posted Nov 16, 2009

what absolute nonsense spouted on this page. Never have i seen so few facts been used in arguements.
Lets start with the first question - why the ECB are worried.

Lets look at the facts: the ECB currently get hundreds of millions (per extended contract) from Sky for exclusive broadcast right for cricket as a whole. Sky get the exclusivity they need to sell their subscriptions - and the most valuable earner for them is clearly home Ashes series. If the government where to enforce home ashes on FTa, the next time the bidding for rights comes up, it is extremely LIKELY that sky would not be interested to pay a similar amount as they currently do; in fact it is almost certain that the combined FTA Ashes + sky deal would be worth far less than currently.
This means the ECB will not be getting as much money as they currently do; and with the impacts of the IPL etc meaning it likely players salaries will have to increase, probably significantly, to keep the best in England, this is simply not viable.

Now lets look at the "the ECB keep the counties afloat, and we would be better off without them" – no we won't. County cricket attendances are FAR healthier than they were 5-10 year ago, and most counties make more money from membership fees and tickets than they do from the ECB grant. The kolpak argument just doesn't hold water any more I am afraid – one of the counties mentioned previously, kent, are always held up as a county with a "lot" of kolpaks, and from next year there will be a limit on number of non-english qualified players. Lets just have a look at the numbers shall we – firstly, kent have provided 5 Under-19 players, 4 full Test players, and a further 3 England Lion players over the past 4 years. This season just gone they only played an overseas player in 6/7 4 day games out of 16; and in fact only played 2 kolpakkers for the majority of the season – Martin Van Jaarsveld (who has played for them for 4 years – same as KP did before playing for England, and is married to an English woman now) and Justin Kemp. Both of these players are former South Africa Test players, who have immeasurably improved the quality of the domestic game by giving young bowlers quality batsmen to bowl at and improve. Coincidentally, some of the so called bigger teams, who never get mentioned for use of kolpaks, such as Yorks, Durham and Surrey all used more overseas/kolpak players this year, yet never get mentioned – possibly as they are richer due to the Test ground they use? The problem arose due to the increase in international matches being played meant there was a limited number of quality overseas players able to play (even as recently as the 1990s, you had the likes of Cullinan, Da Silva, Waugh, Dravid, Lara playing for counties for whole seasons), those that do come over can be perceived to not be of sufficient quality. The central contracts for the English players just makes this worse – after developing players to the top standard, the ECB just whisk them out of the counties, don't recompense the counties at ALL (prior to getting a central contract, county has paid for all traiing of player, and even has to pay whilst he plays for the lions/full team pre-contract); afterwards all that happens is they free up a chunk of salary – but have still paid out for the training etc.

If you were to allow county cricket clubs to go out of business, you would have a far greater impact on the game than having test cricket back on FTA. For a start, the majority of the counties run a very successful school's outreach type program, where they send coaches out to local schools and search for the young talent. The likes of Leics and kent, whom in the past have used more kolpaks, are starting to benefit from these programs, with the likes of cobb and taylor at leics, northeast, Goodman and Blake at kent all getting regular games. Most cricket supporters in this country still have a local tie with a county club, and even though may not support them actively, would be disappointed if there local club was to disappear. Myself, as a kent supporter, if the nature of county cricket was changed, with kent being closed, I would find it VERY hard to have any interest in cricket, even if the English team were the best in the world; and the majority of my friends who are cricket supporters feel the same way. No longer is there just "1 man and his dog" at, with many school children seen during the summer holidays and at weekends.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 16, 2009

If county cricket is so viable and they do not need the huge ECB grant from the Sky money, why are Sky supporters such as Atherton and Giles Clarke saying that many counties would go under without the Sky money?

