£22.1 million

£22.1 million over four years isn't that much money when you look at it from a business perspective. I read somewhere that UK Athletics received £26.1 in the same period and they have been nowhere near as successful so I think BC can make a strong argument that they provide value for money.

If my understanding of funding is correct then they stand to receive more money now as those sports that are successful, i.e. win World and Olympic titles, will be rewarded.

Why would you want to know how much per day of competition it is? These guys work seven days a week.

Bargain in my books.

I wish they had something like this 22 years ago and things may have been different. I chose employment......

I know what's on Brailsford's ipod.

But the two sports where Britain has done exceptionally well are rowing and cycling. Both are sports are surprisingly similar - you don't need Romero to remind you of this - as you can precisely measure the abilities of competitors. Attach the person to an ergometer, whether it's the SRM bike in the lab or the Concept II rowing machine and you can tell pretty quickly if they are world class or not.

It's telling that the medals on the velodrome that were not won by "Team GB" were in the points and madison races, the two races where you need to get in breakaways, attack and where skill and chance come into play. Cooke did brilliantly to win gold but she could have got silver if the tactics had played out differently.

In sports like tennis or football, you can't program the skills required. So for as brilliant as the cycling and rowing look, they are highly measurable and quantifiable sports where we also benefit from a reduced participation of athletes, track cycling is not a global sport.

So any brilliance from Brailsford is great but make him England football director, the chair of the LTA or the Chinese athletics coach and he'd lose that midas touch.

Kléber wrote:

I know what's on Brailsford's ipod.


It's telling that the medals on the velodrome that were not won by "Team GB" were in the points and madison races, the two races where you need to get in breakaways, attack and where skill and chance come into play.

Weve been quite skillfull/ lucky (delets as applicable)at that event in previous WCs and Olympics


Cooke did brilliantly to win gold but she could have got silver if the tactics had played out differently.

I dont see the point of that statement at all , you could say the same about any road race.

cheers
MG

Kléber wrote:

My point is that we can win medals in events where. say, you know in January that if the rider doesn't get injured, then they are almost guaranteed a medal. If they hit X watts on the ergometer, they will stand on the podium.

So my point is that in rowing and cycling, you can spend money very effectively and almost predict your medal haul. It's fine to criticise other sports for "failing" to win medals but they involve a lot more chance, random events and other unmeasurable components. Hope this explains it, Moray Gub.

Ok two points here first off your statement about Nicole Cooke can be said about any road race ie..... so and so could have been silver if the tactics had been different, well yes but the fact is she won the race so the tactics were spot on.Paulo Bettini could have won silver last year at the Worlds if the tactics had been different......and so on and so on.

Secondly i wasnt really criticising these sports but if what you say is true then why are we so poor at say Athletics when they have had the most money in particlar the sprints and throwing events were we should be able to predict what they can run and throw ?


cheers
MG

what is the point of this thread? Are you complaining about the amount spent on cycling? too much? Too little? and why are people not heaping praise on the GB cycling team.

Kleber you are saying anyone who can produce a certain wattage will get on the podium. Surely other factors come into play. I'm sure there are many cases of track cyclists that produce more power that don't end up on the podium. Why are there people on this site who always seem speak in a negative way about the track teams fantastic achievements? The whole attitude of 'well we should've won because weve spent the most money is really poor.' I just don't understand the negativity.

22 million over 4 years is hardly buying results - compare that to what Chelsea have spent on players over the last four years - now that is attempting to buy results.... Plus America has a massive population in comparison to GB so have more talent to choose from.

Anyway all winners should be praised regardless where their from.

iainf72 wrote:

Moomaloid wrote:

Why are there people on this site who always seem speak in a negative way about the track teams fantastic achievements?

If Team USA took all comers and dominated would you be praising them or say "typical Americans think they can buy results"?

I can think of a dozen sports where America dominate and people dont get too worked up about it so why should we get so negative about the cycling teams success is beyond me.

cheers
MG

It's National Lottery money isn't it?

So who cares how it's spent - it's a tax on people who are too stupid to understand basic probability.

If they want to fund elite sportspeople so they can get all excited over the IOC's overblown high school sports carnival, good luck to 'em.

John Stevenson wrote:

It's National Lottery money isn't it?

So who cares how it's spent - it's a tax on people who are too stupid to understand basic probability.

If they want to fund elite sportspeople so they can get all excited over the IOC's overblown high school sports carnival, good luck to 'em.

Of the overall £ 235 million, I think it’s 40% National Lottery money and 60% Government-Funded, i.e. from regular tax payments. I presume the ratio is the same for the £ 22 million of cycling funding.

Maybe to know they also contributed out of their pay slips will increase the feel-good factor of those who get excited by the number of medals achieved by an elite?

The only problem I see with funding athletes from the public coffers, irrespective whether from lottery or direct taxation, is that after receiving funding, athletes are not required to pay anything back - unlike students attending Unis and Colleges who have to pay their own tuition fees and take out loans to pay their education and day-to-day living costs. At the very least, to retain consistency, sportspeople should be required to pay back funding once their annual income, from all sources, reaches a certain level.

You save a lot of lives with 22 mil.

This is just f'ing sport, after all.

drenkrom wrote:

You save a lot of lives with 22 mil.

This is just f'ing sport, after all.

And if that 22 million pays into getting more people into using a bike to some degree, correlating to a increase in general health and reduction in cardiac conditions, how much is that worth in saving lives?

I think it was great great value for money. 22.1m is not much in that space of time. Funding should be increased for all sports. The country will/would be a far healthier and happier place if people enjoyed exercise more, and leading by example is a great way of starting this off. Coupled with the undoubted enjoyment watching the success brought it was a bargain.
Funding posh folk in boats is a different issue. They should ban hobbies like sailing from the olympics.