What’s next for Team Sky?

joey54321

Regarding pay caps, I'm not sure driving money out of the sport would be good for it in the long run though.

rick_chasey

Why do you want cycling to be more international?

So far, the popularity for cycling has mainly meant reduced access to riders, too many fans on popular climbs which affect the result and an awful lot of sh!te chatted from people who only got into the sport 3 years ago.

The only real upside I see is the higher likelihood of better coverage, but even then it really hasn't delivered.

ddraver

I must confess I just don't see where this huge groundswell of people with nothing else to do of an afternoon except look vaguely for a sporting event they haven't found yet to watch is...

There's not much money in Cycling because...not many people watch cycling...

Why else are all us reprobates watching it together here as opposed to down the pub with our mates? Cos our mates don't watch it...

joey54321

Vino'sGhost wrote:

The challenge that cycling has is that return on investment is limited. Sky’s budget c30million euro I’d heard. Better to sponsor a jersey.

I did read somewhere the cycling actually offers incredible returns of investment in terms of exposure when compared to other forms of advertising. I think the issue is, as one person pointed out above, there always seems to be some sort of negativity when it comes to brands associating themselves with cycling.

Vino'sGhost

ddraver wrote:

I must confess I just don't see where this huge groundswell of people with nothing else to do of an afternoon except look vaguely for a sporting event they haven't found yet to watch is...

There's not much money in Cycling because...not many people watch cycling...

Why else are all us reprobates watching it together here as opposed to down the pub with our mates? Cos our mates don't watch it...

I havent got any mates. Thats why i like it in here,

Vino'sGhost

joey54321 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

The challenge that cycling has is that return on investment is limited. Sky’s budget c30million euro I’d heard. Better to sponsor a jersey.

I did read somewhere the cycling actually offers incredible returns of investment in terms of exposure when compared to other forms of advertising. I think the issue is, as one person pointed out above, there always seems to be some sort of negativity when it comes to brands associating themselves with cycling.

It offers a lot of exposure in a few races a year, notably the tour. The cost of that exposure is high when compared to the exposure a top team like Man Utd or Real Madrid achieve. There arent that many companies around that can bung 35million euro into a cycling team for three years or more. and for those that can, there are many alternatives. It depends on what the desired outcome is.

thats why some very rich people have had teams recently, theyre doing it in part for the love of it. Quickstep floors, as successful as they are must have past the point years ago where they could switch to a new outlet and getter better returns. Im glad theyve stuck at it.

Global team budgets required for a limited mostly western european sport without massive diversity.

pat1cp

Vino'sGhost wrote:

joey54321 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

The challenge that cycling has is that return on investment is limited. Sky’s budget c30million euro I’d heard. Better to sponsor a jersey.

I did read somewhere the cycling actually offers incredible returns of investment in terms of exposure when compared to other forms of advertising. I think the issue is, as one person pointed out above, there always seems to be some sort of negativity when it comes to brands associating themselves with cycling.

It offers a lot of exposure in a few races a year, notably the tour. The cost of that exposure is high when compared to the exposure a top team like Man Utd or Real Madrid achieve. There arent that many companies around that can bung 35million euro into a cycling team for three years or more. and for those that can, there are many alternatives. It depends on what the desired outcome is.

thats why some very rich people have had teams recently, theyre doing it in part for the love of it. Quickstep floors, as successful as they are must have past the point years ago where they could switch to a new outlet and getter better returns. Im glad theyve stuck at it.

Global team budgets required for a limited mostly western european sport without massive diversity.

BMC is good example of this. The main man passes, they pull out.

I believe the Polish CCC guy is a keen cyclist though.

davidof

squired wrote:

Instead cycling seems to follow what English cricket does and try to protect the current semi-successful model for fear of losing what it already has. In comparison, look at how sports like the NFL and MMA (or more specifically UFC) have pushed to grow themselves internationally (and thus attract more money). Even Darts has managed to grow itself massively over the last few years on an international level.

In fairness to Verbruggen and McQuaid they grew cycling out of it's traditional home nations laager of France, Italy, Spain, Belgium by appealing to the "anglo-saxons" so we now have a very international peloton (not as much as football but you need a bike and roads to be a road racer). We've moved on from cyclists driving around in the back of team cars from stage to stage to having their own coaches and no longer sleeping in boarding schools but being put up in hotels.

