Cycling thread

Armel said:
I'm sorry mate but the dislike I have for Brailsford is very profound. You can like individual Sky Riders, but I can't like the team.

The lotto's are quite okay though from a moral point of view, unlike private gambling companies they actually deal with people who have issues.

And tbf with Quickstep, it's always the same with Lefevre, I honestly believe he puts up a show every year. He has his new co-sponsor now; Deceuninck-Quickstep; and the shirts look entirely the same. Oh and that very rich Czech person; Bakala. They could at least put a bit of effort into their new jerseys though, they look exactly the same. I'll give you BMC though; CCC does seem to be a very weak version of said team. Not entirely fond of all the disreputable states, but there's hardly anything that can be done about it.
Click to expand...

Dunno mate. If you go back a decade or so, the sport was awash with big firms sponsoring teams. Discovery, CSC, T-Mobile, Rabobank, Credit Agricole, Caisse d'Epargne et al were all multinational firms. Things got mucked up by Puerto and subsequently the Armstrong affair, but by and large the sport has been free of scandals for as long as I can recall. Now, the sponsors are broadly broken into state sponsored playthings, betting firms or bike companies. It's not a great situation for the sport to be in, and you sense with Lappartie that he'd be quite happy having a much smaller sport if it only meant the French (or anyone but Sky) were doing okay in it.
 

Bruce Wayne said:
Dunno mate. If you go back a decade or so, the sport was awash with big firms sponsoring teams. Discovery, CSC, T-Mobile, Rabobank, Credit Agricole, Caisse d'Epargne et al were all multinational firms. Things got mucked up by Puerto and subsequently the Armstrong affair, but by and large the sport has been free of scandals for as long as I can recall. Now, the sponsors are broadly broken into state sponsored playthings, betting firms or bike companies. It's not a great situation for the sport to be in, and you sense with Lappartie that he'd be quite happy having a much smaller sport if it only meant the French (or anyone but Sky) were doing okay in it.
Click to expand...

The French are doing okay. They would help themselves if they would stop making the TdF parcour entirely on the strengths of their own riders though- that adds to the already enormous pressure.

Aren't a lot of the Sponsors above banks that got into trouble around the financial crisis and decided to cut down, or don't exist any more. The Germans are disinterested (since Ulrich); dozens of victories of their brilliant sprinters couldn't even tempt them back. The Dutch are only interested again, since Dumoulin etc... Rabobank sort of continued but always in another form to end up in Jumbo and new Norwegian company. And the American companies, they won't be returning, until you have a somewhat decent American. I don't see one on the horizon tbh. You have the Chinese who also want to create a super team, but I'll believe it when I see it. It's not that with Sky still there, heaps of genuine multinational companies were suddenly going to pop up.

The only thing that is left to do, is change the sponsorship model if you want change, but I can't imagine a lot of people are jumping for that.
 
Don't get me wrong, I don't think things are rosy with Sky still on the scene, just that the sport is precarious enough as it is, and I can't really cheer any sponsor deciding to leave the sport. Take away the faux scandal around the team, if you look at the transformation in British cycling since they became involved, first with the track team and then with the road team, it's utterly remarkable.

Not only did they turn a bunch of no hopers on the track into a medal machine, but also turned a nation that did very little in 100 years of pro road racing into one that dominates grand tours. What's more, they've been on the scene at the same time as there being an enormous increase in the number of British people cycling, alongside the flourishing of the Tour of Britain and the successful introduction of the Tour de Yorkshire (less so the London Classic, but still, and with the sportive the day before, it is nonetheless a huge event).
 
Bruce Wayne said:
Don't get me wrong, I don't think things are rosy with Sky still on the scene, just that the sport is precarious enough as it is, and I can't really cheer any sponsor deciding to leave the sport. Take away the faux scandal around the team, if you look at the transformation in British cycling since they became involved, first with the track team and then with the road team, it's utterly remarkable.

Not only did they turn a bunch of no hopers on the track into a medal machine, but also turned a nation that did very little in 100 years of pro road racing into one that dominates grand tours. What's more, they've been on the scene at the same time as there being an enormous increase in the number of British people cycling, alongside the flourishing of the Tour of Britain and the successful introduction of the Tour de Yorkshire (less so the London Classic, but still, and with the sportive the day before, it is nonetheless a huge event).
Click to expand...
can you really give team sky credit for that?
 

