Lucky Luke. Posted March 16, 2010 Share The Argus coverage is essentially a two and a half hour virtual tour of this country's biggest tourist asset. How stupid are we not to make sure that gets viewed internationally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranck Posted March 16, 2010 Share @ Canaris - what you saying is true but at the same time - offering a bigger purse can possibly persuade overseas names to enter the local events more - which in turn will draw crowds as with Lance. .... Money in turn can still be given to charities and initiatives and be held for a good cause. There is no reason why our local races should not be of the same calibre riders as with races overseas, drawing more attention to SA as a top cycling destination. Tour d'Afrique??? Bigger purse - Bigger names - More Crowds - Better Exposure - Safer Roads - LESS MONEY TO ORGANISERS CAUSE IT SEEMS THEY ARE TAKING THE p!$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marius Posted March 16, 2010 Share The purpose of Argus was not to race it' date=' but to uplift cycling awareness. Talk about hijacking a good cause. [/quote'] Ag K@k man, that might have been the way it started out as but it had 33years to rise awareness and get some sore responce from Gorverment to implement appropriate measures in insuring Cyclists road safety by means of proper f%cking bicycle lanes and I'm not talking about the half a$$ sh#t that's available littered with glass and sh*t, f^ck that! We want DEDICATED Cycling Lanes with systems in place to ensure it stays lean of road rubble ect. We want road crossings just for us at intersections ect like they have in other 1st world countries ect./ Until then, f%ck the Argus, f$ck all the stupid charities, f&ck them all, the Argus is SUPPOSE to be for Cyclists - we pay for the event, we are the sponsors, I say we get to say what gets done with the money!!! Rant over/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mallo Posted March 16, 2010 Share The question to be answered is: WHY MUST THE RACE ORGANIZERS WALK AWAY WITH +- 3 T0 4.5 MILLION NET PROFIT AGAINST WHAT THEY HAND OUT AS PRIZE MONEY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javadude Posted March 16, 2010 Share The TV exposure that Medscheme got from the Argus was worth way more that the R16000 prize money. A 30 second TV ad is worth in the region of 50K, so the several hours of free exposure they got is worth a fortune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luke. Posted March 16, 2010 Share And how much is crappy SABC coverage shot from a kilometre away worth to Saxobank or Radioshack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASTANA Posted March 16, 2010 Share The TV exposure that Medscheme got from the Argus was worth way more that the R16000 prize money. A 30 second TV ad is worth in the region of 50K' date=' so the several hours of free exposure they got is worth a fortune. [/quote'] True, but still. Bigger teams and overseas team will not come to race here if the money is so little. The need to justify the trip here - and most sponsors from overseas will not benefit from tv time in SA. Bigger cash prizes will make racing more interesting and up the competition even more. How cool was the old Rapport tour when lots of international riders participated, surely the cash was not tops, but nowadays you need to lure them with cash. Not sure if some sponsors will even give riders bonuses for the "free" advertising time they got on tv. Not saying medscheme did not give their riders bonuses - just saying - its the company getting something out of it and not always the riders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velouria Posted March 16, 2010 Share Prize money is not going to attract the big teams - it's all about media coverage, and the rest of the world doesn't really care about 110kms of racing around the Cape Peninsula. Prize money per stage of the TDF: ?8,000 for each stage victory From the TDF site Here's the list of team earnings during 2009 Tour de France. 1. Astana, ? 697,050 2. Team Saxo Bank, 362,850 3. Liquigas, 156,360 4. Garmin-Slipstream, 151,870 5. Team Columbia-HTC, 102,300 6. Cerv?lo TestTeam, 86,710 7. BBox Bouygues Telecom, 63,470 8. AG2R La Mondiale, 54,730 9. Euskaltel-Euskadi, 49,820 10. Cofidis Le Credit en Ligne, 40,690 11. Team Katusha, 36,820 12. Fran?aise des Jeux, 35,660 13. Team Milram, 32,830 14. Caisse d'Epargne, 31,540 15. Rabobank, 31,310 16. Agritubel, 27,690 17. Silence-Lotto, 22,570 18. Skil-Shimano, 22,530 19. Quick Step, 17,760 20. Lampre-NGC, 17,040 Imagine racing for 3 weeks and only making ?17 040. From Barloworld's annual report: "The Tour de France is the third most watched sporting event in the world after the Soccer World Cup and the Olympics, with 4.5 billion viewers. Our team won two stages of the Tour through Robert Hunter and Maurico Soler as well as the second most coveted jersey in the Tour de France, the Maillot Pois Rouge (King of the Mountains jersey). Overall we were the third most successful team in the Tour de France. Team Barloworld achieved its objective of making Barloworld a global household name. In the month of July alone, global media impact measured R1 billion, a phenomenal return on investment." So the riders earned around ?16 000, yet the company scored well over R1 billion. I think the moral of the story is that the sponsor should be paying the riders - winning races like the Argus is never going to make you rich... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bat-ass Posted March 16, 2010 Share The TV exposure that Medscheme got from the Argus was worth way more that the R16000 prize money. A 30 second TV ad is worth in the region of 50K' date=' so the several hours of free exposure they got is worth a fortune. [/quote']True, but still. Bigger teams and overseas team will not come to race here if the money is so little. The need to justify the trip here - and most sponsors from overseas will not benefit from tv time in SA.Bigger cash prizes will make racing more interesting and up the competition even more. How cool was the old Rapport tour when lots of international riders participated, surely the cash was not tops, but nowadays you need to lure them with cash.Not sure if some sponsors will even give riders bonuses for the "free" advertising time they got on tv. Not saying medscheme did not give their riders bonuses - just saying - its the company getting something out of it and not always the riders. Thats business... depends whats in the contract... its not "Free advertising".. they pay sponsorship... and the sponsor also carries risk... like, yes, they got great coverage on sunday, but what if someone on the team returns a possitive dope test??? the sponsors name goes through the mud.. which is pretty bad for an insurance type co... they trade on "integrity"!