|
Post by flashblade on Sept 5, 2014 17:09:06 GMT
The logical extension of all of this then would be, to scrub all 50 over cricket, including international tournaments. If the average punter's attention span is three hours, then capitalise on those games. Since T20 got a grip, 40/50 overs has become an unnecessary compromise. I agree, jonboy. the 50 over format is neither proper cricket or fast cricket - it's neither one thing or the other. I have asked for MBs' opinions on 50 over cricket more than once on this board, but had almost no reaction. Perhaps this means that no-one else is interested in it?! Are there any supporters of 50 over cricket out there?
|
|
jim
2nd XI player
Posts: 182
|
Post by jim on Sept 5, 2014 17:57:31 GMT
Real issue is what appeals to the public is t20 and we are trying to fit in too much cricket in a season
If all games lasted to their full limit in one season the three competitions for one county would be LV+CC 64x92 = 5888 overs RL50 8x50 = 400 overs NWt20 14x20 = 280 overs
Tell me any other commercial enterprise that spends so much time delivering their least profitable product?
|
|
wally
2nd XI player
Posts: 178
|
Post by wally on Sept 5, 2014 19:16:07 GMT
Real issue is what appeals to the public is t20 and we are trying to fit in too much cricket in a season If all games lasted to their full limit in one season the three competitions for one county would be LV+CC 64x92 = 5888 overs RL50 8x50 = 400 overs NWt20 14x20 = 280 overs Tell me any other commercial enterprise that spends so much time delivering their least profitable product? But your maths isn't good is it? 96 overs in cc 100 overs in RL50 plus semis and final. 40 overs in T20 plus qtrs and semis and final
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2014 19:46:01 GMT
Real issue is what appeals to the public is t20 and we are trying to fit in too much cricket in a season If all games lasted to their full limit in one season the three competitions for one county would be LV+CC 64x92 = 5888 overs RL50 8x50 = 400 overs NWt20 14x20 = 280 overs Tell me any other commercial enterprise that spends so much time delivering their least profitable product? Well the most profitable product in the English game is five day Test cricket, and it is the revenues from that which subsidies Sussex CCC in the form of an ECB annual stipend of a couple of million, isn't it? Without that subsidy Sussex is totally unviable as a "commercial enterprise" . As our most profitable product, Test cricket requires four day championship cricket to provide the base and generate the players which makes it possible. You are not going to build a Test team from three hour bashes under floodlights on a Friday night, are you? So I'm not quite sure what point you are making with your stats, Jim. Yes, there are fewer overs in 20/20 cricket; that's why it is called 20/20. Are you saying you want more T20 ? We had more T20 games this season, but the average gates were down on the previous season, suggesting there is a finite limit to how many matches the core audience will attend. And are you arguing for less of the "least profitable product", namely four day cricket? If so, I'd reluctantly have to agree on that and I'd argue it can be reduced without affecting the quality of the Test side and the income that ensues. If you look at the final round of LVCC matches this season, what do fixtures such as Derbys v Leics and Kent v Glos contribute to Team England ? Nothing, as such teams have been reduced to little more than 'feeder' clubs to the bigger counties. So why does half of their annual income continue to come from the ECB? So what is the solution - fewer counties? It is probably the only logical way to go. Two divisions of six, each side playing ten games per season. But that means six counties that currently have f/c status are reduced to semi-pro/minor county level. Who should they be - Leics? Northants? Derby? Kent? Glos? Sussex Would be interested in your views on this, because your stats (which seem to be slightly dodgy arithmetically, as wally says) mean little without a supporting argument.
|
|
|
Post by longhops on Sept 5, 2014 20:30:06 GMT
Real issue is what appeals to the public is t20 and we are trying to fit in too much cricket in a season If all games lasted to their full limit in one season the three competitions for one county would be LV+CC 64x92 = 5888 overs RL50 8x50 = 400 overs NWt20 14x20 = 280 overs Tell me any other commercial enterprise that spends so much time delivering their least profitable product? Well the most profitable product in the English game is five day Test cricket, and it is the revenues from that which subsidies Sussex CCC in the form of an ECB annual stipend of a couple of million, isn't it? Without that subsidy Sussex is totally unviable as a "commercial enterprise" . As our most profitable product, Test cricket requires four day championship cricket to provide the base and generate the players which makes it possible. You are not going to build a Test team from three hour bashes under floodlights on a Friday night, are you? So I'm not quite sure what point you are making with your stats, Jim. Yes, there are fewer overs in 20/20 cricket; that's why it is called 20/20. Are you saying you want more T20 ? We had more T20 games this season, but the average gates were down on the previous season, suggesting there is a finite limit to how many matches the core audience will attend. And are you arguing for less of the "least profitable product", namely four day cricket? If so, I'd reluctantly have to agree on that and I'd argue it can be reduced without affecting the quality of the Test side and the income that ensues. If you look at the final round of LVCC matches this season, what do fixtures such as Derbys v Leics and Kent v Glos contribute to Team England ? Nothing, as such teams have been reduced to little more than 'feeder' clubs to the bigger counties. So why does half of their annual income continue to come from the ECB? So what is the solution - fewer counties? It is probably the only logical way to go. Two divisions of six, each side playing ten games per season. But that means six counties that currently have f/c status are reduced to semi-pro/minor county level. Who should they be - Leics? Northants? Derby? Kent? Glos? Sussex Would be interested in your views on this, because your stats (which seem to be slightly dodgy arithmetically, as wally says) mean little without a supporting argument. This is exactly the kind of conversation I had with a Kent member last night. I agree with Comments on here that Cricket could well be dying! Ever since the inception of T20, I have felt that 18 counties for this form of cricket is far too many. IPl, Big bash etc... has proved that it is the best way to go. With regard to 4 day cricket supporting Test cricket, I feel that perhaps it is time to look at reducing the number of counties. The way to do this is to ask counties to submit a business plan showing how they can sustain themselves throughout the year.(I know that this has been done before, but I think more scrutiny into these plans is required, with a view to submitting a 5-6yr plan.) Too many counties now rely on the SkyTV/ECB handouts. This is the only thing keeping counties going. If they cannot support themslves without these handouts, then they should be reduced to a semi-pro/ minor county. I find it gallling that the ECB and ICC seem to think that cricket in this country is alive and well. Since the debacle in Australia, England have won a test series, but have been hopeless in 1 day cricket. That seem godd enough for these old F**** at the ECB! Perhaps we should look at club cricket and support that. I'm off to the Vine tomorrow to see if they can win the Kent Premier League. Rant over!
