Team Sky to end in 2019

RichN95.

Gweeds wrote:

It’s the same logic Vaughters applies.

When sponsors look at Sky and see they’d need £25m+ to get a seat at the GT tables they look elsewhere.

£12-15m with a number of teams at that level equalises things and makes it more appealing overall. Similar concept to a salary cap.

So the 25m teams all disappear and we're left with the 15m teams. But just as now sponsors will work out that they can get value for money with 7m. So we have 15m teams dominating 7m teams. And then 15m teams fail and every says how good it is . And sponsors look to see what they can get for 4m.

What the sport needs is the 15m teams upgrading to 25m. But due to the fragile nature of the sports financial model if a team has a solid 15m sponsor they're not going to jeopardise that by shopping around for an upgrade.

redvision

Gweeds wrote:

It’s the same logic Vaughters applies.

When sponsors look at Sky and see they’d need £25m+ to get a seat at the GT tables they look elsewhere.

£12-15m with a number of teams at that level equalises things and makes it more appealing overall. Similar concept to a salary cap.

I think a budget cap would be great for the sport.
He isn't the best example but this situation is exactly what bjarne riis predicted a couple of years back. A budget cap could help stabilise and secure the long term future of teams, whilst also levelling out the playing field. Nfl is a good example as the salary cap pretty much ensures a different side wins the superbowl every year.

All this said, after reading various reports and comments, I suspect DB will be able to find a replacement sponsor who is willing to invest a similar amount. I would keep an eye on Amazon who seem desperate to make a plunge in to sport broadcasting and also even Facebook.

thegreatdivide

I wonder if Branson is interested?

gweeds

RichN95 wrote:

Gweeds wrote:

It’s the same logic Vaughters applies.

When sponsors look at Sky and see they’d need £25m+ to get a seat at the GT tables they look elsewhere.

£12-15m with a number of teams at that level equalises things and makes it more appealing overall. Similar concept to a salary cap.

So the 25m teams all disappear and we're left with the 15m teams. But just as now sponsors will work out that they can get value for money with 7m. So we have 15m teams dominating 7m teams. And then 15m teams fail and every says how good it is . And sponsors look to see what they can get for 4m.

What the sport needs is the 15m teams upgrading to 25m. But due to the fragile nature of the sports financial model if a team has a solid 15m sponsor they're not going to jeopardise that by shopping around for an upgrade.

There's no easy answer.

What was interesting was the point that it's the numbers around the likes of Red Bull and F1 title sponsorship. Because of the prize money and TV revenues it only costs them around £8m net annually for an entire F1 team (despite an annual spend of around £250m). The costs are huge but so are the financial rewards. Add in the global audience for F1 and what would you choose. £8m on F1 or £20m on cycling?

lettingthedaysgoby

redvision wrote:

All this said, after reading various reports and comments, I suspect DB will be able to find a replacement sponsor who is willing to invest a similar amount

I agree, if only because Sky bankrolled the "hard part" of actually getting the team up and running and into their current leading position. Anyone coming in is pretty much onto a dead cert in terms of exposure and results.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

I think a budget cap would be great for the sport.
He isn't the best example but this situation is exactly what bjarne riis predicted a couple of years back. A budget cap could help stabilise and secure the long term future of teams, whilst also levelling out the playing field. Nfl is a good example as the salary cap pretty much ensures a different side wins the superbowl every year.

When was there a time when different people won the Tour every year?

Was it when Contador won three despite bans and exclusions? Or was it when Armstrong won seven in a row? No it must have been when Indurain won five in a row? Of course there was a period in the late 80s that many hark back to, but LeMond still won three despite being shot? Before that there was Hinault with 11 Grand Tour wins and before that the golden age of Merckx winning absolutely everything. Anquetil, Bobet, Coppi?

lettingthedaysgoby

Gweeds wrote:

What was interesting was the point that it's the numbers around the likes of Red Bull and F1 title sponsorship. Because of the prize money and TV revenues it only costs them around £8m net annually for an entire F1 team (despite an annual spend of around £250m). The costs are huge but so are the financial rewards. Add in the global audience for F1 and what would you choose. £8m on F1 or £20m on cycling?

True. Put into that context cycling's business model really is archaic for a global sport in the 21st century.

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

When was there a time when different people won the Tour every year?

