rest will be decided on the Alp.
Sort of a good prediction.
GC after Stage 9 going into the rest day:
1. C. Froome
2. T. van Garderan +0:12
3. G. Van Avemaet +0:27
4. P. Sagan +0:38
5, A. Contador +1:03
6. R. Uran Uran +1:18
7. A. Valverde + 1:50
8. G. Thomas +1:52
9. N. Quintana Rojas +1:59
10. Z. Stybar +1:59
The race had barely started let alone whittled down to just two realistic winners. Only Nibali had really failed to live up to expectations at this point and he was only 2:22 down so could have easily turned that round in the Pyrenees.
As for predicting there was likely to be a showdown on the Alpe, I guess that was what the organisers were aiming for all along especially as the same thing had happened in 2013.
Hardly an accurate prediction I would say.0
