|
Post by philh on Feb 28, 2017 16:15:42 GMT
Presumably we need to adjust the promised new income by the loss of income from less matches etc I'm interested to see how much salaries will rise as more money comes into the game. If it's like football's Premier League, much of the extra income will go in increased salaries making the clubs more vulnerable rather than more stable.
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Mar 1, 2017 7:54:45 GMT
Presumably we need to adjust the promised new income by the loss of income from less matches etc I'm interested to see how much salaries will rise as more money comes into the game. If it's like football's Premier League, much of the extra income will go in increased salaries making the clubs more vulnerable rather than more stable. I think that the answer will be not to follow soccer but the Rugby Union, where the game was transformed over a protracted period of negotiations and a holistic approach was adopted to salary caps, recognising that players will derive income from a number of sources and that their management contracts need to be monitored. There is a very good and detailed listing of how it works and what is taken into account here www.premiershiprugby.com/salary-cap/Unfortunately I haven't been able to find anything comparable on the ECB website to describe how their salary cap scheme operates, or even what the numbers are for this year.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Mar 4, 2017 20:10:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Mar 5, 2017 8:39:28 GMT
Do they? It doesn't seem to add up to anything more than another Phil Space article. Consider first of all what is being presented, a YouGov survey that has then been massaged and positioned by a professional marketing company. YouGov invites people to sign up for its surveys and then asks questions, rather than any kind of random sampling. There's no mention of demographics in the report www.smg-insight.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/SMGIYG-SportsIndex-2017-Annual-Report-online.pdfwhich probably means that those who've answered the question “Over the PAST TWO WEEKS, which of the following sporting events have you heard something positive/negative about?" are those who are interested in sport in the first place. That would tend to mean that the results are much more swayed by a kind of insider interest than a sample taken, say of all those between 14 and 70, with corresponding bands of age, consumer class rating and gender to provide better and deeper analysis. Therefore it is probably reflecting that the ECB have done a very good job of marketing the NatWest Blast and raising awareness amongst those who have an interest in sport. That's good news for the traditionalists who claim the ECB are out to destroy the historic county structure and have no interest in their tournaments. On the contrary, it shows that they can do a very effective job of selling it to the existing consumer base. That is why a growing number of cricket lovers believe that the ECB management has a great deal of credibility and skill, and why we think it could do an even better job of arranging a new tournament that will bring in all those who DO NOT currently fill in YouGov surveys.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Mar 5, 2017 10:12:29 GMT
Polls and pollsters are in the dog house after last year's political buffoonery, so I agree what is a poll? If The Guardian ask their readers whether their views on staying in the EU remain, then 99% would say YES; and if the Daily Mail ask 'on leaving' then 99% would state YES. In that respect polls are a farce. You can twist them anyway you wish. So, I agree, polls and pollsters are discredited now and cannot be taken seriously and no longer be used as a litmus test for the public mood as social media continues to create a deeply divisive political society.
The other point is this: While it is heartening to see the popularity of T20 increasing in England, surely, this can be twisted to suggest that the public are ready for a far larger T20 tournament. The appetite is there, where the 'Natwest Blast' has been a useful ECB marketing tool. Both The Oval and Lord's have clearly shown the potential of numbers that could attend a City-Based Tournament.
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Mar 5, 2017 11:18:26 GMT
Polls and pollsters are in the dog house after last year's political buffoonery, so I agree what is a poll? If The Guardian ask their readers whether their views on staying in the EU remain, then 99% would say YES; and if the Daily Mail ask 'on leaving' then 99% would state YES. In that respect polls are a farce. You can twist them anyway you wish. So, I agree, polls and pollsters are discredited now and cannot be taken seriously and no longer be used as a litmus test for the public mood as social media continues to create a deeply divisive political society.The other point is this: While it is heartening to see the popularity of T20 increasing in England, surely, this can be twisted to suggest that the public are ready for a far larger T20 tournament. The appetite is there, where the 'Natwest Blast' has been a useful ECB marketing tool. Both The Oval and Lord's have clearly shown the potential of numbers that could attend a City-Based Tournament. No , I'm not saying that at all. Well-conducted market surveys that are as near as possible free from bias in a purely statistical sense, and that can be analysed to show the different perceptions of age, gender, income and other groupings are enormously valuable and must always be encouraged if we are to have any basis to make progress. These are facts, not false facts or alternative facts or any other kind of stupid Trumpish rubbish, and in any sphere of life there must be a reliable evidence base on which to build a case. This one doesn't seem to meet those criteria, and that is why it cannot be used to meet the facile conclusions that GD suggested in his routine 1000-words-will-this-do article.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Mar 5, 2017 11:48:01 GMT
Hhs, My point is that polling in recent years - especially in the political arena - has become a farce from the British General Election to the EU Referendum and, of course, most acutely the US Election. Your "Well-conducted market surveys that are as near as possible free from bias" are becoming less and less as vested interests increasingly exert there weight and where social media can create an immediate bias and distort the outcome. Therefore, I have learnt not to trust polls anymore and a reason why I take George Dobell's YouGov findings with a pinch of salt. I believe we are in agreement but reaching our conclusion via different paths. The one thing I do applaud are the increasing attendance figures at Natwest T20 Blasts which is an excellent sign that the English are ready for a far larger City-Based Tournament.
