- The Sky is falling!
I’ve guessing it’s more to do with Sky being acquired and the new owners not seeing the value (I’m not sure it actually made much commercial sense in the first place, was more a pet project of Murdoch jr). Shame it’s such short notice though, a year will disappear quickly and it won’t just affect the Sky riders – they’re all good enough to get places in other World Tour teams, it’s the guys trying to get into a World Tour team for the first time or who are borderline that will end up losing their place.
Ultimately though whilst I admire pro riders talent and dedication I’m not sure cycling is a wise career choice.Posted 8 months agolegendMember
a year will disappear quickly and it won’t just affect the Sky riders – they’re all good enough to get places in other World Tour teams, it’s the guys trying to get into a World Tour team for the first time or who are borderline that will end up losing their place.
Or the team continues to operate under a new name and a more sensible budget.
Anyway, Froome to AstanaPosted 8 months ago
An agent’s perspective, obviously they will be worried about the Sky money drying up…
Hard to see who’s gonna step in with £30m-plus p/a, but you never know.Posted 8 months ago
+ Sky currently going belly up
Sold for £30bn this year.Posted 8 months ago
+ Sky currently going belly up as less people are subscribing with them
Fewer people. Not less. Honestly, some people.
And no, they’re not.
Team Sky’s operating budget of £30 million (ish) is a tiny percentage of the annual global advertising spend of Sky. In the UK alone, Sky spent nearly £200 million on traditional advertising streams, they’re the UK’s biggest spender above Proctor & Gamble, McDonalds, BT….
Honestly, £30 million is loose change to them.Posted 8 months agofootflapsMember
+ Sky currently going belly up
Results this year were decent..
Posted 8 months ago
Sky dispelled any notion that the bidding war had derailed performance with 500,000 new customers joining the company in the past year. “We are excited about our opportunities no matter what our future ownership is. We are not slowing down,” said chief executive Jeremy Darroch.
The broadcaster said that revenues grew 5 per cent to £13.5bn in the year to June, topping expectations of 4 per cent, while pre-tax profit increased to £864m from £803m. Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation improved 9 per cent to £2.3bn, beating expectations of a 7 per cent rise.
The financial strength came in spite of a £2 decline in its average revenue per user in the UK and a €2 dip in Germany over the course of the year. Mr Darroch argued that a reduction in costs, which fell by 70 basis points as a percentage of revenue, offset the slight decline.flangeSubscriber
Honestly, £30 million is loose change to them.
I always find this quote quite amusing (and not having a go at your statement specifically Crazy-legs). I work for a company that turns over $10m a day in Europe, $10bn per year globally (which a quick Google shows is similar to Sky). Ok, so that’s turnover and not profit and I don’t know what Sky’s net sales are, however I know that we would certainly care about $30m off our bottom line whether it be marketing or otherwise.
Yes, Sky spend an awful lot of money on advertising but a) we don’t know how much revenue sponsoring a team like Sky generates and b) we don’t know what cuts they’re making to other area’s of their marketing budget. I’m willing to bet a TV ad run with Idris Elbow is a fair bit cheaper than sponsoring Froome et al and I guarantee it brings in more punters (note: I am not a marketing expert). I’d imagine post buy-out and inline with the falling number of subscribers, belts are being tightened, senior management are replaced and stuff like sponsoring a cycling team (which was a bit of a vanity project if I remember correctly) get canned.
It’s pretty sad for all the riders on the team and also because of the impact it’ll have on British cycling (both the organization and cycling in the UK in general) but following the debacle with Jiffybag gate, Froomes AAF and Brailsford being a bit of a helmet it’s not a surprise…Posted 8 months agonicko74Member
I’ve guessing it’s more to do with Sky being acquired and the new owners not seeing the value (I’m not sure it actually made much commercial sense in the first place, was more a pet project of Murdoch jr).
This – it’s a pure business decision. Comcast has zero interest in cycling, and will be desperate to try to make efficiencies somewhere, as they massively overpaid for Sky.Posted 8 months ago
What’ll be interesting is to see how they ride if they get to The Tour (arguably The Giro) with no new sponsor in place. Their current style relies on them working for the greater good, when riders need to earn a new contract elsewhere some may fly solo.
They’re a registered UCI World Tour team, they’re contractually obliged to ride the Giro, Tour and Vuelta and the funding is in place for all of that. Obviously everyone else now knows that either a load of riders are up for grabs once transfer season opens or a new sponsor is needed so there’ll be interest from other teams (looking for riders) and other sponsonrs (looking to invest).
If the team start playing silly buggers, in-fighting or riding for themselves, it’ll very quickly show up and no-one will be interested in taking on a selfish or disruptive rider.Posted 8 months agotpbikerMember
Posted 8 months ago
willing to bet a TV ad run with Idris Elbow is a fair bit cheaper than sponsoring Froome et al and I guarantee it brings in more punters
Hmm..I’m not assure about that. Think about the exposure team sky get in the media. Granted some of it has been negative recently, but for at least 3 weeks every summer they are pretty much headliners on every sports page in the country.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.