It is hard to know what Lappartient's dream is, as a politician I doubt he has one apart from feathering his own nest. He's happy to talk things like women's cycling but talk is cheap. He's still crowing about how he screwed over "Brian" but you do wonder about the what the delegates who voted for him were thinking? Other than maybe going back to the 1970s!

trek_dan

pat1cp wrote:

This was reported by L'Equipe in 2016, not sure how accurate it is...

Tour de France team budgets (estimated)
Team Sky – €35m

This article from Inrng looks at it Team Sky in a bit more detail (its 3 years old now)
http://inrng.com/2016/07/the-finances-of-team-sky-2015/

Overall Sky's budget is not significantly higher than other teams, they just spend it on building a team to win the TdF GC and not on classics or sprinters

DeVlaeminck

Re. the French not liking domination by one rider. There may be an element of truth in that but I think there are other reasons why they are disliked to do with the way they act and the way they race.

As far as the popularity of the sport goes, I agree with Rick be careful what you wish for. Seems to me that male pro riders are well paid now, the races are well organised and there are sufficient big races to follow. There may be problems below the top level - the semi pro races in the uk certainly seem to have fallen by the wayside - but I don't know money would filter down from the ProTour anyway. In any case over here at least the popularity of cycling is quite high. A surprising number of non-cyclists I know follow the big races on TV - it's not football but it's not far behind the other traditional sports in the uk.

m.r.m.

pat1cp wrote:

This was reported by L'Equipe in 2016, not sure how accurate it is...

Tour de France team budgets (estimated)
Team Sky – €35m
Katusha – €32m
BMC – €28m
Tinkoff – €25m
Astana – €20m
Etixx-Quick Step – €18m
Movistar – €15m
Lotto-Soudal – €14m
LottoNL-Jumbo – €14m
Dimension Data – €13.5m
Orica-BikeExchange – €13m
Giant-Alpecin – €12.5m
Trek-Segafredo – €12m
Ag2r La Mondiale – €12m
Cofidis – €11m
IAM Cycling – €10.5m
FDJ – €10m
Cannondale – €10m
Lampre-Merida – €7m
Direct Energie – €6m
Bora-Argon 18 – €4.5m
Fortuneo-Vital Concept – €3.5m

The 2 Lotto's and Quick Step do extremely well for their respective budgets with QS being phenomenal. Sky are really good as well even considering their stellar budget. Katusha is a tyre fire.

Pross

knedlicky wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a long, flat Dumoulin-friendly TT and no particularly steep climbs in next year's Tour.

I would. Bardet wouldn't have a chance on that, and ASO aren't going to give up on him yet.

If they want to try and break the Sky stranglehold they should bring in a lot of shorter, real steep stuff and spread it through the race, stuff the trains don't work so well on. Perhaps go through the Vosges or Massif Central early on.

Nancy has applied to be a stage town for the 2019 edition, the Tour coming down to Nancy from its start in Belgium.
This in turn has led to strong rumours of a stage from Nancy to Belfort – around 160-170 kms, but which would include up and over the Ballon d'Alsace in its last 40 kms.
And if the route were made less direct, and about 30 kms longer, it could even include 2-3 lower passes in the Vosges before the Ballon d'Alsace.

Wouldn’t next year’s race be predominantly anti-clockwise in which case I’d have thought the Vosges would be in the final week if at all (I accept that the routes are not really circular and have been a bit split up in recent years). I’m hoping week 3 is the Alps as I plan to finally take in a mountain stage en route to Italy.

hypster

mfin wrote:

mfin wrote:

Brailsford will be somewhat disappointed, as it did take them 8 years to deliver a clean british tour winner not 5. In the end they got there though, which is a great achievement that many thought they'd never see.

...

hypster wrote:

I doubt that he will be disappointed at all because his definition of clean is probably a bit different to yours, as is most normal people's. Not only that he did get a knighthood out of the first one.

&

philthy3 wrote:

What a stupid and ignorant comment. :roll:

It was a joke.

Wiggins winning the tour that is.

Don't worry, that was a joke too.

