British Cycling's New Sponsor

[Petrichorwheels]

Esso also had a spell with a sleeve logo on the Peugeot jersey.

Yes of course.
And if you look at the history of Esso (Standard Oil) they essentially operated as a sovereign country/state/diplomatic force in certain areas of the Middle East in the past.
Many countries were nowt in the face of Standard Oil.

 

[Petrichorwheels]

Just found this.

View attachment 664153

View attachment 664154


https://www.peak1sports.com/shell-cycling-jersey-short-sleeve/

Here's another rather well known logo for you:

 

[Petrichorwheels]

I don't understand the negativity towards an energy company?

energy?
a very broad term.
We are talking fossil fuels.
Do some reading do.
Not just about the effect of those but the business and social policies of the likes of Shell.

 

[Petrichorwheels]

I appreciate your standpoint, but Shell are far from a petrol wholesaler, and ultimately sponsorship is all about money - of which they have plenty.

well thank you for pointing out that shell are all about money.
(we all know they have plenty - vast understatement)
British Cycling now has a bit more money.
And zilch credibility.

 

[Petrichorwheels]

Perhaps BC should have been sponsored by Drax power now that really is clean energy!!! 🤣🤣🤣

I can't help wondering who, if anyone, British Cycling turned down in their pitching to potential sponsors.
Where do they draw the line?
Anywhere?
Bottom line?

 

[Jenkins]

what did the emails say fossyant?

Text copied from my email...

Our partnership with Shell​

Thanks to all of our members who have been in touch following the announcement of our partnership with Shell UK on Monday. We understand that many of you may still have questions, and over the coming weeks and months, our promise to you is that we will continue to listen and share details of the partnership’s first major commitments. These commitments will include an announcement of our new Limitless programme, which will work to make cycling more accessible, and the recruitment of our first Sustainability Manager, as we make progress on our journey to net zero. Shell UK join a group of Official Partners for British Cycling, and we’re continuing our work to secure other partners to support us in leading the sport and inspiring more people to ride across Britain. If you have any questions, you can contact us at membership@britishcycling.org.uk​

Read more

If the 'Read more' bit doesn't work, it takes you to here: https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/article/20221010-Shell-UK-partner-announcement?utm_campaign=2393549_Member News | 13/10/22&utm_medium=email&utm_source=British Cycling V2&dm_i=480K,1FAVH,Y8S2K,6LF12,1

 

[newfhouse]

No, but given what their publicly stated aims are, in this sponsorship, it seems to be the case.

I’m not convinced their publicly stated aims are a truthful reflection of the reality of the company.

 

[EasyPeez]

Probably tough to stomach for the purist, but for me, their cash is as good as anyone's when promoting cycling.

In relation to those in the thread expressing this kind of view - where would you draw the line (if anywhere) in terms of choosing not to be a member/customer/advocate of an organisation based on their actions, or who they choose to get into bed with?

If money is being used for the ‘betterment of society/the environment’ etc would you place no caveats on where that money can come from, and write off the positive PR gained by the ‘baddies’ stumping up the readies as insignificant/acceptable collateral damage?

In this case people have outlined the direct conflict of interest between some of the aims of the 2 organisations involved, the evidence of Shell’s long-standing complicity in the worst forms of human rights violations, their grim history of devastating environmental irresponsibility, yet their money is seen by some as being “as good as anyone else’s”. Does that mean any money is good money?

Nestle grants, the Saudi consortium backing Newcastle United, the Prince Andrew Charitable Foundation, The Jimmy Savile Charitable Foundation - a few recent examples where sponsorship has led to controversy/provoked negative reaction. Would a cash injection into BC from any of these sources (assuming they were all still operating) also have been “as good as anyone else’s”?

It’s a moral dilemma for sure, if the money is having genuine positive impact.

I guess we all draw our lines in different places. I’m genuinely interested to know what factors guide others when deciding where to draw theirs.

 

[Alex321]

energy?
a very broad term.

True, but very much correct here.

We are talking fossil fuels.

A very narrow term, and wrong in this context.

Do some reading do.
Not just about the effect of those but the business and social policies of the likes of Shell.

There are very few companies who are anywhere near as big as Shell who are significantly better.,

 

[Alex321]

I’m not convinced their publicly stated aims are a truthful reflection of the reality of the company.

Possibly not, but they are in business as an Energy company - and in the UK, Shell Energy claim to sell electricity only from renewable sources.

 

[newfhouse]

Possibly not, but they are in business as an Energy company - and in the UK, Shell Energy claim to sell electricity only from renewable sources.

That’s me convinced of their rectitude, then.

 

[fossyant]

what did the emails say fossyant?

 

[Tom...]

True, but very much correct here.



A very narrow term, and wrong in this context.



There are very few companies who are anywhere near as big as Shell who are significantly better.,

Thanks @Alex321

 

[Dogtrousers]

View attachment 664485

This is hilarious. They really are clueless.

 

[matticus]

Message posted by a BC athlete yesterday:

Callum Skinner (@CallumSkinner) · Twitter
https://twitter.com/CallumSkinner
Important point regarding British Cycling’s new parter. Please appreciate that contractually and internally the athletes have zero influence, control or platform to be anything but positive or face dismissal. For many that’d mean the end of their career/livelihood.
Twitter · 23 hours ago

So i'm guessing that:
a) he's been getting a lot of sh!t about this, and
b) really isn't happy about his employers choice of sponsor.

Sad to read some of the replies; telling him he should strike if he feels so strongly 🤦‍♀️