If we don't have the Ashes on free to air TV can we have SOME cricket? Cricket needs to be seen or it will die. Rugby Union, many of the minorty sports in the Olympics and most other sports have big free to air events. We need some cricket on free to air to encourage people to start playing.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 16, 2009

Shouldn't the ECB decide this rather than Gordon Brown?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 16, 2009

Jeff, are you sure about your facts re dwindling club membership and less kids playing. I thought with all the initiatives that are currently in place cricket was a growth sport. At our club we have loads of kids and adults teams, the support provided by the ECB/Sky with respecto coaching and support is good, I can see where Clarke is coming from but some kind of balance is required.
------------------------

Im sorry, but just what are these 'initiatives' in place? I have yet to see a single penny from Sky or the ECB go to any local clubs. They are left to fend for themselves, with thier only income coming from player subscriptions. The only time ive seen the ECB spend money is when a club applies for a grant for sometihng like a new pavillion... very nice to look at but it does not help the clubs day to day cash flow, nor does it provide any coaching or and new kids to the club.

Id love to know where this coaching is. Do you live in London or somewhere like that, coz from what ive heard they dont care about cricket outside the big cities.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2009

I grew up in the 1960s and 70s watching cricket on terrestrial TV. The John Player League, The Gillette Cup and Test matches.

It is the free to air heritage of TV cricket which Sky has been able to utilise.

In other words Sky are now benefiting from the interest generated by people who grew up watching cricket on the box.

Cricket today is nowhere near as popular as it was in those days.

Cricket desperately needs millions more people to watch cricket and become fans and Sky will not help that.

Free to air cricket especially Test match cricket has to be marketed to the masses.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2009

I agree with your argument there Sid, but times have changed. I remember the late 1960's and early 70's when the Player League was at its height, but what was the competition on a Sunday afternoon? Zero!

My point though, is that it should be left to the governing body of the sport how it wishes to promote and finance that sport. Politiians courting political favour should keep out.

Going further back in time before the mass ownership of televisons, there was no shortage of enthusiasm for the game of cricket. Perhaps the influence of telly is over estimated.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2009

Ron Ipstone (U11395277)

I agree the competition was very little.

But when I was a kid you would play football in the winter and cricket in the summer.

Now there are so many choices available cricket has to market itself.

TBH I trust politicians in some aspects more than those governing the game as I think the politicians can often see the big issues and the long run.

In the 1970s 80s on wards we had laisser faire economics the market is best left to its own devices and banks were allowed to look after their own interests - we nearly had a world collapse of capitalism. That was just letting those who understand banking take charge of themselves.

Cricket is a great game but it needs to be marketed, and limiting those who can watch it to those who can afford it will destroy the game.

We also need to give our youngsters more exercise seeing sport on TV can only help and if we are to improve our team we need to get more people involved.

Sport many claim has taken over from war. We need sports interest for countless positive reasons - and limiting those who can watch to a very small percentage who are already interested by and large will not help any sport in the long run.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2009

Ron Ipstone (U11395277)My point though, is that it should be left to the governing body of the sport how it wishes to promote and finance that sport. Politiians courting political favour should keep out.

-------------------------------------
It is difficult to just leave the decision to the governing body, when they have a totally excluive agreement with BSKYB who are owned by Rupert Murdoch, who is extremely active in world politics and is championing David Cameron, who in turn following a meeting with Mr Murdoch on a ship in Greece, now writes articles for the Sun newspaper, one of which slated the BBC and another Ofcom both organisations disliked intensly by Mr Murdoch.

So unfortunately Mr Murdoch and BSKYB have, through their dominance of live Sport and polictal interest made cricket a political matter, do you think the Ashes would have been relisted if there had been at least some live cricket on free to Air?

As regards whether TV coverage is overated, cricket as the only sport without a shared audience,not being watched outside of sky for 10 years will come to haunt the ECB and the counties, who will have plenty of money but only one bidder so will be at the mercy of SKY and a limited sport audience/profile in the UK.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2009

I fully take on board the concerns which have been expressed by those who want the Ashes shown on free to air TV. I accept that perhaps the stance taken by the ECB is short term and probably not in the best interests of the game.

But cricket should be run by ECB, football by the FA and so on, not by the government of the day.

I also think this crown jewels policy could be open to challenge in the courts. It is restrictive of trade and promotes the interests of a state owned broadcaster, Auntie Beeb.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 17, 2009

Ron Ipstone (U11395277)

Not true they think sky will get it, all they need to do is stop the decoder, everyone will have a digital box of some sort by then and all sky have to do is not decode the cricket.

add comment | complain about this comment