Team SKY to be known as Team Ineos.

ademort

.Internet observers have noticed that the TeamIneos.com website domain was registered on March 5, with the @teamineos account also registered on Twitter.Apparently Team SKY have refused to comment .

blazing_saddles

ademort wrote:

.Internet observers have noticed that the TeamIneos.com website domain was registered on March 5, with the @teamineos account also registered on Twitter.Apparently Team SKY have refused to comment .

You don't say?

viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=13100953&start=340

Posted here 24 hours ago.
You are obviously not observing where you should.

cougie

Hate to say it but the mail had the story 10 days ago.

Anyone could have read that and bought up the domain just in case.

RichN95.

cougie wrote:

Hate to say it but the mail had the story 10 days ago.

Anyone could have read that and bought up the domain just in case.

And the Mail nicked the story of the Sunday Times.

I thought it may be a cybersquatter, but apparently the real Ineos registered it.

inseine

Cycling News are talking like it's a done deal.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sk ... eam-ineos/

amrushton

Ineos can certainly afford it or rather Billionaire Brexiteer but going to live in Monaco to stash more £billions owner James Ratcliffe can. One years tax saving is bigger than Sky's budget and there is prob a tax 'advantage' to be gained somewhere.

shirley_basso

#spendmoneytosavemoney

kingstongraham

Why not just "Team Ratcliffe" or name it after something that he is passionate about, like "Team Hampshire" or "Team Money". If I was him, I would go the whole hog and go for "Team Brexit".

shirley_basso

Wouldn't be tax deductible advertising expense if it wasn't the company. Although could come under donations.

kingstongraham

Shirley Basso wrote:

Wouldn't be tax deductible advertising expense if it wasn't the company. Although could come under donations.

Sorry, forgot he needs all the help he can get. Has he got a crowdfunding site so I can donate somewhere?

Although... what tax?

shirley_basso

Where's the business HQ'd? It would come out of taxable profits from the UK / high taxation region I imagine (my transfer pricing knowledge is very out of date).

I doubt he's paying for the sponsorship directly out of his pocket. Although. even if it is a hobby from his tax free income for him, so what?

Sky make headlines just for existing and put pro cycling in the press. Good for all teams, notwithstanding a few of the recent 'scandals'.

StillGoing

amrushton wrote:

Ineos can certainly afford it or rather Billionaire Brexiteer but going to live in Monaco to stash more £billions owner James Ratcliffe can. One years tax saving is bigger than Sky's budget and there is prob a tax 'advantage' to be gained somewhere.

But you're not even the teeniest bit jealous are you :roll:

DeVlaeminck

Are they likely to want a British leader?

Bernal looks to be the coming man but if SYates has sorted his TTing out now (if not his positioning in crosswinds) I wondered if they might make a big money move for him?

shirley_basso

Depends if Brailsford stays on. I think he's over the British winner thing, he just wants to win.

I think he once said he'd like a French winner.

amrushton

philthy3 wrote:

amrushton wrote:

Ineos can certainly afford it or rather Billionaire Brexiteer but going to live in Monaco to stash more £billions owner James Ratcliffe can. One years tax saving is bigger than Sky's budget and there is prob a tax 'advantage' to be gained somewhere.

But you're not even the teeniest bit jealous are you :roll:

he has created a major company from nothing with some smart deals. rags to riches really and I salute that. But telling us that we should leave the EU then f-ing off to Monaco really grinds the gears. where is the HQ? - Wiki tells us

In April 2010, Ratcliffe moved Ineos's head office from Hampshire to Rolle, Switzerland, decreasing the amount of tax the company paid by £100m a year

Am I jealous? of course I am that I havent the vision or ability/opportunity to create something and make myself wealthy and hopefully leave behind a legacy that can benefit people

inseine

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Are they likely to want a British leader?

Bernal looks to be the coming man but if SYates has sorted his TTing out now (if not his positioning in crosswinds) I wondered if they might make a big money move for him?

The fails the zero tolerance drugs thing

Pross

inseine wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Are they likely to want a British leader?

Bernal looks to be the coming man but if SYates has sorted his TTing out now (if not his positioning in crosswinds) I wondered if they might make a big money move for him?

The fails the zero tolerance drugs thing

Might not apply anymore with a new sponsor, wasn't it something Sky wanted?

cougie

Didn't the Yates turn Skye down already ? They haven't needed sky to be successful so far.

specialgueststar

:oops:
Great to see that Team Sky Pro Cycling Team’s new sponsors Ineos are already well ahead in one GC (general contest)!!! They’ve got the best CO2 Max Test results in Britain!!!! Chateau!!! https://t.co/BkFJfViXOr

The Nodder

Shirley Basso wrote:

Sky make headlines just for existing and put pro cycling in the press. Good for all teams, notwithstanding a few of the recent 'scandals'.

