Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2014 9:29:26 GMT
Apparently only between 1600-2000 attended yesterday's quarter-final at Canterbury, 800 tks pre-sold at £15 for members/ £20 for non-members, the others paying £25 on the gate. So perhaps cricket is still price sensitive and Notts' attendance last Tuesday of 3,200 was more impressive than we realised and was boosted by their decision to charge just £10. You'd guess both counties ended up with a similar profit from ticket sales, but Notts got a crowd twice as big, most of whom will have then spent sizeable sums of money in the ground on food/drink/programmes etc.
Certainly Warwicks seem to have learnt from Kent's greedy over-pricing - for the semi-final they are charging £10, free to members of both counties and free to under-16s. They deserve a bumper crowd.
Durham also charging semi-final prices that makes Kent's £25 on the gate for a q/f look like shooting themselves in the foot - £10 for members, £12 pre-booking for non-members, £15 on the gate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2014 16:05:06 GMT
You couldn't make it up, but according to a report on The Times pay wall site, Kent have written to the ECB to express "dismay" at the arrangements for their RLC semi-final at Edgbaston on Thursday. Warwicks are offering free entry for members of both counties and charging non-members £10. Kent, who charged their own members £15 and non-members £25 for their home q/f last week, are miffed because they are entitled to 25 per cent of the gate and are arguing that Warwicks' pricing policy is reducing the revenue they hoped to receive from the fixture.
Instead of thanking Warwicks for their generosity in admitting Kent members free-of-charge, Kent are lobbying the ECB that the gate receipts should now be split 50:50 between home and away club - a staggeringly spiv-like claim that strains all credibility given that it is Warwicks alone that bears the costs of staging the match.
Kent clearly do not approve of the policy followed by Warwicks/Notts/Durham/Yorks and other counties in trying to boost attendances through affordable ticketing. Their CEO is quoted as saying : “As a game we must be mad. It is short-sighted and has the potential to be deeply damaging to county cricket’s ability to justify ticket prices for matches like these in the future.”
So aparently other counties should be forced to charge higher prices in order to allow Kent to justify their own over-pricing - and he wonders why Kent don't win any popularity contests around the county circuit?
And no surprise that James Tredwell would rather be at a friendly, family-oriented club like Sussex!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2014 8:17:38 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2014 15:05:52 GMT
Not sure if copying a url from behind my Times pay-wall works, but here's the link: www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/cricket/counties/article4192688.ece?shareToken=f20811c81b4db912aafba5751ec36f8fon edit: it works - don't tell News UK there's a hole in their pay-wall! Just been looking at the Kent reaction to their CEO objecting to Warwicks offering Kent members free entry instead of milking them for all they can (as Kent would have done, if they were the home county!) Overwhelmingly hostile, although one loyal chap backs him, saying the ECB cannot "concede both home playing advantage and fiscal advantage" to Warwicks. I'm puzzled how it is HM Treasury's fault, though - it's a long time since I studied economics, but I always understood that the term 'fiscal' refers specifically to government spending/revenue/debt? And I'm told that Lord's has thousands and thousands of tkts left for the final - the worst advance tkt sales for a one day final in the 52 years they have been staging them, in fact. This Royal London Cup seems to have been yet another right royal ECB cock-up! |
|
|
|
Post by deepfineleg on Sept 2, 2014 19:36:44 GMT
Maybe the 25% should be a share of gate + other income (food, drink), then both teams would have an incentive to maximise the crowd.
|
|
|
|
Post by sussexviewer on Sept 3, 2014 7:09:53 GMT
I am sure this has been said many times before and so I apologise in advance if I am going over old ground.
One thing this season, and our injury list, has highlighted is the extreme diversity in the various County’s incomes. Sussex have been amazing in the way that in the past they have punched so much above their financial weight
There will always be an amount of people (sadly not very many) who will turn up to watch their team regardless of how they are performing. But what we need is the additional thousands perhaps who will turn up because their team is competitive and providing excitement.
To do this you need the players and to get the players you need the budget. When a star player is rumoured to be coming to the end of their contract, we never seem to be in the frame to sign them.
In fact a County team probably does not want the absolute stars because they will spend too much time away playing for their Country. We have done best when we have had teams full of the nearly men – Wright, Joyce, Adams, Kirtley, Lewry, Panesar etc - or those deemed to be just past their sell by dates – Mushtaq.
But these are expensive players because they are in demand for obvious reasons.
How possibly can a team like Sussex compete over the long term with eg Surrey or Notts or Warwickshire ie the large capacity test match grounds with catchment areas several times ours?
