As the cycling industry seeks to work through a host of challenges, some external – global economic events, including trade tariffs – others internal – ongoing inventory surplus – it’s all too easy to lose sight of the human cost.
Whilst a brand or corporation may manage reputation with carefully chosen words – delivered in a succession of crisis management optimised, press releases – the actual consequences can’t be airbrushed out.
For the people on the receiving end of a ‘right-sizing’ announcement, or a business entering administration, this all too often leaves suppliers and staff fighting for unpaid bills and wages.Â
Here, BikeBiz hands over the keyboard to Steve McCulley, Founder of Lios Bikes
Administration is becoming a business model in cycling, and small brands are paying the price.
I will be upfront. This article is written from frustration. Not theoretical frustration. Not armchair commentary. The frustration that comes from running a small independent cycling brand where you carry the risk personally, graft relentlessly and play the game properly, while watching larger businesses repeatedly fall over, wipe the slate clean and come back stronger.
Over the last few years, the cycling industry has developed an uncomfortable pattern. A brand enters administration or an insolvency process, then reappears with new investment, a new structure or a pre-pack sale. The headlines talk about jobs saved and a fresh start. The reality is that suppliers, partners and customers often absorb the losses. This is increasingly normalised. That is the problem.
A pattern the industry is now used to
In the last five years alone, we have seen a growing list of cycling businesses go through administration or insolvency and continue trading in some form.
Wiggle and Chain Reaction Cycles entered administration in 2023. While the retail businesses collapsed, elements of the brand portfolio have since re-emerged. Nukeproof has now relaunched under new ownership. The longer-term position of Vitus remains less clear, but the brand itself did not disappear with the original company.
Planet X was sold via a pre-pack process in 2023.
Orro, under The Martlet Group, entered administration shortly afterwards and was also acquired out of insolvency. In both cases, the brands and assets continued under the same investment backing (Baaj Capital), despite the failure of the original operating companies.
Orange Bikes appointed administrators in 2024 and continued trading following a rescue and restructure.
Stanton Bikes entered administration in 2022 and was sold as a going concern.
YT Industries entered self-administration in 2025 after a prolonged period of mixed public messaging, during which the company alternated between denying administration, announcing new product launches and subsequently confirming insolvency, before ultimately relaunching under founder ownership.
Deviate Cycles became insolvent with assets later bought by a co-founder.
Alpkit (Sonder) has very recently entered administration and quickly secured new investment.
Each case is different. Some outcomes genuinely save jobs and preserve skills. Some are the least bad options in a tough market.
But step back and look at the pattern.
Administration is no longer an endpoint. It is a reset mechanism.
Why this feels fundamentally unfair
For a small brand like mine, there is no reset button. There is no private equity backstop. No investor bridge. No ability to push losses down the supply chain and carry on with the same name, the same website and the same marketing machine.
If I fail to deliver for a customer, that is my reputation gone. If I fail to pay a supplier on time, that relationship is damaged, sometimes permanently. If I make the wrong call, I carry it personally in stress, cash flow and credibility.
That is the reality of running a small independent business
I do five jobs every day because I have to. Product, sales, marketing, operations, finance. There is no boardroom insulation from consequence. No press release that reframes collapse as resilience.
If Lios Bikes entered administration tomorrow, that would be the end. Full stop. The brand would not bounce back stronger. It would be remembered as the business that failed its customers. That asymmetry is corrosive.
Big brands get a different rule book
Larger brands operate under a different set of expectations. When they enter administration, the story becomes news rather than shame. The language is softer. The focus shifts quickly to saving jobs and protecting the brand. The losses absorbed by suppliers are rarely front-page news. In some cases, administration even generates attention and sympathy that would be impossible for a smaller business to survive.
The uncomfortable truth is that scale changes the moral optics. What would destroy a small brand is treated as a commercial restructuring exercise for a big one. That distorts behaviour.
The real damage sits downstream
The biggest casualties are rarely the headline brand. They are the frame builder who extended terms. The distributor who shipped stock in good faith. The service partner who carried warranty work. The customer who paid a deposit for a bike that never arrived. These are usually small businesses themselves. They do not have the balance sheet to absorb a bad debt. One administration can wipe out months or years of profit.
That makes the entire ecosystem more risk-averse. Less willing to support innovation. Less willing to back new brands. Less willing to extend trust. This is how industries hollow themselves out.
This is not anti-rescue. It is pro-accountability
I am not arguing that businesses should never be rescued. Cycling is a volatile market. Demand shocks, inventory cycles and global supply chains make perfection impossible. Sometimes restructuring is genuinely the right answer. But the industry needs to be honest about the cost and about who is paying it.
At a minimum, we should be asking for:
Clearer protection for customer deposits on long lead time products.
Greater transparency when brands re-emerge about what liabilities were not honoured.
More scrutiny of pre-pack outcomes from the perspective of trade creditors, not just shareholders.
Trade media that asks harder questions rather than recycling press statements.
Why this matters now
Cycling is already under pressure. Margins are thin. Trust is fragile. Customers are cautious. If we continue to normalise a system where the biggest players can fail, reset and carry on, while smaller brands are held to a higher standard of consequence, we should not be surprised when the middle disappears.
The irony is that many of the brands doing the graft properly are the ones investing in quality, service and long-term relationships. They are also the most exposed. That imbalance is not sustainable.
An invitation to the industry
I am certain I am not the only founder, supplier or customer who feels this way.
If administration has quietly become a business model in cycling, then it deserves proper scrutiny and open debate. Not to apportion blame, but to rebuild fairness, trust and long-term stability in an industry that relies on all three.
I would welcome responses from brand owners, distributors, investors and trade bodies alike. Because pretending this is not happening will only guarantee that it keeps happening.
Image credit: Steve McCulley / Lios Bikes