|
|
jim
2nd XI player
Posts: 182
|
Post by jim on Sept 5, 2014 21:44:28 GMT
An important and vital debate- pardon for the lazy figures. I could write a book on this topic from a personal view!
- Cricket needs to reclaim the spot as the nations summer sport - Lack of free to air TV coverage - other than C5 international hour- is a real issue in combating the growth of planet football - Connecting with 90% of youngsters who attend state schools is vital - Also reaching vastly changing demographics like Eastern Europeans etc - The domestic schedule is a bit of a dogs dinner of a compromise- mainly due to us trying to cram too much cricket into a season
The current ECB business model is getting close to over trading with too much dependence on international matches with high prices My real concern is for the future of test matches -with India not interested- which is the rationale for so many CC matches etc The game needs to make long terms changes to remain relevant in Britain
Against that backcloth FCCs need to build their own businesses to have less dependency on the ECB dividends
The new Domestic structure in year one has produced disappointing financial results and will not change in 2015. We have lost a considerable sum from our expected gate money/hospitality etc due to the schedule. In looking at the structure someone from space might consider in logical terms it is strange that 16& of days are allocated to the most profitable product and 75% to the least profitable for FCCs (E&OE)
Sussex will remain competitive as we have no debt and are putting in place measures to improve our business model. Non match income continues to grow at over 20%p.a The new domestic schedule has been very unkind to us with only 4 days at home in the school holidays and 7 in August and September compared with 11 in April.
We will lobby the ECB for change but get on and do our best with whatever hand we are dealt with. IMHO the future of Cat C counties is dependent on getting our one day product right for the public
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2014 22:02:52 GMT
Thanks, Jim. Much for food for thought there and it really puts the 'flesh on the bones' of your earlier post, which was slightly cryptic.
It's revealing that you say "We have lost a considerable sum from our expected gate money/hospitality etc due to the schedule" and I can only agree when you say : "The new domestic schedule has been very unkind to us with only 4 days at home in the school holidays and 7 in August and September compared with 11 in April."
Some of us said exactly that on the old forum when the fixtures were published last November - and we were roundly castigated by the vice-chairman for being negative and told that instead of moaning about the lack of home fixtures in August/Sept we shoud be grateful for the prospect of a "four day jolly" at Scarborough. It was at that point that I began to fear that the club didn't know its arse from its elbow.
Thanks for reassuring us that you share the same concerns as many of us do. How they are addressed by the ECB is the tricky part, of course; but it's a good start that we are at least agreed on what the problems are!
|
|
jim
2nd XI player
Posts: 182
|
Post by jim on Sept 6, 2014 8:22:57 GMT
In fairness to our VC, who does tireless good work for the Club, we all agreed to fight our corner in private and back the ECB in public
It was/is very important to get behind the new structure and give it our best shot
We have fed back very detailed information for ECB to consider in their review of season one of the Vibrant Domestic Game and hope to get a better hand in season two. Hopefully as we have no lucrative tourist match this will be taken into account.