Was it when Contador won three despite bans and exclusions? Or was it when Armstrong won seven in a row? No it must have been when Indurain won five in a row? Of course there was a period in the late 80s that many hark back to, but LeMond still won three despite being shot? Before that there was Hinault with 11 Grand Tour wins and before that the golden age of Merckx winning absolutely everything. Anquetil, Bobet, Coppi?

That's true, however you can't deny that there is currently no team who can compete (realistically) with sky at the moment. As far as I can remember there has never been a team who had such resources that they could win different gt's each year with different riders.

A budget cap would mean no team could have all the best riders (unless those riders were willing to take a lower salary), allowing other teams to strengthen and compete.

In an ideal world of course.

Pross

lettingthedaysgoby wrote:

redvision wrote:

All this said, after reading various reports and comments, I suspect DB will be able to find a replacement sponsor who is willing to invest a similar amount

I agree, if only because Sky bankrolled the "hard part" of actually getting the team up and running and into their current leading position. Anyone coming in is pretty much onto a dead cert in terms of exposure and results.

Is it actually Brailsford can do though? My understanding is that in most teams his equivalent holds the WT licence themselves but in this case isn't it Sky that own the licence so it's more than just bringing in a new sponsor to take on the 'naming rights' otherwise there's a WT licence going spare for another team (existing Pro Conti or new team) to take over. Is that the case?

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

That's true, however you can't deny that there is currently no team who can compete (realistically) with sky at the moment. As far as I can remember there has never been a team who had such resources that they could win different gt's each year with different riders.

Yeah, there are.

There are plenty of strong teams around (best GC result in brackets)
Movistar: Quintana (1), Valverde (1), Landa (3), Amador (4), Carapaz (5) + Soler
Mitchelton: S.Yates (1), Chaves (2), A.Yates (4), Kreuziger (5), Nieve (8) + Haig
Lotto J: Roglic (4), Krijswijk (4), Bennett (8), Gesink (5) + Kuss

The problem is that many teams spread their best 8 around rather or support a sprinter rather than committing fully (which they understandably don't do because they understand that the best rider usual wins, and they don't have the best rider).

carbonclem

I would assume, given SDB's attention to detail and considerations for everything (I mean this genuineley, not being a sark) that he has some kind of business continuity plan for this eventuality?
He may have been surprised by the actual announcement, but he's not daft enough to think it would never happen.
My guess would be that he could well have potential sponsors waiting in the wings ... or any type of consortium that could step up.

Vino'sGhost

CarbonClem wrote:

I would assume, given SDB's attention to detail and considerations for everything (I mean this genuineley, not being a sark) that he has some kind of business continuity plan for this eventuality?
He may have been surprised by the actual announcement, but he's not daft enough to think it would never happen.
My guess would be that he could well have potential sponsors waiting in the wings ... or any type of consortium that could step up.

that would be a big step up for an organisation that doesnt even have a decent medical records system in place.

sloppyschleckonds

Vino'sGhost wrote:

CarbonClem wrote:

I would assume, given SDB's attention to detail and considerations for everything (I mean this genuineley, not being a sark) that he has some kind of business continuity plan for this eventuality?
He may have been surprised by the actual announcement, but he's not daft enough to think it would never happen.
My guess would be that he could well have potential sponsors waiting in the wings ... or any type of consortium that could step up.

that would be a big step up for an organisation that doesnt even have a decent medical records system in place.

They want to get the logistical side of things sorted first

bobmcstuff

RichN95 wrote:

redvision wrote:

I think a budget cap would be great for the sport.
He isn't the best example but this situation is exactly what bjarne riis predicted a couple of years back. A budget cap could help stabilise and secure the long term future of teams, whilst also levelling out the playing field. Nfl is a good example as the salary cap pretty much ensures a different side wins the superbowl every year.

When was there a time when different people won the Tour every year?

Was it when Contador won three despite bans and exclusions? Or was it when Armstrong won seven in a row? No it must have been when Indurain won five in a row? Of course there was a period in the late 80s that many hark back to, but LeMond still won three despite being shot? Before that there was Hinault with 11 Grand Tour wins and before that the golden age of Merckx winning absolutely everything. Anquetil, Bobet, Coppi?

There are far more structural differences with NFL than a salary cap - the way the ownership, franchise system, drafts and fixtures etc etc work in NFL also conspires to level things.

