2020 Pro thread

Questions about bike hire abroad and everything light bike related. No off-topic chat please

Moderators: robbosmans, Moderator Team

Wookski
Posts: 1310
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:51 am

by Wookski

tymon_tm wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:38 am
IMHO ineos' budget is crazy high for today's reality. I know, pros would like to earn just like tennis stars, but let's step aside for a moment and answer this - should they really? should athletes become millionaires before hitting their 30s? is that the goal here? isn't it somehow depraving, especially considering these huge contracts only increase pay gap.. ?
They have very short careers and only the top athletes make mega salaries. The incentive makes the effort worthwhile.

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 7023
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

Athletes over owners. Always.

by Weenie


eins4eins
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:49 am

by eins4eins

madik wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:10 am
Its not like a worth of 40 BMC bikes is wasted on the Pro team. All the bikes after season will get back to BMC and they will sold them on fairly high price, probably without a loss on the equipment itself. But thats of course just a small part of the puzzle right? There must be some millions of euro also in the sponsporship deal :)
40 bikes :lol: Have you ever seen a service course from the inside?

KB
Posts: 3975
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 12:32 pm
Location: HULL UK

by KB

KB wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:12 pm
Wookski wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:50 am
tymon_tm wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:38 am
IMHO ineos' budget is crazy high for today's reality. I know, pros would like to earn just like tennis stars, but let's step aside for a moment and answer this - should they really? should athletes become millionaires before hitting their 30s? is that the goal here? isn't it somehow depraving, especially considering these huge contracts only increase pay gap.. ?
They have very short careers and only the top athletes make mega salaries. The incentive makes the effort worthwhile.
Yes. And it's supply and demand. I'm a Brit but the other sport I follow is the NFL (American Football). Bog standard players get approx $600k salary. Patrick Mahomes of the Chiefs has recently signed a 10 year $450million contract that pays him approx $45-50 million a year. He's 25.

With regards to cycling, in the past, the salaries were small even for the best riders. Most of them earned money from post Tour criteriums and a lot of riders had winter jobs. The reality has been that Cycling has traditionally been a 'low rent' sport. So, I don't see any problem with 'large' contracts. They deserve it.

jever98
Posts: 1064
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:02 pm
Location: Seattle

by jever98

Dan Gerous wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:07 am
Now you know why BMC sells the Masterpiece Roadmachine frame €10,000, you basically adopt a pro cyclist when you buy one! :mrgreen:
:mrgreen: :mrgreen:
----
No longer in the industry

pastronef
Posts: 1510
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 11:33 am
Location: Asti, ITALIA

by pastronef

POC stays with EF until end 2024. now that´s how you make a sponsor deal! :thumbup:

User avatar
tymon_tm
Posts: 3048
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:35 pm

by tymon_tm

Wookski wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:50 am
tymon_tm wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:38 am
IMHO ineos' budget is crazy high for today's reality. I know, pros would like to earn just like tennis stars, but let's step aside for a moment and answer this - should they really? should athletes become millionaires before hitting their 30s? is that the goal here? isn't it somehow depraving, especially considering these huge contracts only increase pay gap.. ?
They have very short careers and only the top athletes make mega salaries. The incentive makes the effort worthwhile.
yeah, I'm aware it's maybe a 10-15 year long career. but still, I'm not OK with young athletes earning millions for *socially unmeaningful* jobs, it just doesn't sit right with me. I know, it's how the western world and neoliberal economy works - but I'm simply stating it's wrong on so many levels.

cycling isn't of course tennis or football, but I'm affraid it's going the same direction. top athletes' contracts look like a slap in the face - not only fans' faces but also players' from "lesser divisions", or their female counterparts' as well (like in cycling)

IMHO as society we need to get rid of this philosophy that it's OK to award individuals with insane amounts of money, because a) there's no economic benefit to that 'strategy' b) it creates huge income gaps c) sets a bad example (that in the end it's those millions that count).. etc.

arguably, we're in the moment in history where this kind of issues need to, and will be discussed. and hopefuly at least a bit 'straightened'.
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 7023
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

jever98 wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 6:52 pm
Dan Gerous wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:07 am
Now you know why BMC sells the Masterpiece Roadmachine frame €10,000, you basically adopt a pro cyclist when you buy one! :mrgreen:
:mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Don’t forget $700 Assos jackets.

spud
Posts: 946
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:52 am

by spud

tymon_tm wrote:
Fri Nov 20, 2020 1:45 pm
Wookski wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:50 am
tymon_tm wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:38 am
IMHO ineos' budget is crazy high for today's reality. I know, pros would like to earn just like tennis stars, but let's step aside for a moment and answer this - should they really? should athletes become millionaires before hitting their 30s? is that the goal here? isn't it somehow depraving, especially considering these huge contracts only increase pay gap.. ?
They have very short careers and only the top athletes make mega salaries. The incentive makes the effort worthwhile.
yeah, I'm aware it's maybe a 10-15 year long career. but still, I'm not OK with young athletes earning millions for *socially unmeaningful* jobs, it just doesn't sit right with me. I know, it's how the western world and neoliberal economy works - but I'm simply stating it's wrong on so many levels.

