Coronavirus and pro sport

pblakeney

Sponsorship is all about exposure.
You don't have to be racing to get exposure. That tweet for example.

gweeds

It may of course also allow the riders and staff to qualify for government aid in their own countries.

blazing_saddles

Teams now asking for a UCI bailout.

https://twitter.com/Cyclingnewsfeed/status/1245641381021769740

Good luck with that, guys.

TheBigBean

RichN95. said:

TheBigBean said:

Is there much overlap between the half dozen riders that bother with the world TT and most of the monuments? Or is the suggestion that they can't be run at the same time? I know which I would watch out of choice.

Politics, dear boy, politics. Lappartient isn't going cede ground to Flanders Classics. If we get a season in half a season there's going to be a lot of willy waving amongst the UCI, ASO, RCS and the short dicked Flanders Classics.

Is there a rule that prevents races being run at the same time?

blazing_saddles

TheBigBean said:

RichN95. said:

TheBigBean said:

Is there much overlap between the half dozen riders that bother with the world TT and most of the monuments? Or is the suggestion that they can't be run at the same time? I know which I would watch out of choice.

Politics, dear boy, politics. Lappartient isn't going cede ground to Flanders Classics. If we get a season in half a season there's going to be a lot of willy waving amongst the UCI, ASO, RCS and the short dicked Flanders Classics.

Is there a rule that prevents races being run at the same time?

No, there isn't but do you really expect the UCI to make such a sensible decision?
Remember they already confirmed these dates to secure and protect the tv rights.
Who is going to watch an ITT when Flanders or Paris-Roubaix is on the other channel?

gsk82

rick_chasey said:

gsk82 said:

For a team like Bahrain, what income are they losing out on by not racing? Racing must first them more than they generate from it from external sources.

The owners are the sponsors (aren't they?) and must be able to afford to to pay their wages.

If I was a sponsor I would make sure I would pay a team based on the races they raced - so if they ain't racing the sponsor ain't paying.

I get that. But aren't bahrain effectively sponsored by the owners, who happen to be filthy rich?

I'd say the same if multi billionaire Jim Radcliffe decided he needed the money more than the Ineos riders.

TheBigBean

blazing_saddles said:

TheBigBean said:

RichN95. said:

TheBigBean said:

Is there much overlap between the half dozen riders that bother with the world TT and most of the monuments? Or is the suggestion that they can't be run at the same time? I know which I would watch out of choice.

Politics, dear boy, politics. Lappartient isn't going cede ground to Flanders Classics. If we get a season in half a season there's going to be a lot of willy waving amongst the UCI, ASO, RCS and the short dicked Flanders Classics.

Is there a rule that prevents races being run at the same time?

No, there isn't but do you really expect the UCI to make such a sensible decision?
Remember they already confirmed these dates to secure and protect the tv rights.
Who is going to watch an ITT when Flanders or Paris-Roubaix is on the other channel?

Yes, that's my point. So, surely the organisers can arrange P-R for the same day and the UCI ends up looking slly.

rick_chasey

gsk82 said:

rick_chasey said:

gsk82 said:

For a team like Bahrain, what income are they losing out on by not racing? Racing must first them more than they generate from it from external sources.

The owners are the sponsors (aren't they?) and must be able to afford to to pay their wages.

If I was a sponsor I would make sure I would pay a team based on the races they raced - so if they ain't racing the sponsor ain't paying.

I get that. But aren't bahrain effectively sponsored by the owners, who happen to be filthy rich?

I'd say the same if multi billionaire Jim Radcliffe decided he needed the money more than the Ineos riders.

If ineos or indeed any company are laying off staff, keeping the vanity pro-cycling team is a bad look, regardless of cost.

blazing_saddles

TheBigBean said:

blazing_saddles said:

TheBigBean said:

RichN95. said:

TheBigBean said:

Is there much overlap between the half dozen riders that bother with the world TT and most of the monuments? Or is the suggestion that they can't be run at the same time? I know which I would watch out of choice.

Politics, dear boy, politics. Lappartient isn't going cede ground to Flanders Classics. If we get a season in half a season there's going to be a lot of willy waving amongst the UCI, ASO, RCS and the short dicked Flanders Classics.

Is there a rule that prevents races being run at the same time?