The wider picture is much more long haul but our integration of the recreational and professional game in Sussex is on track for November 2015. It is designed to promote the great game in our county at all levels
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2014 11:30:02 GMT
So, Sussex CCC officers speaking with "forked tongue" eh? Such loyalty towards the party line is normally to be commended but in this instance, it was insulting to Members and supporters. Sussex isn't alone in this sort of thing and it does cricket no good at all to treat those who support cricket like complete dummies who can't see the reality of the matter.
|
|
wally
2nd XI player
Posts: 178
|
Post by wally on Sept 6, 2014 11:41:14 GMT
So, Sussex CCC officers speaking with "forked tongue" eh? Such loyalty towards the party line is normally to be commended but in this instance, it was insulting to Members and supporters. Sussex isn't alone in this sort of thing and it does cricket no good at all to treat those who support cricket like complete dummies who can't see the reality of the matter. Wow...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2014 12:11:51 GMT
So, Sussex CCC officers speaking with "forked tongue" eh? Such loyalty towards the party line is normally to be commended but in this instance, it was insulting to Members and supporters. Sussex isn't alone in this sort of thing and it does cricket no good at all to treat those who support cricket like complete dummies who can't see the reality of the matter. Wow... Ignore him, wally (and Jim) and don't be decieved by the Sussex location in his name. He's a sad Kent keyboard warrior who loves nothing more than a wind-up and has never forgiven Sussex since Jim told Ivo Tennant in The Times that "Kent is hardly an example of a well-run club" ! Every Sussex supporter knows how hard the vice-chairman works for the club and although we sometimes have reservations over the zealotry of his approach, the last thing he would ever do is insult the club's supporters. I've flagged the post to the moderators.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2014 13:54:44 GMT
What a strange response to a post which identified Club officers admitting to having supported the party line inspite of privately held reservations and beliefs to the contrary. Absolutely no malice towards Sussex whatsoever - like Borderman, Sussex were always my next favourite county - and no malice whatsoever towards John Filby or Jim May other than to suggest to them and to other county executives throughout the land that trying to pull wool through this sort of pronouncement is unworthy and unnecessary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2014 18:37:35 GMT
Can we resume the discussion now without the gratuitous abuse of Sussex officials from the away dressing room?
Jim, do you have to hand the 2013 table of county playing budgets? I recall you said earlier this season that Sussex is in the middle.
I ask because our keyboard warrior friend is now claiming that Kent has a bigger playing budget than Notts and Warwicks – which if true means they sure as hell are not getting value for money.
But if the figures can be crunched to make such a claim, I guess it’s a calculated obfuscation, distorted by the ECB’s central contracts and compensation payments which mean Notts and Warwicks are subsidised for all or part of the costs of Broad/Hales/ Lumb/ Swann/ Patel/ Taylor/Gurney and Bell/ Rankin/Trott/ Woakes, whereas Kent only get subsidy for Tredwell.
What is going to happen with the likes of Trott, Bresnan and – of more concern to us here - Matt Prior, when (as we must assume) their salary costs revert to their counties after their central contracts expire on September 30?
The announcement of the 2014-15 central contracts must be very imminent and will be interesting as only five of those awarded a year ago – Cook, Bell, Broad, Anderson and Root – are likely to be renewed.
|
|
jim
2nd XI player
Posts: 182
|
Post by jim on Sept 6, 2014 22:05:56 GMT
BM -The 2013 figures have yet to be published
International players salaries are not subsidised as such by ECB. I have no idea if Kent's player salary bill is higher than the two counties mentioned - they were certainly lower in 2012.
BTW it is really pleasing that Kent's finances are getting better and the ground looks very good.
A player is basically on a central contract or on a county payroll. If non centrally contracted players miss county matches a FCC gets a missed match payment
Also any FCC who has a players playing for England gets an additional PRFP payment. This is apportioned according to the time spent in the county/ies that develops the player. As an example Leics has been getting significant sums due to international appearances by Broad,Taylor,Gurney,Luke Wright etc. Northants will have taken quite a hit this year from Swann giving up the England role.
As central contracts are awarded each September this makes budgeting pretty difficult. Durham were badly affected when Harmison came back on their payroll
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2014 7:39:11 GMT
Thanks once again, Jim. No surprise that the 2012 figure shows Notts and Warwicks higher in the salary table than div two/ Category C counties and a similar position will no doubt be reflected in the 2013 figures when published. Sussex does extremely well to be in the middle of the table. Are we the the highest budget among the Category C counties? "International players are not subsidised as such" - well terminology. What I meant was exactly what you describe: counties are compensated when players are away with England. So when the likes of Hales and Gurney and Woakes (and Jordan, of course) get called up for a five match ODI series, it triggers a payment from the ECB to the county that is deprived of their services. (Although Jordan hasn't actually missed any Sussex matches, due tot the hopeless county scheduling!) It's all set out on the PCA website here: www.thepca.co.uk/england_contracts.htmlThe central contracts have been a mixed blessing in my view, and it will be interesting to see how many are awarded this year. There is no rule that says the ECB has to award a dozen every year. They go to "players whom the ECB Board believe will play a major role in England’s activities in the year ahead." With so many uncertainties around the England team and no Test cricket for many months, it may well be that no more than half a dozen are awarded for 2014-15. Whch means some county budgets are going to take a hit, in the way you describe Durham suffering when Harmison lost his contract. I fear Sussex may well be in this position with Matt Prior. Looking at it from the position of the ECB, they cannot reasonably be in a position to believe he will "play a major role in England’s activities in the year ahead." They might hope that he will; but they will find it difficult to justify awarding a contract worth £450-500 k on the basis of "hope", when they can't be sure of his fitness and there is the real possibility that Buttler will have become impossible to dislodge by the time Matt is ready to return.
|
|