cycling isn't of course tennis or football, but I'm affraid it's going the same direction. top athletes' contracts look like a slap in the face - not only fans' faces but also players' from "lesser divisions", or their female counterparts' as well (like in cycling)

IMHO as society we need to get rid of this philosophy that it's OK to award individuals with insane amounts of money, because a) there's no economic benefit to that 'strategy' b) it creates huge income gaps c) sets a bad example (that in the end it's those millions that count).. etc.

arguably, we're in the moment in history where this kind of issues need to, and will be discussed. and hopefuly at least a bit 'straightened'.
The very best riders make serious sacrifices. If you remove the financial rewards, why would they ever live like monks in order to try to be the best? The reason they make the money is because they provide the exposure benefits to the team sponsors. If the revenue stream doesn't get distributed to the players, it gets distributed to the owners and organizers. And if the revenue stream dries up, nobody gets paid/employed. In any case, the vast majoity of the riders are not making the huge $.

BdaGhisallo
Posts: 2493
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:38 pm

by BdaGhisallo

tymon_tm wrote:
Fri Nov 20, 2020 1:45 pm
Wookski wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:50 am
tymon_tm wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:38 am
IMHO ineos' budget is crazy high for today's reality. I know, pros would like to earn just like tennis stars, but let's step aside for a moment and answer this - should they really? should athletes become millionaires before hitting their 30s? is that the goal here? isn't it somehow depraving, especially considering these huge contracts only increase pay gap.. ?
They have very short careers and only the top athletes make mega salaries. The incentive makes the effort worthwhile.
yeah, I'm aware it's maybe a 10-15 year long career. but still, I'm not OK with young athletes earning millions for *socially unmeaningful* jobs, it just doesn't sit right with me. I know, it's how the western world and neoliberal economy works - but I'm simply stating it's wrong on so many levels.

cycling isn't of course tennis or football, but I'm affraid it's going the same direction. top athletes' contracts look like a slap in the face - not only fans' faces but also players' from "lesser divisions", or their female counterparts' as well (like in cycling)

IMHO as society we need to get rid of this philosophy that it's OK to award individuals with insane amounts of money, because a) there's no economic benefit to that 'strategy' b) it creates huge income gaps c) sets a bad example (that in the end it's those millions that count).. etc.

arguably, we're in the moment in history where this kind of issues need to, and will be discussed. and hopefuly at least a bit 'straightened'.
So who would then get the revenues these sports generate? If the top athletes that are the product don't get a good share of the sporting revenues, that only means that the owners and other interests get more. Would that be preferable?

These sports generate these large revenues because so many millions of people voluntarily hand over their hard earned money in exchange for the enjoyment they receive from watching and following these sports. Are these millions of people wrong?

BdaGhisallo
Posts: 2493
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:38 pm

by BdaGhisallo

tymon_tm wrote:
Fri Nov 20, 2020 1:45 pm
Wookski wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:50 am
tymon_tm wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:38 am
IMHO ineos' budget is crazy high for today's reality. I know, pros would like to earn just like tennis stars, but let's step aside for a moment and answer this - should they really? should athletes become millionaires before hitting their 30s? is that the goal here? isn't it somehow depraving, especially considering these huge contracts only increase pay gap.. ?
They have very short careers and only the top athletes make mega salaries. The incentive makes the effort worthwhile.
yeah, I'm aware it's maybe a 10-15 year long career. but still, I'm not OK with young athletes earning millions for *socially unmeaningful* jobs, it just doesn't sit right with me. I know, it's how the western world and neoliberal economy works - but I'm simply stating it's wrong on so many levels.

cycling isn't of course tennis or football, but I'm affraid it's going the same direction. top athletes' contracts look like a slap in the face - not only fans' faces but also players' from "lesser divisions", or their female counterparts' as well (like in cycling)

IMHO as society we need to get rid of this philosophy that it's OK to award individuals with insane amounts of money, because a) there's no economic benefit to that 'strategy' b) it creates huge income gaps c) sets a bad example (that in the end it's those millions that count).. etc.

arguably, we're in the moment in history where this kind of issues need to, and will be discussed. and hopefuly at least a bit 'straightened'.
So who would then get the revenues these sports generate? If the top athletes that are the product don't get a good share of the sporting revenues, that only means that the owners and other interests get more. Would that be preferable?

These sports generate these large revenues because so many millions of people voluntarily hand over their hard earned money in exchange for the enjoyment they receive from watching and following these sports. Are these millions of people wrong?

