TDF 2015 - Post-Race Analysis

[weisan]

Oleg speaks!
http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/oleg-tinkov/oleg-tinkov-chapeau-to-team-sky-but-theyre-going-to-kill-the-business

[oldpotatoe]

Oleg speaks!
http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/oleg-tinkov/oleg-tinkov-chapeau-to-team-sky-but-theyre-going-to-kill-the-business

I think his point is he spent a LOT of his OWN money and didn't really get anything in return..too bad, pick better riders. Throw a bunch of $ at Froom(altho his team 'system' wouldn't suit Froom or most others, IMHO).

If he didn't like Contador doing a double, then he should not have had him race the Giro. As long as there is 3 grand tours, not gonna dictate who can come and who can't.

Previously he whined about spending all this money and not being 'in control'(adios Riis). I think he needs to realize he is a big mouthed Russian with a lot of $, but not much else. I'd hate to work for him.

[Davist]

While I don't agree with many of the things he says, I do agree with the fact that it's hard (in business generally) to tie marketing spend to increase in revenue. I think he's looking at things from that perspective, does goodwill translate to increased sales? probably not.

Funny he said that it would be good for Sagan's morale to win, wasn't Oleg the guy who beat Sagan up morale wise?

[MattTuck]

Half the stuff that guys says is off the wall. The other half actually seems legitimate. Hard to tell though, which is which.

Saying that Sky is ruining the business because one billionaire has made a long term commitment, and then saying that you're not sure you'll continue to sponsor after 2016.... isn't THAT kind of the problem? If all teams had 10+ year commitments from sponsors, that wouldn't 'ruin' the sport, it would help it.

But he's right, there are problems. And he's right, teams need to become less dependent on sponsor dollars, and find more ways to generate revenue for themselves.

As far as the TDF... was traveling the end of last week, but watched all the stages on DVR... suffering through the NBC commercials, err, I mean coverage.

End of the Day, Here are my Takeaways

1. Tejay probably could have held on to 3rd if he'd stayed healthy.
2. Froome looked weaker in the Alps. So, maybe he is beatable.
3. Great to see Valverde, Atapuma and Quintana use some nice team work to get Quintana up the road. Maybe it was too little, too late. But still nice to see them execute a good plan.
4. Sky is way strong. Dudes sheparding Froome up almost the entire mountain in the Alps. Sadly, lots of comments like, "He recovered unbelievably fast, and is now back helping Froome."
5. Pretty good/warm weather, all things considered, which favored the ultra-lean slimbots.
6. Course had a lot of mountains, but not a lot of drama. Hopefully next year they'll give us 60+ km of ITT, some of it on a tight city TT course with lots of bends that would require good bike handling on their regular road bike. Fewer mountain top finishes and a stage featuring bergs from the Ronde -- including the Kapelmuur, since, you know, it's not in the race anymore :(

[fa63]

Saying that Sky is ruining the business because one billionaire has made a long term commitment, and then saying that you're not sure you'll continue to sponsor after 2016.... isn't THAT kind of the problem? If all teams had 10+ year commitments from sponsors, that wouldn't 'ruin' the sport, it would help it.


But why would he make a 10+ year commitment, if he is getting nothing in return? A mega corporation like Sky doesn't care about the money, but I can see why the rich individuals footing the bills (Tinkov, Katusha, BMC, etc.) could be getting sick of the current business model.

[MattTuck]

But why would he make a 10+ year commitment, if he is getting nothing in return? A mega corporation like Sky doesn't care about the money, but I can see why the rich individuals footing the bills (Tinkov, Katusha, BMC, etc.) could be getting sick of the current business model.

That is a bigger question.

Britains seem to enjoy cycling a lot. A Sky sponsorship seems to make quite a bit of sense in terms of how the team represents British cycling.

Katusha, Astana, Tinkoff, I have no idea how those sponsorships make sense. Maybe Russians really love cycling, they could... I have no idea. Is cycling the right way to market whatever services Oleg wants to push? Does he offer products in Europe that would benefit from the increased exposure of the brand?

He's on record saying that his involvement in cycling is a hobby, that the team is his play thing. THAT, in my opinion, is the reason the cycling business model is broken. You now have a WorldTour team that is beholden to the whims of some Russian oligarch. Oh wait, 4 World Tour teams that are subject to the whims of Russian and Eastern European Oligarchs... This is not the path cycling wants to head down.

Give the teams more autonomy and control to form a league, revenue sharing, salary caps, make them less beholden to sponsors, and you'll end up with a more sustainable model.

To your point, cycling teams should be able to exist as self-sustaining businesses. If that is not possible, then yes, you have to suffer with this current current situation... which is not ideal.

[fa63]

Give the teams more autonomy and control to form a league, revenue sharing, salary caps, make them less beholden to sponsors, and you'll end up with a more sustainable model.

I believe this is pretty much what Tinkov has been suggesting so maybe he is onto something.

[ceolwulf]

Ah I was just going to post this but my title was better :P

I think I pretty much agree with him that teams could do better with stable funding allowing long term planning. I mean that's not exactly a very shaky limb to go out on. The question of course is how to ensure that long term funding.

[MattTuck]

I believe this is pretty much what Tinkov has been suggesting so maybe he is onto something.

There are plenty of other people (non-billionaires) that have been saying that for a while. This is not a new thing he has come up with.
If he believes it bad for a team to have uncertainty about future funding, why would he say that his sponsorship after 2016 is in doubt? He can't have it both ways. He is one of the few people in cycling who actually COULD make that sort of commitment.