There's no point in you explaining it's a joke when it so obviously doesn't qualify as such.

pat1cp

"We should go further with a reduction to six, I think, for the measure to be really effective," he suggested.
"With seven, a team like Sky can still control the racing. With six, that would mean the leader's five teammates would tire a lot more. At the same time, we could have more teams to have a decent sized peloton.
"We'll launch an attractiveness study because there are many aspects to consider. Should we forbid race radio that kills off riders taking the initiative and the power metres that monitor riders? Should we rethink the style of the stages? We must analyse everything."

From the Mayor.

I thought it was a safety issue..............

cougie

Surely just banning all non french riders is the easiest solution for them ?

pat1cp

cougie wrote:

Surely just banning all non french riders is the easiest solution for them ?

It would save them "analysing everything" !! :roll:

pat1cp

As far as I can tell, out with the odd year (Pantani, Sastre & possibly Contador(who developed as a TT'er)), the last 30 years have been dominated by TT'ers that can climb.

You have to be able to time trial.

......Take the time trials out ??

pblakeney

pat1cp wrote:

"We should go further with a reduction to six, I think, for the measure to be really effective," he suggested.
"With seven, a team like Sky can still control the racing. With six, that would mean the leader's five teammates would tire a lot more. At the same time, we could have more teams to have a decent sized peloton.
"We'll launch an attractiveness study because there are many aspects to consider. Should we forbid race radio that kills off riders taking the initiative and the power metres that monitor riders? Should we rethink the style of the stages? We must analyse everything."

From the Mayor.

I thought it was a safety issue..............

Great idea!
Why not go the whole hog and have 180 individual "teams"?

Jez mon

pat1cp wrote:

As far as I can tell, out with the odd year (Pantani, Sastre & possibly Contador(who developed as a TT'er)), the last 30 years have been dominated by TT'ers that can climb.

You have to be able to time trial.

......Take the time trials out ??

Lots of these 'TTers that can climb' won mountain stages though. When do you become a 'climber that can TT' ?

Arguably the tour is in an interesting position, so long as it dominates the calendar, its going to be raced conservatively by many, as a top 10/20 position looks good. It's also going to be where the big Anglo dominated team focus, as it's the racd that will bring the most returns in exposure.

If the giro vuelta and one dayers get on a level with the tour then it may well make the tour a better spectacle...but then it wouldn't be as special.

awavey

squired wrote:

Imagine a big sponsor seriously looking at cycling right now. They'd potentially want to spend Team Sky type money, but they then see all the hatred and negativity aimed at the team and think they don't want their brand to be damaged by that, so instead they spend the money on a sticker on a Grand Prix driver's helmet.

the problem is spend money get a sticker on a GP drivers helmet, and you get to turn up at a race, walk on the grid,be made to feel very important, wined/dined etc in luxury hospitality units.

pay for a cycling team what do you get, well squeezed in a team car maybe with the mechanic, where you cant see any of the race, theres certainly not enough space in stage starts or ends to have teams offering hospitality, best case you get a lot of free plastic bottles and cycling kit. Its not the kind of market that wows companies lookin to wow their customers.

Im sure most cycling team sponsors youll find the commercial decision maker is a cycling fan first and foremost, rather than as a company looking to sell its products via cycling. after all wasnt it James Murdochs love of cycling that led to Sky with British Cycling and then Brailsford convincing him to support Team Sky, they dont sell more satellite subscriptions on the back of what the cycling team do. not even sure news international make as much out of it as they could in their newspapers.

which is also I think why you dont find sponsors in cycling from the same sectors competing against each other like you do in football etc

Jez mon

Didn't fasso bortolo go from provincial company to biggest in the country (at whatever they do) whilst sponsoring a team.

I think

Matthewfalle

Jez mon wrote:

Didn't fasso bortolo go from provincial company to biggest in the country (at whatever they do) whilst sponsoring a team.

I think

They are a concrete firm. As in the stuff you make things out of, not just very stable. Stables are made of wood, so perhaps not the best analogy, but you know what I mean.

Having the best kit in the world ever also helped.

mouth

squired wrote:

It is funny really - I very much liken cycling to cricket. Backward, small time thinking. In a sport like cycling, where the sponsors are everything you need to be doing what you can do bring in the largest brands. Those brands are clearly very willing to invest seriously vast sums of money into other sports, so cycling should be doing what it can to get some of that.