Also doesn't hurt that it is the richest sports league in the world and supported by a massive college football system and wall to wall TV coverage.

The structure of NFL is fundamentally completely different to cycling - not suggesting that an NFL type model is necessarily something to aspire to, but if we wanted that for cycling it would have to be a complete structural reform of the sport not just playing around the edges with salary caps.

Vino'sGhost

bbc puts the boot in

https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/46556327

mrb123

Vino'sGhost wrote:

bbc puts the boot in

https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/46556327

I didn't think the piece actually read too badly once you got past the headline. Unlike the drivel that Roan keeps spouting over and over and over again.

Vino'sGhost

MrB123 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

bbc puts the boot in

https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/46556327

I didn't think the piece actually read too badly once you got past the headline. Unlike the drivel that Roan keeps spouting over and over and over again.

I

I think youre right. but mostly because fro a relatively long piece by BBC standards it doesn't really say much at all.

daniel_b

I wonder if Elon Musk would consider sponsoring, he appears to not be daunted by lack of profit, and would be good exposure.

Team Tesla 8)

Vino'sGhost

Daniel B wrote:

I wonder if Elon Musk would consider sponsoring, he appears to not be daunted by lack of profit, and would be good exposure.

Team Tesla 8)

Theyd turn up late

mrb123

Daniel B wrote:

I wonder if Elon Musk would consider sponsoring, he appears to not be daunted by lack of profit, and would be good exposure.

Team Tesla 8)

Hidden motors anyone?

daniel_b

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Daniel B wrote:

I wonder if Elon Musk would consider sponsoring, he appears to not be daunted by lack of profit, and would be good exposure.

Team Tesla 8)

Theyd turn up late

But wear solar panel helmets, and potentially have electric motors?

EDIT: Tuther Mr B beat me to it!

bobmcstuff

Daniel B wrote:

I wonder if Elon Musk would consider sponsoring, he appears to not be daunted by lack of profit, and would be good exposure.

Team Tesla 8)

Musk is at least as much of a stereotype Bond villain as the Murdochs, would be a good fit

markwb79

Daniel B wrote:

I wonder if Elon Musk would consider sponsoring, he appears to not be daunted by lack of profit, and would be good exposure.

Team Tesla 8)

They are already a global name, not sure they need additional coverage?

I always thought that Hema would be a good once, Dutch company that was/is trying to expand into the UK.

But now, I think that Uniqlo would be a great shout.....Massive company, making a big push to get into Europe, They are paying Federer for 10 years the same as Sky would cost. Maybe Federer would give more coverage, but doubt it actually. You never mention Team Federer Uniqlo, you just see their logo on his t-shirt and him in their adverts, which also costs lots of money.

Vino'sGhost

lettingthedaysgoby wrote:

redvision wrote:

All this said, after reading various reports and comments, I suspect DB will be able to find a replacement sponsor who is willing to invest a similar amount

I agree, if only because Sky bankrolled the "hard part" of actually getting the team up and running and into their current leading position. Anyone coming in is pretty much onto a dead cert in terms of exposure and results.

And they can buy "grey area" and "ethical" problems and history without having to home grow them.

RichN95.

Double post

RichN95.

While we all speculate as to where a new sponsor may come from, a possible avenue can be found in this photo:



Froome, Poels and Rosa with Cameron Wurf in black on the right. Also in black at back some bloke from Wells Fargo.

But the person in white? I mentioned him a few pages back. That's Kevin Systrom, billionaire founder of Instagram. While he's now left Instagram and Facebook, he's still Palo Alto royalty and a mad keen cyclist (half his own Instagram is bike related). He seems like the sort of person who might want to get involved.

cougie

thegreatdivide wrote:

I wonder if Branson is interested?

Wasn't Virgin almost a sponsor once ? Apparently they were about to announce a team - kit was made and something fell through. Wasn't that how Team Brite came about ?

roscoe

Fernando Alonso?

effillo

cougie wrote:

thegreatdivide wrote:

I wonder if Branson is interested?

Wasn't Virgin almost a sponsor once ? Apparently they were about to announce a team - kit was made and something fell through. Wasn't that how Team Brite came about ?

Knowing how he dealt with his F1 sponsorship with BrawnGP and then his own team there is no way I'd see him getting involved.

ddraver

thegreatdivide wrote:

I wonder if Branson is interested?

That is a good point!