It is quite iniquitous that for instance Surrey can import the Pontings, Smiths and Dilshans of the world when we have to resort to signing a player from Reigate Priory (no offence to him as he has performed better than most).
So here’s a solution. If the ECB want a genuinely competitive system with evenly matched teams providing daily experience of hard cricket where skills are honed, they should set a salary cap and top up the smaller counties with some kind of compensatory payment.
This would need thinking through but maybe a starting point would be for the ECB to take the previous year and to top up every County’s salary bill to that of the highest.
My understanding is that at the moment each County gets about £1m from Sky via the ECB. The salaries top up should be a prepayment of this with the balance apportioned equally thereafter.
I know there are holes in this – I can pick them myself. But it would be a start towards a fairer, more competitive and exciting and therefore watchable competition in all forms of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Sept 3, 2014 9:13:15 GMT
I am sure this has been said many times before and so I apologise in advance if I am going over old ground. One thing this season, and our injury list, has highlighted is the extreme diversity in the various County’s incomes. Sussex have been amazing in the way that in the past they have punched so much above their financial weight There will always be an amount of people (sadly not very many) who will turn up to watch their team regardless of how they are performing. But what we need is the additional thousands perhaps who will turn up because their team is competitive and providing excitement. To do this you need the players and to get the players you need the budget. When a star player is rumoured to be coming to the end of their contract, we never seem to be in the frame to sign them. In fact a County team probably does not want the absolute stars because they will spend too much time away playing for their Country. We have done best when we have had teams full of the nearly men – Wright, Joyce, Adams, Kirtley, Lewry, Panesar etc - or those deemed to be just past their sell by dates – Mushtaq. But these are expensive players because they are in demand for obvious reasons. How possibly can a team like Sussex compete over the long term with eg Surrey or Notts or Warwickshire ie the large capacity test match grounds with catchment areas several times ours? It is quite iniquitous that for instance Surrey can import the Pontings, Smiths and Dilshans of the world when we have to resort to signing a player from Reigate Priory (no offence to him as he has performed better than most). So here’s a solution. If the ECB want a genuinely competitive system with evenly matched teams providing daily experience of hard cricket where skills are honed, they should set a salary cap and top up the smaller counties with some kind of compensatory payment. This would need thinking through but maybe a starting point would be for the ECB to take the previous year and to top up every County’s salary bill to that of the highest. My understanding is that at the moment each County gets about £1m from Sky via the ECB. The salaries top up should be a prepayment of this with the balance apportioned equally thereafter. I know there are holes in this – I can pick them myself. But it would be a start towards a fairer, more competitive and exciting and therefore watchable competition in all forms of the game. I think you're on the right track, sussexviewer. Welcome to the MB. btw! In any team sport, if the governing body allows wealthier clubs to sign stronger teams, then the game becomes uncompetitive. That's happened in Premier League soccer, and has now happened in cricket. I believe US football and ice hockey leagues use the 'draft' system to ensure that teams start the season on a reasonably level playing field - if anyone can elaborate on this, I'd be grateful. In British speedway, each rider has an average points score per match, which gives an assessment of his quality. At the start of the season, all teams have to ensure that the aggregate average scores of all riders in the team does not exceed a pre-determined maximum. When money becomes too important in a sport, the playing field is allowed to become un-level. |
|
wally
2nd XI player
Posts: 178
|
Post by wally on Sept 3, 2014 16:48:11 GMT
I am sure this has been said many times before and so I apologise in advance if I am going over old ground. One thing this season, and our injury list, has highlighted is the extreme diversity in the various County’s incomes. Sussex have been amazing in the way that in the past they have punched so much above their financial weight There will always be an amount of people (sadly not very many) who will turn up to watch their team regardless of how they are performing. But what we need is the additional thousands perhaps who will turn up because their team is competitive and providing excitement. To do this you need the players and to get the players you need the budget. When a star player is rumoured to be coming to the end of their contract, we never seem to be in the frame to sign them. In fact a County team probably does not want the absolute stars because they will spend too much time away playing for their Country. We have done best when we have had teams full of the nearly men – Wright, Joyce, Adams, Kirtley, Lewry, Panesar etc - or those deemed to be just past their sell by dates – Mushtaq. But these are expensive players because they are in demand for obvious reasons. How possibly can a team like Sussex compete over the long term with eg Surrey or Notts or Warwickshire ie the large capacity test match grounds with catchment areas several times