No, there isn't but do you really expect the UCI to make such a sensible decision?
Remember they already confirmed these dates to secure and protect the tv rights.
Who is going to watch an ITT when Flanders or Paris-Roubaix is on the other channel?

Yes, that's my point. So, surely the organisers can arrange P-R for the same day and the UCI ends up looking slly.

No they can't, not without risk.
While there is no rule as such, the UCI still have to sanction the race.
Paris - Nice experienced this back in 2008 with a dispute between the ASO and the UCI.

In 2008, Paris-Nice was the focus of an intense battle between the UCI and ASO, who refused to allow its races to be part of the UCI's new ProTour. It was sanctioned as a French national event. Just two days before the race, then-UCI president Pat McQuaid threatened any teams that participated with suspension. Two thirds of invited teams voted to take part anyway, and the UCI eventually backed down.

iainf72

Looks like CCC might be doomed.

And I suspect it'll only get worse

sherer

says a lot about the economy of the sport if the teams cant survive this.

The financial model is still a bit strange, too split between ASO, UCI, etc and dont think enough filters down to the teams from the TV deals etc

iainf72

sherer said:

says a lot about the economy of the sport if the teams cant survive this.

The financial model is still a bit strange, too split between ASO, UCI, etc and dont think enough filters down to the teams from the TV deals etc

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

TL:DR version : It will make almost no difference.

sherer

it's an interesting article but no no means details. It makes a lot of assumptions, which are usually wrong.

A) what if one of the costs , was payments to the teams ?
what if, like a lot of companies ASO was actually made up of more than one company for accounting purposes, and the payments to teams were made from there.

Inrng isnt an account, he a good journalist, so im not taking that at face value.

blazing_saddles

More here and yes it seems exactly the reason we all fear. No return due to no racing.

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/ccc-looking-to-reduce-or-withdraw-sponsorship-of-team-one-year-early-453366

CCC’s sponsorship of their WorldTour team could be “reduced or stopped” as the Polish footwear giant run into serious financial issues related to the coronavirus pandemic.

“We have a contract that obliges us [to sponsor the team] for this year and for the next, but the company must and wants to withdraw from it at a low cost because the cyclists simply aren’t providing promotional services. We don’t have 265 racing days at Eurosport, the Giro d’Italia’s been cancelled, the Tour de France is also looking uncertain. So it makes no sense to invest in this sponsorship since we have no benefit from it,”

iainf72

sherer said:

it's an interesting article but no no means details. It makes a lot of assumptions, which are usually wrong.

A) what if one of the costs , was payments to the teams ?
what if, like a lot of companies ASO was actually made up of more than one company for accounting purposes, and the payments to teams were made from there.

Inrng isnt an account, he a good journalist, so im not taking that at face value.

I'm not sure I followed. He showed their published revenue and took off their existing costs. If paying the teams becomes a cost, it's still the same bottom line number.

Total Revenue
- Operating costs
= retained profit (simply)

sherer

he assumed that any money paid to the teams came from the profit, and that the profit had to have money deducted from it to pay for wages, and other expenses.

For all we know the money to the teams could be listed as a cost.

There could even be another company called Le Tour, that could be the one making payments to the teams. They may even have a company setup in a tax haven doing some work for them.

He's looked at 2 figures which he has no details from, subtracted one from the other and come up with 42.

There's so much detail missing that renders the article useless

iainf72

sherer said:

he assumed that any money paid to the teams came from the profit, and that the profit had to have money deducted from it to pay for wages, and other expenses.

For all we know the money to the teams could be listed as a cost.

Revenue - Money coming in before. ie. what you make.

Costs - Salary / operating expenses etc.

So, for sake of argument

Revenue = 100
Costs = 50

Profit would be 50

Revenue = 100
Cost including paying teams = 75

Profit = 25

Any change to cost profile affects your profit. Which is why when companies are trying to increase profit a lot of the time they work at tackling their cost base (by reducing headcount, getting rid of buildings, retendering for services etc)

ASO are the biggest and most successful and there isn't really *that* much money to throw around there. So is it going to make a difference? Will the teams subsidise the majority of races that only break even or run at loss?

rick_chasey

You suspect the inequalities in the peloton will become more pronounced at the end of this.

flite

Good to see Charlie and Harry Tanfield on BBC news Looks North today. Training from home with improvised gym kit in the garage, as well as on the turbo and out for a ride. Harry in full AG2R kit, so still flying the flag for the sponsor. Clips of previous races etc. Very impressive from the football mad North -East of England.

blazing_saddles

French riders ask to be unlocked.