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Mar 5, 2017 15:22:32 GMT
Hhs, My point is that polling in recent years - especially in the political arena - has become a farce from the British General Election to the EU Referendum and, of course, most acutely the US Election. Your "Well-conducted market surveys that are as near as possible free from bias" are becoming less and less as vested interests increasingly exert there weight and where social media can create an immediate bias and distort the outcome. Therefore, I have learnt not to trust polls anymore and a reason why I take George Dobell's YouGov findings with a pinch of salt. I believe we are in agreement but reaching our conclusion via different paths. The one thing I do applaud are the increasing attendance figures at Natwest T20 Blasts which is an excellent sign that the English are ready for a far larger City-Based Tournament. Ah, the curse of selective quotation! Read again..."Well-conducted market surveys that are as near as possible free from bias in a purely statistical sense" That has nothing to do with vested interests or any dark secrets or forces of unseen illuminati, it is simply about using logic and proceeding from hard evidence to a conclusion. If you are lazy or stupid and don't structure your survey properly then it is entirely capable of being misinterpreted and manipulated by all sorts of other lazy and stupid people. It doesn't mean that the survey has been rigged, just that it is conducted poorly. That can be a boon to unscrupulous marketing companies, in that they can sell the results of their "research" to the highest bidder, confident that it is so loosely defined as to make any interpretation equally credible. The ECB were very clear from their own research, shared with Sussex and other counties last autumn, that there is a potentially large marketplace for those who are NOT currently cricket enthusiasts, and that marketplace cannot be reached by the traditional competition. Part of the reason why they are so certain about that is that the associations of the traditional county structure may be very warm and sympathetic to those of us who have grown up with cricket but are actually toxic to the untapped audience. For many people sporting associations don't follow county lines but are triggered by other loyalties, not necessarily geographical. Manchester United have many more followers than live within Greater Manchester; the Boat Race has an emotional appeal to a lot of people who have no ties of any kind to either Oxford or Cambridge Universities; motor racing fans have long since ceased to care whether Ferrari is represented by Italian drivers or Mercedes by Germans. This audience relates to personalities and has very few qualms whether Tymal Mills represents Sussex, or Hyderabad or any other club. It is Tymal Mills that is the draw.
|
|
|
Post by tigertiger on Mar 5, 2017 20:05:45 GMT
I thought the only interesting bit in the article was the hint that ECB had been slightly misleading over attendances by not adjusting for washed out matches.
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Mar 10, 2017 19:58:25 GMT
According to George Dobell, the ECB has issued a "financial threat to obstructionist counties" re the forthcoming vote on the proposed City based tournament: www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2017/content/story/1086257.htmlAny county wishing to vote against will need to find sufficient allies to ensure that the tournament is voted down. Much as I believe in the need for the new competition, reading GD's list of key points, it is beginning to resemble a dog's breakfast.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Mar 10, 2017 20:42:51 GMT
Fb,
I remain taking everything with a pinch of salt until the actual proposals are released on March 27th.
Meanwhile, where the UK cricket media stand re: The City-Based Tournament.
CRICINFO: Anti
THE CRICKETER MAGAZINE: Pro
ALL OUT CRICKET: On the fence but with a big toe in the pro-camp
THE CRICKET PAPER: Unknown
edit
LIZZIE AMMON: Anti
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Mar 11, 2017 13:19:13 GMT
Lizzie Ammon in The Times reports "At least six of the non-Test match counties have become increasingly concerned that they are being asked to vote to change the existing constitution, removing their power of veto and, for the first time, allowing the ECB to introduce tournaments that don’t include all 18 counties . . . " Executives from the category B and C counties — those that do not host Test matches — are meeting on March 20 to discuss their concerns. Watch this space - with interest. www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c68d0390-05cf-11e7-ae09-71f14792998a
|
|
|
Post by tigertiger on Mar 11, 2017 13:34:40 GMT
Before debating the merits again, can someone remind me how they get to 36 games. An all-play-all with 8 teams gives 28 matches with some home for 4 games and others for 3. There are then 4 games to get to the winner (1v2, 3v4, loser 1v2 v winner 3v4, final). To get to 36 would need to give everyone an extra game so each team plays one other team twice and the rest once and that is never satisfactory. What have I missed?
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Mar 11, 2017 13:40:38 GMT
Fb,
Lizzie Ammon is another journalist who is anti the CBT, so anything she writes will reflect her opposition and emphasise disquiet amongst the counties.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Mar 14, 2017 17:18:17 GMT
Nick Hoult from 'The Telegraph' comes wading into the T20 CBT debate with a headline that is little more than fake news. English cricket's new T20 franchise game will lose £15 million in its first year !!Oh my God, scream the anti-CBTites, the tournament will ruin county cricket forever... It's a catchy headline, agreed, but when you read between the lines it's little more than froth and conjecture. The £15m loss which the ECB warn about is actual monies spent on marketing and the launch. Cricket Australia dished out AUS$$$$mms galore in the first three years of the BBL. You need to speculate to accumulate is the well-known business phrase. Each county will still receive their £1.3m handout a year and this may even "increase" if the tournament becomes successful. I note the ECB are calling it "a dividend" which lessens the charity angle and gives it more gravitas. The rest of the article is conjecture and lots of "ifs" and "maybes". Quite sensibly, the counties have sent off their concerns to the ECB to be responded to and now it's up to the Board to answer them satisfactorily to lessen the worries. www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2017/03/14/english-crickets-new-t20-franchise-game-will-lose-15-million/
|
|