Bruce Wayne said:
Well Sky have invested in British cycling for a while, and many of the coaches (Brailsford, Ellingsworth, Sutton et al) have a history in the track setup.
Click to expand...
British track cycling was established and successful long before sky saw an opportunity, and those coaches came through british cycling and went to sky not the other way round, the established track success has little to do if anything at all with sky, unless I'm mistaken
 
Walken said:
British track cycling was established and successful long before sky saw an opportunity, and those coaches came through british cycling and went to sky not the other way round, the established track success has little to do if anything at all with sky, unless I'm mistaken
Click to expand...

Sure, the cycling team had success prior to Sky getting involved in 2008, but the trajectory from Athens in 2004 to Beijing in 2008 was incredible, with that then sustained/slightly improved upon in London. It's not all down to Sky of course, but they have been a big part in that success, as have Brailsford and the other coaches who have been with the setup for the last 15 years or so.
 
Bruce Wayne said:
Sure, the cycling team had success prior to Sky getting involved in 2008, but the trajectory from Athens in 2004 to Beijing in 2008 was incredible, with that then sustained/slightly improved upon in London. It's not all down to Sky of course, but they have been a big part in that success, as have Brailsford and the other coaches who have been with the setup for the last 15 years or so.
Click to expand...
if they got 'involved' (I'm not sure of their involvement in track cycling) in 2008, and the astonishing trajectory had already taken place, what exactly are they getting credit for?
 
Walken said:
British track cycling was established and successful long before sky saw an opportunity, and those coaches came through british cycling and went to sky not the other way round, the established track success has little to do if anything at all with sky, unless I'm mistaken
Click to expand...
Mostly Brailsford work in both set ups tho
 
Walken said:
if they got 'involved' (I'm not sure of their involvement in track cycling) in 2008, and the astonishing trajectory had already taken place, what exactly are they getting credit for?
Click to expand...
For giving 'British cycling riders, the means to form a privately funded team with a huge budget.
 

Walken said:
if they got 'involved' (I'm not sure of their involvement in track cycling) in 2008, and the astonishing trajectory had already taken place, what exactly are they getting credit for?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say they were solely responsible, but they've played a significant part as their investment has been huge in that time. The sport is frankly unrecognisable, even from 2008, and it would seem churlish to not acknowledge them for their role in it. People like Froome and Brailsford have certainly done so today.
 
Bruce Wayne said:
I wouldn't say they were solely responsible, but they've played a significant part as their investment has been huge in that time. The sport is frankly unrecognisable, even from 2008, and it would seem churlish to not acknowledge them for their role in it. People like Froome and Brailsford have certainly done so today.
Click to expand...
They have but the British cycling was in play long before sky jumped on the bandwagon to cash in, and they had nothing to do as far as I'm aware with the track teams success, so they get no credit for that.

As for them leaving I'm delighted, they have come in and monopolized the grand tours through financial strong arming in a cynical manner. Brailsford and co act with little humilty and sky riders are less likely to compete in classics or for their country as per their dictators orders. As a team I find them ugly and uninspiring and will be delighted to see them shuffle off as part of a cynical PR exercise to save face.
 
Bruce Wayne said:
Don't get me wrong, I don't think things are rosy with Sky still on the scene, just that the sport is precarious enough as it is, and I can't really cheer any sponsor deciding to leave the sport. Take away the faux scandal around the team, if you look at the transformation in British cycling since they became involved, first with the track team and then with the road team, it's utterly remarkable.

Not only did they turn a bunch of no hopers on the track into a medal machine, but also turned a nation that did very little in 100 years of pro road racing into one that dominates grand tours. What's more, they've been on the scene at the same time as there being an enormous increase in the number of British people cycling, alongside the flourishing of the Tour of Britain and the successful introduction of the Tour de Yorkshire (less so the London Classic, but still, and with the sportive the day before, it is nonetheless a huge event).
Click to expand...

The issue is they hardly brought joy across the cycling world. I'm willing to accept that they somewhat made a difference for British cycling, but that doesn't translate globally.

Since they came on the scene, because of their style of racing, the viewer ratings are going down for the GT's where they are seriously involved.

It's not only less fun when all the strongest riders are in one team. They have an entire team full of potential GC winners; I was very displeased when it turned out that Bernal had signed a 5 year extension. It's all in the style; Quickstep last year was probably also dominant but that didn't bother people because they went about it in an attractive way.

I don't think you can tell me that the end of a sponsor of a team that leads to a 10/20 percent (on the core-markets) decrease in viewers compared to the five year average (I'm using the figures of Daam van Reeth and Wim Lagae; sports economists that work for the CUL...) , makes a sport more interesting to sponsor. Even in the U.K. there was a decrease of around 15 percent this year for the TdF (and that's only using the ITV numbers since Eurosport UK refuses to share their data, but it's not more than 200 000 ppl so wouldn't change the picture a whole lot) - and that's taking into account the WC effect.
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top