Instead cycling seems to follow what English cricket does and try to protect the current semi-successful model for fear of losing what it already has. In comparison, look at how sports like the NFL and MMA (or more specifically UFC) have pushed to grow themselves internationally (and thus attract more money). Even Darts has managed to grow itself massively over the last few years on an international level.

Imagine a big sponsor seriously looking at cycling right now. They'd potentially want to spend Team Sky type money, but they then see all the hatred and negativity aimed at the team and think they don't want their brand to be damaged by that, so instead they spend the money on a sticker on a Grand Prix driver's helmet.

The Tour has the largest TV audience for any single sporting event in the world (fort eh benefit of the tape, for some reason, The Olympics, World Cup and things such as F1 are not one single event). What they need to do is stay ahead of the curve.

Clearly there is an attraction in the sport for moneymen. Take Festina as an example - you've all heard if the Festina scandal - yet as a company they STILL plough their Euro into the sport.

salsiccia1

Mouth wrote:

The Tour has the largest TV audience for any single sporting event in the world (fort eh benefit of the tape, for some reason, The Olympics, World Cup and things such as F1 are not one single event). What they need to do is stay ahead of the curve.

Clearly there is an attraction in the sport for moneymen. Take Festina as an example - you've all heard if the Festina scandal - yet as a company they STILL plough their Euro into the sport.

And still using Richard Virenque in their ads...

mfin

hypster wrote:

There's no point in you explaining it's a joke when it so obviously doesn't qualify as such.

I read that out in a nerdy voice to get the full effect.

Cheer up mate. Most people knew it was a joke, stop taking things so seriously!!

It's just a cycling team made up of a load of blokes in spandex we're talking about here, it doesn't all have to be serious analysis.

hypster

mfin wrote:

hypster wrote:

There's no point in you explaining it's a joke when it so obviously doesn't qualify as such.

I read that out in a nerdy voice to get the full effect.

Cheer up mate. Most people knew it was a joke, stop taking things so seriously!!

It's just a cycling team made up of a load of blokes in spandex we're talking about here, it doesn't all have to be serious analysis.

As your sense of humour seems so poor I would imagine a nerdy voice is your normal mode of speech. I am exceedingly cheerful and if you feel it's just a load of blokes in spandex I wonder you even bother to follow pro cycling or hang around on here. Give it up mate you're obviously not cut out for a career on the stage.

mfin

hypster wrote:

mfin wrote:

hypster wrote:

There's no point in you explaining it's a joke when it so obviously doesn't qualify as such.

I read that out in a nerdy voice to get the full effect.

Cheer up mate. Most people knew it was a joke, stop taking things so seriously!!

It's just a cycling team made up of a load of blokes in spandex we're talking about here, it doesn't all have to be serious analysis.

As your sense of humour seems so poor I would imagine a nerdy voice is your normal mode of speech. I am exceedingly cheerful and if you feel it's just a load of blokes in spandex I wonder you even bother to follow pro cycling or hang around on here. Give it up mate you're obviously not cut out for a career on the stage.

Like I said, stop taking things so seriously!!

m.r.m.

It's too warm to douse this catfight with water, so disperse of your own accord. No one enjoys being sprayed by a bidon!

pblakeney

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Mouth wrote:

The Tour has the largest TV audience for any single sporting event in the world (fort eh benefit of the tape, for some reason, The Olympics, World Cup and things such as F1 are not one single event). What they need to do is stay ahead of the curve.

Clearly there is an attraction in the sport for moneymen. Take Festina as an example - you've all heard if the Festina scandal - yet as a company they STILL plough their Euro into the sport.

And still using Richard Virenque in their ads...

No such thing as bad publicity?...

StillGoing

mfin wrote:

hypster wrote:

There's no point in you explaining it's a joke when it so obviously doesn't qualify as such.

I read that out in a nerdy voice to get the full effect.

Cheer up mate. Most people knew it was a joke, stop taking things so seriously!!

It's just a cycling team made up of a load of blokes in spandex we're talking about here, it doesn't all have to be serious analysis.

You didn't stick any emoji to show it was supposed to be a joke, so it clearly wasn't. Admit it; you thought you'd get a rise like the other troll on here. :roll: