Hammer Series

m.r.m.

Rick Chasey wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

M.R.M. wrote:

Teams need a revenue split and must be more independent from sponsorship funding. A system must be established to build teams up as brands that don't go under/rebranded all the time. That builds fan loyalty and long term engagement which is good for everyone.

Revenue split is not an answer though, as Inrng points out

https://inrng.com/2019/01/revenue-sharing-revisited/

Answer to what question?

Changing the model of cycling / making teams more sustainable.

I'm not convinced the model needs to change. What needs to happen is it needs to get a bit more professional and not send someone in a tracksuit who raced bikes in the 80s to try and secure €25m in funding.

Team longevity is overrated.

Doubtful. Show me another major sport where teams constantly go under and the sport benefits from that.

sherer

M.R.M. wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

That's why podcasts seem to work so well in cycling; there's a hundred stories to digest and a decent journalist can pick the interesting ones.

Don't most cycling podcasts just state what happened while omitting why it happened to waffle about what's for lunch?

Teams need a revenue split and must be more independent from sponsorship funding. A system must be established to build teams up as brands that don't go under/rebranded all the time. That builds fan loyalty and long term engagement which is good for everyone.

id like to see better name. Team Sky - Presented by or some such format. Then when they rebrand to Team Ineos they userstand it's still run by the same company at the background.

Think they are looking at more corporate hospitality to bring in more revenue