ours? It is quite iniquitous that for instance Surrey can import the Pontings, Smiths and Dilshans of the world when we have to resort to signing a player from Reigate Priory (no offence to him as he has performed better than most). So here’s a solution. If the ECB want a genuinely competitive system with evenly matched teams providing daily experience of hard cricket where skills are honed, they should set a salary cap and top up the smaller counties with some kind of compensatory payment. This would need thinking through but maybe a starting point would be for the ECB to take the previous year and to top up every County’s salary bill to that of the highest. My understanding is that at the moment each County gets about £1m from Sky via the ECB. The salaries top up should be a prepayment of this with the balance apportioned equally thereafter. I know there are holes in this – I can pick them myself. But it would be a start towards a fairer, more competitive and exciting and therefore watchable competition in all forms of the game. Very interesting post...I believe the gross revenue at surrey is about four times that of Sussex....certainly ECB have tried incentives to encourage playing England qualified under 25 s etc but something more radical like the IPL salary allocations ( also CPL I think) may help equalise things. |
|
|
|
Post by sussexviewer on Sept 4, 2014 7:02:14 GMT
I am sure this has been said many times before and so I apologise in advance if I am going over old ground. One thing this season, and our injury list, has highlighted is the extreme diversity in the various County’s incomes. Sussex have been amazing in the way that in the past they have punched so much above their financial weight There will always be an amount of people (sadly not very many) who will turn up to watch their team regardless of how they are performing. But what we need is the additional thousands perhaps who will turn up because their team is competitive and providing excitement. To do this you need the players and to get the players you need the budget. When a star player is rumoured to be coming to the end of their contract, we never seem to be in the frame to sign them. In fact a County team probably does not want the absolute stars because they will spend too much time away playing for their Country. We have done best when we have had teams full of the nearly men – Wright, Joyce, Adams, Kirtley, Lewry, Panesar etc - or those deemed to be just past their sell by dates – Mushtaq. But these are expensive players because they are in demand for obvious reasons. How possibly can a team like Sussex compete over the long term with eg Surrey or Notts or Warwickshire ie the large capacity test match grounds with catchment areas several times ours? It is quite iniquitous that for instance Surrey can import the Pontings, Smiths and Dilshans of the world when we have to resort to signing a player from Reigate Priory (no offence to him as he has performed better than most). So here’s a solution. If the ECB want a genuinely competitive system with evenly matched teams providing daily experience of hard cricket where skills are honed, they should set a salary cap and top up the smaller counties with some kind of compensatory payment. This would need thinking through but maybe a starting point would be for the ECB to take the previous year and to top up every County’s salary bill to that of the highest. My understanding is that at the moment each County gets about £1m from Sky via the ECB. The salaries top up should be a prepayment of this with the balance apportioned equally thereafter. I know there are holes in this – I can pick them myself. But it would be a start towards a fairer, more competitive and exciting and therefore watchable competition in all forms of the game. I think you're on the right track, sussexviewer. Welcome to the MB. btw! In any team sport, if the governing body allows wealthier clubs to sign stronger teams, then the game becomes uncompetitive. That's happened in Premier League soccer, and has now happened in cricket. I believe US football and ice hockey leagues use the 'draft' system to ensure that teams start the season on a reasonably level playing field - if anyone can elaborate on this, I'd be grateful. In British speedway, each rider has an average points score per match, which gives an assessment of his quality. At the start of the season, all teams have to ensure that the aggregate average scores of all riders in the team does not exceed a pre-determined maximum. When money becomes too important in a sport, the playing field is allowed to become un-level. |
|
|
|
Post by sussexviewer on Sept 4, 2014 7:09:52 GMT
Thank you for the welcome flashblade. I used to post occasionally on the previous board but, like others, it took me ages to find this one.
I am not an IT guru but there must be some way to make the board more discoverable. Ideas fellow MBers?
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Sept 4, 2014 16:50:39 GMT
Just watched a bit of the 50 over semi final between Warks and Kent. Bearing in mind the cheap/free entrance discussed earlier up-thread, I am amazed at the pathetically small crowd at Edgbaston.
I'm not very good at estimating crowd numbers, so I will be interested to see the official attendance figure.
This is a semi-final, FGS - why don't people want to go? My guess is that they find this 50 over malarkey a tad boring - especially if they've watched T20 matches earlier this summer. IIRC, Warwicks offered free entry for members of both counties and a charge of £10 to non-members. If folks find the spectacle unattractive, it doesn't matter how cheap it is, apparently!
I'm writing this during the innings break - perhaps more people will turn up for the evening innings?