If he truly believed that the Team Sky model was the way to go, wouldn't it make sense that he try to emulate that model?

[fa63]

But he is not saying the Sky model is the way to go, he is saying the opposite.

My interpretation of Tinkov is that Sky is able to overcome the uncertainty because they're sponsored by a mega corporation whereas teams like his are subject to uncertainty because they don't have bottomless pockets.

[MattTuck]

Maybe we have a different read on his comments. I'm reading the following and taking away that Oleg sees Sky's long-term focus as superior to surviving year to year. But then he turns around and he is the REASON why his team is only able to plan year to year.

I知 not afraid to say that Team Sky deserved to win the Tour with the Froominator, that痴 clear to see and we can only say 祖hapeau as they say in France. However I致e got to point out that their strength might not be good for the sport.

If I could tell you who they are about to sign for 2016, you壇 realise that they汷e going to kill the business.

Their strength in not actually the money, as other people have said. We have similar budgets; we spend 27 million Euro, while they have about 33 million Euro. The fundamental difference between Team Sky and other teams is that they have a long-term project. They致e got a minimum of a five-year plan, if not even ten years thanks to a commitment from Murdoch痴 empire.

The thing Dave Brailsford is doing so well is planning for the future. He痴 investing in new riders but also looking for new technology that will help his team. Most team, including us, live almost year to year. When you have a short-term project, you don稚 invest for the future, you don稚 invest in young rider who might not win for a few years. It痴 all about survival. It would be the same in the business world. There痴 no chance for a team with a one-year plan to fight against another that can plan for five or ten years ahead.

The only thing that will stop Team Sky dominating the sport for years to come is if we change the business model of the sport and that痴 what I知 trying to do. We need more income for the teams. At the moment there痴 a clear chance that the Europcar team will disappear at the end of the season. I致e heard that BMC is thinking of stopping and even Katusha is considering its future in the peloton.

For sure I値l be involved in the team in 2016 but I don稚 know about 2017 yet. Maybe yes, maybe not. I think I値l have spent 40 million from my own pocket on the team so far. Probably only Andy Rihs has spent more than me. But I知 not getting anything in return or getting any help to carry the costs and that痴 not right. Maybe when I get to 50 million, perhaps I値l say 奏hat痴 enough and so maybe 2016 is my last year. We値l see if we can change the sport.

[jr59]

Maybe we have a different read on his comments. I'm reading the following and taking away that Oleg sees Sky's long-term focus as superior to surviving year to year. But then he turns around and he is the REASON why his team is only able to plan year to year.

Alright, lets go your way, just per say;

5 year plan at 27 mill is 135 million and that is a rather large commitment from even him. And to think Sky's is another 30 or so, that's in today's money, not addjusted for any up ticks.

The union idea with caps and a more level playing field seems the way to go. Not many people in this world would put in 165 million and not want something in return. I know of a handful but that pool is pretty small and VERY DEEP!

[oldpotatoe]

That is a bigger question.

Britains seem to enjoy cycling a lot. A Sky sponsorship seems to make quite a bit of sense in terms of how the team represents British cycling.

Katusha, Astana, Tinkoff, I have no idea how those sponsorships make sense. Maybe Russians really love cycling, they could... I have no idea. Is cycling the right way to market whatever services Oleg wants to push? Does he offer products in Europe that would benefit from the increased exposure of the brand?

He's on record saying that his involvement in cycling is a hobby, that the team is his play thing. THAT, in my opinion, is the reason the cycling business model is broken. You now have a WorldTour team that is beholden to the whims of some Russian oligarch. Oh wait, 4 World Tour teams that are subject to the whims of Russian and Eastern European Oligarchs... This is not the path cycling wants to head down.

Give the teams more autonomy and control to form a league, revenue sharing, salary caps, make them less beholden to sponsors, and you'll end up with a more sustainable model.

To your point, cycling teams should be able to exist as self-sustaining businesses. If that is not possible, then yes, you have to suffer with this current current situation... which is not ideal.

Katusha, Astana and Tinkoff, what's the 4th? Point at a Russian oligarch and the Russian mafioso isn't far behind.

[MattTuck]

Katusha, Astana and Tinkoff, what's the 4th? Point at a Russian oligarch and the Russian mafioso isn't far behind.

Ettix Quickstep is owned, to the best of my knowledge, by Zdenek Bakala, a czech businessman who made his money by buying coal (and other) firms that were being privatized in eastern europe in the 1990s. He went to grad school at Tuck (where I went, and also where I work). Sadly, I am not a billionaire :(

He also owns Eddy Merckx bikes I believe, but can't find a source to back that assertion.

Don't take that to mean that I think Bakala is a bad guy. I don't. Just another wealthy owner who may or may not treat a cycling team as a hobby and may have different motivations for owning the team.

[tiretrax]

Ettix Quickstep is owned, to the best of my knowledge, by Zdenek Bakala, a czech businessman who made his money by buying coal (and other) firms that were being privatized in eastern europe in the 1990s. He went to grad school at Tuck (where I went, and also where I work). Sadly, I am not a billionaire :(

He also owns Eddy Merckx bikes I believe, but can't find a source to back that assertion.

Don't take that to mean that I think Bakala is a bad guy. I don't. Just another wealthy owner who may or may not treat a cycling team as a hobby and may have different motivations for owning the team.



I think it as his ability to pillage the communist assets, not his education at Tuck, that made him wealthy.

This tracks ownership - I don't think it has changed hands again:
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/merckx/another-new-owner-eddy-merckx-302581.html

[Jgrooms]

He's good for the sport. Certainly generates more ad clicks.