User avatar
tymon_tm
Posts: 3048
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:35 pm

by tymon_tm

I suppose the key word here is "voluntarily". do you think your purchasing decision process happens independently, that is - you sit behind the wheel? because if you do, you're a perfect example of how marketing and advertising works. how brilliantly and efficiently it makes people choose this, pick that, spend their money on what they think is worth it - where in reality, we're more like hamsters in a spinning wheel (there's ton of literature on that topic, how advertising not just influences but also creates our reality)

do you think 90% of europeans are simply loving football out of their own? if so, why the hell 90% indians pick cricket - is that a question of genes? or stuff in the water we and they drink? or maybe it has something to do with the influence and impact these giant disciplines have upon us, without us being even aware?

sure, profits from any sort of activity have to go somewhere, but let's step aside and look at sponsorship money that fund cycling and lots of other sports. the funny thing is - in most cases, there are tax reductions for such "investments". as a result companies spend millions on teams/athletes in order not to pay tax (and, obviously, achieve some marketing goals). at least some portion of those multimillion dollar contracts is money that should have been paid in form of a tax and distributed by the state, e.g. for public services, wages, etc, not end up in the pockets of 1% of the richest people. and if we're in that bracket, the more you earn the more you pay - that should be the general rule, but in our world it's the opposite; the more you earn, the less you contribute, and sponsorhip deals are one of the ways to do so. so long story short - these millionaires are a byproduct of a completely corrupt economic and fiscal system.
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.

Mr.Gib
Posts: 4070
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: eh?

by Mr.Gib

tymon_tm wrote:
Fri Nov 20, 2020 6:13 pm
I suppose the key word here is "voluntarily". do you think your purchasing decision process happens independently, that is - you sit behind the wheel? because if you do, you're a perfect example of how marketing and advertising works. how brilliantly and efficiently it makes people choose this, pick that, spend their money on what they think is worth it - where in reality, we're more like hamsters in a spinning wheel (there's ton of literature on that topic, how advertising not just influences but also creates our reality)

do you think 90% of europeans are simply loving football out of their own? if so, why the hell 90% indians pick cricket - is that a question of genes? or stuff in the water we and they drink? or maybe it has something to do with the influence and impact these giant disciplines have upon us, without us being even aware?

sure, profits from any sort of activity have to go somewhere, but let's step aside and look at sponsorship money that fund cycling and lots of other sports. the funny thing is - in most cases, there are tax reductions for such "investments". as a result companies spend millions on teams/athletes in order not to pay tax (and, obviously, achieve some marketing goals). at least some portion of those multimillion dollar contracts is money that should have been paid in form of a tax and distributed by the state, e.g. for public services, wages, etc, not end up in the pockets of 1% of the richest people. and if we're in that bracket, the more you earn the more you pay - that should be the general rule, but in our world it's the opposite; the more you earn, the less you contribute, and sponsorhip deals are one of the ways to do so. so long story short - these millionaires are a byproduct of a completely corrupt economic and fiscal system.
This is a grandios rant that implies that consumers are nothing more than robots programmed to buy what ever a seller wants them to buy. The use of differential culture and tradition (football in Europe, cricket in India) to demonstrate the power of the marketing "system" to force consumers into certain activities is faulty, and the inclusion of the tragic situation of global wealth and income inequality as a consequence is ridiculous. (BTW cricket is pretty European).

@tymon_tm, you occasionally present strong views of an anti-marketing, anti capitalist nature. These views are extremely important as they represent an indispensible force that sets important boundaries for powerful corporations and further pushes them in more humanist directions. Society would be much worse off without strong voices that share your perspective. However, if one wishes to make a valid argument that marketing creates false wants and needs, there is a need to be far more precise and data driven. Macro arguments (like yours above) will always fail to convince all but the most simple minded. It is not that they are necessarily wrong, jsut that they are ineffective. Maybe start with the premise that consumers are not "victims".

If it helps, the long established understanding of consumer behaviour is that people learn how to be consumers mostly from their family and after that, their immediate cultural surroundings. So the first place to cast blame would be family and culture. This is where deep values are established. Marketers will find it very difficult to change these values, and are more successful with product and service offerings that are at the very least consistent with these values.
Last edited by Mr.Gib on Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
wheelsONfire wrote: When we ride disc brakes the whole deal of braking is just like a leaving a fart. It happens and then it's over. Nothing planned and nothing to get nervous for.

jever98
Posts: 1064
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:02 pm
Location: Seattle

by jever98

I just saw this now: https://www.rouleur.cc/blogs/the-rouleu ... -precedent

A good argument that Groenewegen's ban was disproportionate and scapegoated him for a failure of those in charge of safety (ie race organizers and UCI)
----
No longer in the industry

Wookski
Posts: 1310
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:51 am

by Wookski

tymon_tm wrote:
Fri Nov 20, 2020 6:13 pm
the funny thing is - in most cases, there are tax reductions for such "investments". as a result companies spend millions on teams/athletes in order not to pay tax (and, obviously, achieve some marketing goals).
Dude they're expenses, not investments. The tax benefit achieved from an expense is always going to be less than the value of the expense so it is better to not have spent the money to begin with (unless there is a return in the form of increased cash flows from achieving "marketing goals"). Basic accounting isn't some deep conspiracy.

by Weenie


Locked