|
|
Post by coverpoint on May 19, 2021 19:52:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Feb 22, 2022 14:03:53 GMT
An interesting article from The Cricketer Magazine written by its recent new member of staff, former Cricinfo journalist, George Dobell. It is an open letter to the ECBs Head of Integrity, James Pyemont, querying why Durham was stripped "of the ability to host Test cricket, and a possible perception of a conflict of interest which may have played a part in that decision", yet, Yorkshire "have been accused of what many of us would consider far more serious shortcomings – 'crimes' may well be the apposite word – they have had their right to host major matches reinstated after promising a range of reforms which have yet to take effect." Once more Dobell's ongoing dislike of Colin Graves which led to the ECB/Graves threatening to sue the writer for defamation in 2018, rears its head and unbalances the article. The situation at Durham created a black and white viewpoint. One side agreed with the ECBs decision as after saving the club from bankruptcy, Durham deserved to be made a lesson of, for without its help, there would now be 17 County clubs. The opposite view is that Durham were unfairly treated by the Board. I have never understood why. The financial acumen shown by those on the Durham Committee/hierarchy was quite appalling. Agreed, there was no shining knight in the wings (eg. Yorkshire), but by not punishing Durham, this could attract a county free-for-all to spend, spend, spend and go into enormous debt, knowing the ECB would come along and save the day without penalty. www.thecricketer.com/Topics/countycricket/george_dobell_now_it_is_time_for_ecb_investigate_what_happened_durham.htmlMeanwhile, here is a question for you. Would you pay 30p to read this article about Sussex CCC, written by The Cricketer Magazine's Editor, Huw Turbervill, himself a Sussex supporter? www.thecricketer.com/Topics/premium/adams_cottey_add_knowhow_on_field_concerns_remain_for_sussex_fans.html |
|
|
|
Post by philh on Feb 23, 2022 6:41:13 GMT
It’s a good question that I think you’ve asked before. My answer is probably not unless it had something that was highly likely to be fresh content. I decided to spend the 30p but I was met by a need to deposit £2, a trivial amount, I agree. Then, I had to worry about cancelling within 14 days. Like everyone else, I would forget and might have spent few quid for an article that tells nothing I don’t already know. The free intro to the article did nothing to make me curious or believe it contained any fresh content. Maybe it did, maybe it didn’t. With so much content on the internet, it makes it difficult to charge for valuable content. I’m not sure what the solution is. Would you have paid 3p to see my reply to your post if you had to deposit £2 and cancel within 14 days? |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Feb 23, 2022 19:27:26 GMT
I am in agreement with you. The hidden charges, last date to cancel, etc.., surely you require
a simple payment system, one-off, that attracts people to pay for an article rather than push
them away.
I am a journalist/writer, so am all for payment of articles. Since the birth of today’s all-
encompassing internet, journalism has been smashed to pieces, turned writers into political
hacks willing to spout vitriol against the opposition all for the sake of the highest bidder.
The internet and social media, in particular, has cemented the appalling division today
amongst the populace. The highest bidders create the deception and lies which their
puppet journos then spread like manure across the globe. Truth has been lost.
IMHO, you require a simple one-off payment system to read a fresh feature, interview
or original article. I would pay £1 for such a piece if it ticks all my boxes. For example,
an extensive interview with Chris Adams offering new information about his days at Sussex
combined with a bit of club tittle-tattle not known about… I would be happy to pay a one-off
fee of £1 for that.
Therefore, the article has to be special, unique and with original information. No-one is going
to pay money for a piece that can be read elsewhere for free.
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on May 25, 2022 6:51:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gmdf on May 25, 2022 7:25:38 GMT
£30 to see the T20 champions Kent this evening! 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by enoughisenough on Aug 1, 2024 18:53:56 GMT
How will Sussex be impacted by the takeover of Hampshire by Delhi Capitals, who will also have. 49% stake in Southern Brave? Big changes coming to the sport we love.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealab1 on Aug 2, 2024 10:01:08 GMT
How will Sussex be impacted by the takeover of Hampshire by Delhi Capitals, who will also have. 49% stake in Southern Brave? Big changes coming to the sport we love. Been on the cards for a while, am i right ins aying the could buy the other 51% off the franchise as part of the sale? |
|
|
|
Post by kevininnessupersub on Aug 2, 2024 11:21:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by squarepoint on Aug 2, 2024 12:57:22 GMT
How will Sussex be impacted by the takeover of Hampshire by Delhi Capitals, who will also have. 49% stake in Southern Brave? Big changes coming to the sport we love. One thing I’m sure of, Hants won’t ever be voting in favour of any proposals that prioritise red ball over white white ball cricket 🙁 |
|
