UKH

So it's true, Sky are stopping their sponsorship at the end of 2019.

I presume they are fed up of bad publicity, as well as cost cutting, but is this a good thing for cycling or not?

Personally I hope the team survives in some form as they have good young riders, but I'm no expert as I stopped following the racing closely when TI Raleigh stopped racing in red, yellow and black...

If we were in a pub, the conversation would go: Bill Nickson, Peter Post, SDB, 1977, Didi Thurau, he used to flick the pedals round, hah, nothing changes.

Musing on who might be prepared to take on the sponsorship and thinking who's got that sort of cash made me wonder - does the UCI allow betting companies to be main team sponsors?

Whatever you think of Team Sky, I can't see significantly less money in the sport as anything but bad.

Various national lotteries, of course.

Perhaps nothing to do with any of that. It's common for companies to sponsor a cycling team for a few years then move on when they feel they have got all the advertising benefit they will get from that activity.

With all those wins there should be a queue of potential sponsors willing to pay a premium.

Isn't it more likely that it's everything to do with that. Comcast want nothing to do with a Murdoch fils vanity project.

I agree - cant see any other company pumping in that much cash as Sky did, which will only be to the detriment of both British Cycling and cycling in general - they did raise the bar and drag other teams with them to be able to compete.

Mind you, I read that one early Uber investor has made a packet from them, and had an interest in cycling, perhaps he will but the team?

Are you being coy, or are you really suggesting Lance Armstrong (who has made a packet from Uber) buy Sky?!

Personally I think that would be hilarious to watch

Hugely expensive and pitiful return.  Surprised it's lasted this long

Indeed  

Imagine the gnashing of teeth if it was even thought of

UKC crowdfunding? Obviously it's not directly related to the site's primary focus, but there's a proud history of bike teams' sponsors being only tangentially related to cycling, if at all

Think his ban may prevent this no?

Those names bring back happy memories of reading The Comic with my dad.

Doesn't he make/sell electric bikes now?

Either way, nothing changes does sum this up nicely...

Whilst I don't doubt the former, I would have thought G's win would have made it a better prospect going forward. Then again Comcast is probably just looking at the balance sheet and the previous publicity.

Or they want nothing to do with the previous owner's projects as Mike H says above...

The cycling team deal was always James Murdoch’s baby. He left Sky in October.

How much do Sky currently pay to sponsor each year?

$40.6 million

Are you sure, that looks like there overall operational budget. Ford, Shimano, Kask, Castelli, SiS, Oakley and Pinnarello are all putting money in to varying degrees.

The Sky deal also includes 20th Century Fox money. Sky themselves say they will have put in around £150m over 10 years.

I don’t think anyone was serious, but he isn’t anything like rich enough anyway. His Uber investment netted him about $20m, he has been settling various multi-million dollar court cases and has basically said that the Uber investment has been his saviour financially.

How about Bet365? She's got some lolly, we hear.

Excellent choice - Ray Winstone could stand in for Dave B at press conferences!

You are probably right, just a cursory google 

Team Sugar

Another good choice - Claude Littner as spokesman?

Just the shirt sponsor of Everton pay £9.6 million PA (according to Wikipedia) so £15 million for Team <your name here> with its success and global reach seems pretty cheap. Especially baring in mind cycling as a sport is growing and the average fan is probably pretty wealthy. 

Yes, I like it. Claude and Sir Dave would make quite the twosome. Sralan, of course, is a Pinarello fanboy, so there's that as well.

Maybe Whatchfinder would take it on?

I'm thinking the team will be poached and disperse. A new sponsor will want the glory of building and developing a team. Buying one off the shelf isn't likely to match the values as sponsor is hoping to allude to. The off the shelf option is only likely to appeal to an oil rich Arab or Russian, who don't really care about ethos and just want to be associated with winning. 

Many (most?) UCI Wold Tour teams predate their current sponsorship deal by 10, 20 or 30 years.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_UCI_World_Tour

Sponsoring is closer to the norm than founding/building/developing from scratch. 

Superdrug?

For sure - got to consider all things in these hypothetical scenarios. 

In reply to JannyLi: Both my girls have had Isla bikes from about the age of two and are now flying along on pedals, stabilisers never required.

https://www.islabikes.co.uk/

They hold their value and there is a trade up scheme.  Well made, well specced and well thought out.

Hope that is useful

cheers

Toby