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/coronavirus-french-riders-union-requests-dispensation-to-train-outdoors-from-mid-april/

dabber

blazing_saddles said:

French riders ask to be unlocked.

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/coronavirus-french-riders-union-requests-dispensation-to-train-outdoors-from-mid-april/

The situation in France is really tight. We have a house in SW France and our friends and next door neighbour (Belgian) has just died of cancer. His two daughters who live in Sweden and Belgium were unable to travel to be with him at the end.
His wife must attend his funeral on her own. A request was made to allow a close friend to accompany her but this was rejected. What a sad and miserable situation.

Whilst sympathetic to the French riders request it's hard to reconcile if a consistent message is to be maintained.

blazing_saddles

Have to say that the football players and association's wriggling and squirming, trying to avoid a pay cut is quite shameful. Especially in the light of other staff being furloughed.
Yesterday players were claiming they were "an easy target" and that rather than taking a pay cut, they were looking at donating to a charity package, the bulk of which would go to the NHS.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52151485

Today, the Professional Footballers' Association says proposals for a 30% pay cut for Premier League players would be "detrimental to the NHS", because of a loss in tax contributions of more than £200m to the UK government.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52168692

I guess they are worried where the money for the next Ferrari or yacht is coming from.
Seriously though, being paid millions for playing football is one thing, being paid millions to sit at home, is obscene.
It appears their greed knows no bounds.

focuszing723

I must admit I like the fact people who work in the NHS are being treated as celebrities and hero's, yet celebrities and hero's are being forgotten.

pblakeney

blazing_saddles said:

...
It appears their greed knows no bounds.

Try putting that in the Coronavirus thread and see the response.
I know as I tried. Shameful.

Dorset_Boy

Hopefully people will remember the disgraceful attitude of the Premier League footballers. Lots of other countries players have taken far bigger pay cuts. Other sports professionals have taken cuts, but the richest of the lot are too greedy to.

DeVlaeminck

The players' offer to make a voluntary donation to support the NHS etc doesn't seem to address the problem that the clubs can't afford to pay them.

sherer

i posted this elsewhere, the ones who should be paying are the agents. They leech off football and take money out of the game. Add up the money they earned in the last four transfer windows and you have enough to keep the grass roots clubs going, plus money for NHS and resources.

There is a body for agents, but yet they have issued nothing. Id rather they paid up first, but yes the players themselves should be taking a pay cut too.

RichN95.

Tottenham have furloughed their non-playing staff in the same week that they announced operating profits of £173 million. They are mostly owned by Joe Lewis, a tax exile worth 4.5 billion.

Liverpool only made £43 million profit. They have also furloughed their non-playing staff.

But sure, it's the players' fault. Let's make the millionaires pay so the billionaires don't lose out.

Dorset_Boy

RichN95. said:

Tottenham have furloughed their non-playing staff in the same week that they announced operating profits of £173 million. They are mostly owned by Joe Lewis, a tax exile worth 4.5 billion.

Liverpool only made £43 million profit. They have also furloughed their non-playing staff.

But sure, it's the players' fault. Let's make the millionaires pay so the billionaires don't lose out.

What you have missed is that it isn't and shouldn't be an either or. They should both take a hit. Most Premier League footballers earn more in a week than a consultant doctor in a year, (and those doctors are very well paid by normal standards).

RichN95.

Dorset_Boy said:

What you have missed is that it isn't and shouldn't be an either or. They should both take a hit. Most Premier League footballers earn more in a week than a consultant doctor in a year, (and those doctors are very well paid by normal standards).


And they pay enough tax in a week to pay a consultant doctor for a year. Why are footballers being singled out while billionaires are left alone. Some of them are demanding bail-outs

Is it because they are working class kids, so their wealth is viewed by many as undeserved?
Is it because they don't have connections within the ruling party?
Or is it because they are household names and provide a distraction from the failings of the government (this story gained traction when the government was under flack for the lack of testing).

Every year the Sunday Times produces a 'Rich List' of 1000 richest people in Britain. There are few footballers on it. There are plenty of Tory donors, tax exiles, Lords and MPs. Maybe start with them.