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Sept 5, 2014 7:52:29 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2014 8:37:09 GMT
Just watched a bit of the 50 over semi final between Warks and Kent. Bearing in mind the cheap/free entrance discussed earlier up-thread, I am amazed at the pathetically small crowd at Edgbaston. I'm not very good at estimating crowd numbers, so I will be interested to see the official attendance figure. This is a semi-final, FGS - why don't people want to go? My guess is that they find this 50 over malarkey a tad boring - especially if they've watched T20 matches earlier this summer. IIRC, Warwicks offered free entry for members of both counties and a charge of £10 to non-members. If folks find the spectacle unattractive, it doesn't matter how cheap it is, apparently! I'm writing this during the innings break - perhaps more people will turn up for the evening innings? It was a one-sided game between two mismatched sides who looked a division apart in every sense, and Rob Key described his own side as "very poor...shocking, really". But that shouldn't have affected advance ticket sales. The £10/free-for-members carrot clearly excited little interest in the game and a 3,000 crowd (half of whom got free entry) means that Kent will probably get less than £5,000 in gate money. (Although before Kent complain too loudly the club got another £5,400 in prize money, the players are sharing £17,750 as beaten semi-finalists, and according to Dave Brooks, who got drawn into the criticism of the Kent chief exec on Twitter, as the away side they also qualified for an additional £5,000 payment from the ECB to cover travel and accommodation. So not too bad for a day's work in which they turned up and signed in - and then did not much more.) But coming after the poor average attendances for the T20 Bash , the miniscule crowds for the RLC are further evidence that "cricket is dying in England", according to George Dobell's match report on Cricinfo. Here's what he says:
"It is increasingly hard to avoid the conclusion that, almost a decade after the game all but disappeared from free-to-air television, a decade after central contracts and the increased international schedule snatched the best players from the domestic circuit, cricket is dying in England. Or at least slipping into gentle irrelevance. Like Morris dancing and origami."
What do others think? 1. Is county cricket dying in England, and doomed to become a quaint, archaic irrelevance like Morris dancing? 2.Or is it the fault of the ECB and what has to have been the worst scheduling of matches ever in 2014? 3. Or is the 18 county model so busted that whatever schedule the ECB produces will fail? My personal view is that Dobell's doom and gloom is probably justified and the answer to all three questions above is tragically 'yes'. On the other hand 28,500 attended a Middx v Surrey T20 this season. How does the ECB set about scheduling more games attended by the impressive sort of numbers that turned up at Lords and the Oval for the T20 Blast - and preventing the kind of badly-attended David-and-Goliath non-events we saw at Edgbaston yesterday? One difficult conclusion is that the ECB can no longer sustain 18 first-class counties, white ball cricket has to be handed over to city franchises and in the county championship division two has to be scrapped and replaced with a single premier league of 10 or 12 counties, with the rest reduced to semi-pro/minor county status. But is that ever going to happen? There's an old saying about turkeys not voting for Christmas. The problem is that if the turkeys are allowed a veto, cricket may find that Christmas is cancelled, too. Nick Knight and Mark Butcher reportedly said on Sky after last night's mis-match that the promising youngsters in the Kent side should consider leaving and joining a successful side like Warwickshire (didn't hear the broadcast so can't vouch for what exactly was said, but it was seemingly serious enough for at least one Kent blowhard to ask the Kent chief exec to write to Sky to lodge an official complaint). Is it wrong to think that the Butcher/Knight comments about 'feeder' counties and the pathetic spectacle of Kent and Warwicks fighting over the division of a paltry few thousand pounds gate money merely lend further weight to the growing belief that the 18 counties model is unsustainable and that Dobell is right when he says that county cricket in England is dying?
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Sept 5, 2014 9:44:08 GMT
Quote:
"On the other hand 28,500 attended a Middx v Surrey T20 this season. How does the ECB set about scheduling more games attended by the impressive sort of numbers that turned up at Lords and the Oval for the T20 Blast - and preventing the kind of badly-attended David-and-Goliath non-events we saw at Edgbaston yesterday?
"
I think the answer's pretty obvious; to non cricketing diehards, a 3 hour T20 match is more attractive than a 50 over match from 2:00 to 10:00. The 50 over format involves spending a day watching cricket - this could well be unattractive to many T20 enthusiasts, who are just looking for an evening's entertainment. The crowd at Edgbaston yesterday looked more like your normal CC crowd to me.
Commercially, I can't see any future for domestic 50 over cricket.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Sept 5, 2014 10:43:10 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.
|
|