Sky as a sponsor has been great – all sponsors are welcome, Ineos, Ratcliffe, even Landis – but if you mean Team Sky then I disagree. Team Sky has been very bad for the other teams. Its long term domination of the Tour hurts the other big teams when they’re looking for sponsors:
“Pay us a shedload of money every year and we will give you lots of great advertising exposure if we win the only race that matters to you. But we can only win if the Sky contender crashes out (odds – 2 times in 8 years*), and even then all our other rivals will be fighting over that ‘leap year’ opportunity.”
If big teams struggle for sponsors then smaller teams struggle. Fans (and pros) might equate QS dominance of the classics with Sky’s Tour dominance but no accountant/advertiser would do that, they’re not remotely comparable in financial terms.
*ignoring crashless 2010

Matthewfalle

amrushton wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

amrushton wrote:

Ineos can certainly afford it or rather Billionaire Brexiteer but going to live in Monaco to stash more £billions owner James Ratcliffe can. One years tax saving is bigger than Sky's budget and there is prob a tax 'advantage' to be gained somewhere.

But you're not even the teeniest bit jealous are you :roll:

he has created a major company from nothing with some smart deals. rags to riches really and I salute that. But telling us that we should leave the EU then f-ing off to Monaco really grinds the gears. where is the HQ? - Wiki tells us

In April 2010, Ratcliffe moved Ineos's head office from Hampshire to Rolle, Switzerland, decreasing the amount of tax the company paid by £100m a year

Am I jealous? of course I am that I havent the vision or ability/opportunity to create something and make myself wealthy and hopefully leave behind a legacy that can benefit people

is he leaving a legacy that will benefit people or just sticking it in offshore trusts for his family?

dish_dash

Out of curiosity, which UK companies/individuals (let's keep it simple) would be an acceptable replacement sponsor?

kingstongraham

Shirley Basso wrote:

I doubt he's paying for the sponsorship directly out of his pocket. Although. even if it is a hobby from his tax free income for him, so what?

I would have no issues with him paying for it out of his own pocket. If he wants to pay for a cycling team, go for it.

To someone with his wealth, £40m is the equivalent of about £2,000 to someone who has a net worth of £1m. Indulge yourself, I say. Why bother with the company bit when it's your hobby?

DeVlaeminck

cougie wrote:

Didn't the Yates turn Skye down already ? They haven't needed sky to be successful so far.

Yes but it's unlikely Mitchelton-Scott will be able to pay him as much for being successful. I thought the reasons the Yates' (or was it just Simon) turned Sky down were that they wanted chances to lead not just carry bottles - if he went there now or maybe after a strong 2019 he wouldn't be going as a domestique. Plus riding for Sky makes being successful a little easier if that is what his motivation is.

I hadn't thought of the drugs thing but surely zero tolerance of drug use is different to zero tolerance of an administrative error about reporting what medication is being used. I've never heard anyone cast doubt on Yates about that - although I don't frequent any other cycling forums.

shirley_basso

It's not the doubt. He served a ban, and that fell outside the current zero tolerance policy.

specialgueststar

dish_dash wrote:

Out of curiosity, which UK companies/individuals (let's keep it simple) would be an acceptable replacement sponsor?

The conservative party

Tashman

The Nodder wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Sky make headlines just for existing and put pro cycling in the press. Good for all teams, notwithstanding a few of the recent 'scandals'.

Sky as a sponsor has been great – all sponsors are welcome, Ineos, Ratcliffe, even Landis – but if you mean Team Sky then I disagree. Team Sky has been very bad for the other teams. Its long term domination of the Tour hurts the other big teams when they’re looking for sponsors:
“Pay us a shedload of money every year and we will give you lots of great advertising exposure if we win the only race that matters to you. But we can only win if the Sky contender crashes out (odds – 2 times in 8 years*), and even then all our other rivals will be fighting over that ‘leap year’ opportunity.”
If big teams struggle for sponsors then smaller teams struggle. Fans (and pros) might equate QS dominance of the classics with Sky’s Tour dominance but no accountant/advertiser would do that, they’re not remotely comparable in financial terms.
*ignoring crashless 2010

Doesn't that depend upon the market place? FOr the UK the Tour is pretty much the only thing that gets a wider exposure. Belgium is cycling mad so if that's a target market then General succes a la QS is great exposure for you. Horses for courses.

shirley_basso

Ineos also title sponsor for Team GBs America's Cup campaign.

kingstongraham

I'm not jealous, just confused why you would go to all that effort to make loads of money, then force yourself to live in Monaco. Surely you decide what you want to do, then find the most tax efficient way to do it, not work out what is the most tax efficient thing to do.

redvision

He's not just sponsoring them, he's increasing their annual budget:

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/late ... ces-410723

ocdupalais

SpecialGuestStar wrote:

dish_dash wrote:

Out of curiosity, which UK companies/individuals (let's keep it simple) would be an acceptable replacement sponsor?

The conservative party

JD Wetherspoons