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mallo Posted March 16, 2010 Share Some people are missing the point here, we not interested in what value the TV coverage or other sporting codes do. What is of importance in SA cycling is the relative prize purse versus the entry and sponsorhip of the event. Argus +-11.5 Million income with less than 200000-00 prize money does not add up. Focus on these facts. I know Malcolm looks after his team quite well and the prize money is an added bonus to the personnel involved on the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxxy Posted March 16, 2010 Share The TV exposure that Medscheme got from the Argus was worth way more that the R16000 prize money. A 30 second TV ad is worth in the region of 50K' date=' so the several hours of free exposure they got is worth a fortune. [/quote']True, but still. Bigger teams and overseas team will not come to race here if the money is so little. The need to justify the trip here - and most sponsors from overseas will not benefit from tv time in SA.Bigger cash prizes will make racing more interesting and up the competition even more. How cool was the old Rapport tour when lots of international riders participated, surely the cash was not tops, but nowadays you need to lure them with cash.Not sure if some sponsors will even give riders bonuses for the "free" advertising time they got on tv. Not saying medscheme did not give their riders bonuses - just saying - its the company getting something out of it and not always the riders. Agree 100% why do you think the two DCM Chrome rides did the solo breaks, I don?t think it was because they believed they were going to win the Argus on a solo break half way into the race. Thy were advertising their sponsor and it worked. Got TV time for their sponsor even though their were never going to win the race.<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> The prize money is a disgrace, and I am sure this is not the first year the riders have complained over the small prize money, if they don?t do it publicly there is actually no incentive for the organizers to increase the prize money so I say you go Malcolm Lange, don?t keep quiet, do it publicly, he should have actually done it in his interview on SABC that would have maybe upset his sponsors, but that would have gotten results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canaris Posted March 16, 2010 Share before, Lance and Le Mond the tour de France also had poor prize money. Now it is much better. To focus just on the prize money without looking at the structure of the entire industry is very narrow minded. Yes start by getting CSA setting prize money at a minimum percentage of the entry fee or gross turn over of the race. (Again this will open the debate regarding the role of CSA in PROTECTING riders interests vs EXPLOITING and POLICING riders). Also CSA could set a a "PRO Tour" structure in RSA with clear instructions wrt service benefits for cyclists (CSA again taking a regulatory role within the sport- See UCI rules). Entry in the Pro Tour would require a hefty registration which could be dispersed back to the riders in the form of a purse for "Series" performance. (Again organisation of the side of the regulator- CSA). Also money could be allocated for most aggressive riders, longest breaks, hot spots KOM point, team catorgory ext Just some ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big mama Posted March 16, 2010 Share Lets face it, the organizers do it because they make money no doubt about it. If my memory serves me correct, dont the amashova pay more to the riders than what Argus do ? Compare the numbers, 5000 Amashova Arugs 35000 - 7 times more, then the prize money should be 7 times more than what Amashova pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxxy Posted March 16, 2010 Share before' date=' Lance and Le Mond the tour de France also had poor prize money. Now it is much better. To focus just on the prize money without looking at the structure of the entire industry is very narrow minded. Yes start by getting CSA setting prize money at a minimum percentage of the entry fee or gross turn over of the race. (Again this will open the debate regarding the role of CSA in PROTECTING riders interests vs EXPLOITING and POLICING riders). Also CSA could set a a "PRO Tour" structure in RSA with clear instructions wrt service benefits for cyclists (CSA again taking a regulatory role within the sport- See UCI rules). Entry in the Pro Tour would require a hefty registration which could be dispersed back to the riders in the form of a purse for "Series" performance. (Again organisation of the side of the regulator- CSA). Also money could be allocated for most aggressive riders, longest breaks, hot spots KOM point, team catorgory ext Just some ideas.[/quote'] Some pretty good ideas only 1% of entry fee = almost R100 000 for winner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranck Posted March 16, 2010 Share before' date=' Lance and Le Mond the tour de France also had poor prize money. Now it is much better. To focus just on the prize money without looking at the structure of the entire industry is very narrow minded. Yes start by getting CSA setting prize money at a minimum percentage of the entry fee or gross turn over of the race. (Again this will open the debate regarding the role of CSA in PROTECTING riders interests vs EXPLOITING and POLICING riders). Also CSA could set a a "PRO Tour" structure in RSA with clear instructions wrt service benefits for cyclists (CSA again taking a regulatory role within the sport- See UCI rules). Entry in the Pro Tour would require a hefty registration which could be dispersed back to the riders in the form of a purse for "Series" performance. (Again organisation of the side of the regulator- CSA). Also money could be allocated for most aggressive riders, longest breaks, hot spots KOM point, team catorgory ext Just some ideas.[/quote'] Some pretty good ideas only 1% of entry fee = almost R100 000 for winner Nice one Canaris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest colonel Posted March 16, 2010 Share Hey, to have so many pink shirts is expensive for Bellairs so he needs all the money he can get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now