|
|
Post by flashblade on Mar 23, 2017 11:15:42 GMT
Some of you don't seem to acknowledge the need to find NEW cricket spectators. If the game's future just depended on keeping county diehards onside, then I believe cricket's finances would continue to decline. Sussex is one of the more solvent counties, yet it now accepts that it will soon run out of cash without the dividends envisaged from the new competition. What is your solution to the game's financial problems, bearing in mind we are where we are? Flash why couldn't a well marketed two division county T20 competition attract new spectators? Why would the new fan be more interested in the Southern sixes than the Sussex Sharks? In a nutshell - the old county system is seen as old fashioned and parochial, and not an attractive proposition to marketeers. As S&F has pointed out, the Big Bash has centred on cities, not states. It may sound illogical to us veterans, but counties are so passe. The new system allows each team to field a strong, balanced international line up. |
|
|
|
Post by tigertiger on Mar 23, 2017 11:23:19 GMT
lb, S and F do you believe that county cricket can survive and thrive alongside this new tournament? Absolutely! As new people attend the CBT and get 'turned on' by T20, so some will then wish to taste Championship cricket. This is what has happened in Australia. The Big Bash has reinvigorated cricket over there; brought in massive amounts of money; and thrust new life into the sport. In Australia the venues are pretty well the same. The question is will new people who attend the CBT in Southampton (say) ... be turned on enough to watch championship cricket in Sussex? I doubt it ... so if the non-financial objective is to get more people watching the counties .. would personally spread the matches amongst more than 8 venues. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Mar 23, 2017 11:51:45 GMT
tt,
I agree with you. The more venues that hold the CBT the better. But it all depends how popular the tournament becomes. There is
a distinction between having 8 teams only and 18 venues. I very much hope that the ECB in their proposals look to spread the
games around.
Obviously, if the tournament takes off then the question is: How many grounds can hold a minimum of 10,000 people? That is where
Taunton will benefit but not Sussex and why I would like to see Hove draw up potential plans on how to expand their ground capacity
in case the CBT does take off. Temporary seating may not be enough.
My opinion is: 10,000 capacity at Hove should be a possible goal from the present 7,000. Somerset have achieved this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Mar 24, 2017 11:05:50 GMT
GD continues his tirade against the forthcoming CBT by focussing on the delights of the present NatWest Blast. He tweets
today, "Advance ticket sales for the 2017 @natwestt20blast are.... 35% up on this time last year. 70% of Somerset tickets sold
already."
And, "Smallest increases in Birmingham and Cardiff. Both likely venues for new-team competition. Really, you couldn't make this
stuff up."
So, are we supposed to wave our white hankies at the demise of the competition? No, because it will still be played. The ECB have
confirmed that the county T20 remains in place.
Are we meant to agree with George that "Why does their need to be a CBT when the Blast is expanding so well?" Very easy
answer. The media/TV companies have no interest in paying mega bucks for a present but expanded T20 - only for a brand new
8 team CBT.
Which leads to the question that no anti-CBT'ite has an answer for. How else do we pay off the £150m+ county cricket debt except
via a CBT? How else do we avoid Championship cricket crumbling in front of our eyes, as counties go bankrupt, where the ECB
won't have sufficient monies to bail them out; and where attendances consistently decrease decade by decade as the diehards
pass over and there are fewer youngsters to take their place?
Imho, the issues at the core of this debate are:
a) Financial
b) Attracting youngsters and adults to the sport
If an anti-CBT'ite has a different method to answer both the above questions then I would love to hear it.
Meanwhile, the increased interest in T20 cricket is applauded and shows that the public are now ready for a far bigger and far
more spectacular type tournament.
|
|
|
|
Post by burgesshill on Mar 24, 2017 14:01:49 GMT
GD continues his tirade against the forthcoming CBT by focussing on the delights of the present NatWest Blast. He tweets today, "Advance ticket sales for the 2017 @natwestt20blast are.... 35% up on this time last year. 70% of Somerset tickets sold
already."
And, "Smallest increases in Birmingham and Cardiff. Both likely venues for new-team competition. Really, you couldn't make this
stuff up."So, are we supposed to wave our white hankies at the demise of the competition? No, because it will still be played. The ECB have confirmed that the county T20 remains in place. Are we meant to agree with George that "Why does their need to be a CBT when the Blast is expanding so well?" Very easy answer. The media/TV companies have no interest in paying mega bucks for a present but expanded T20 - only for a brand new 8 team CBT. Which leads to the question that no anti-CBT'ite has an answer for. How else do we pay off the £150m+ county cricket debt except via a CBT? How else do we avoid Championship cricket crumbling in front of our eyes, as counties go bankrupt, where the ECB won't have sufficient monies to bail them out; and where attendances consistently decrease decade by decade as the diehards pass over and there are fewer youngsters to take their place? Imho, the issues at the core of this debate are: a) Financial b) Attracting youngsters and adults to the sport If an anti-CBT'ite has a different method to answer both the above questions then I would love to hear it. Meanwhile, the increased interest in T20 cricket is applauded and shows that the public are now ready for a far bigger and far more spectacular type tournament. Ah- I see you've been tweeting Georgie boy= Like I said- You'd better be right- or you've ruined county cricket forever. I've no idea who managed to brainwash you. If the driver is about to drive the bus off a cliff, you'd hope the passengers would try to stop him. |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Mar 27, 2017 10:13:18 GMT
BBC cricket correspondent & equestrian radio commentator gives voice, presumably speaking as a cricket commentator, though possibly as a man who likes horse-dancing. Good to see such open-mindedness and determination for his sport to make the most of its opportunities, though possibly his comment might be tinged by a little schadenfrude if he doesn't get a job commentating on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by tigertiger on Mar 27, 2017 12:29:20 GMT
It is an interesting quote as it shows the potential clash between success criteria. Aggers seems to equate success with popularity implying free to air but of course the more free to air, the less money from the TV deal etc which is a key ECB success factor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Mar 28, 2017 17:10:37 GMT
The MSM are awash with news of the impending CBT deal which is now so close to ratification. It's all down to a postal ballot which seems a little bizarre. In the particular article below written by David Clough in the Daily Mail, he cites an interesting piece of new information which I, for one, had not known before. Clough confirms that each County will be paid an annual dividend of £1.3m for the first 4 years and then, perhaps, a higher sum covering the fifth year. That £6.5m over 5 years could be nearer £7m or more depending on the tournament's success. What is interesting about the sporting media, in general, only David Hopps ( Cricinfo) and Nick Hoult ( Daily Telegraph) have even mentioned county cricket's dire financial debt and entwined this with the reasons for the need of a CBT. Is the financial denial so great that few MSM or specialist cricket publications will ever mention this fact? It is as if the financial aspect of cricket is either seen as a dirty word by the purists or not deemed important, which I find extraordinary. Yet, it means that after 5 years, even if the tournament is not successful, a majority of the £150m+ county debt can, at least, be paid off, if the counties are sensible about how they use their annual dividend. Hopefully, the ECB will place certain criteria over how their money can be used. www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-4357370/City-based-Twenty20-decision-based-postal-ballot.html |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Mar 29, 2017 12:01:26 GMT
It is now the turn of Essex Chairman, John Faragher, to harangue the new CBT, calling it "elitist" and a competition that "will ruin" the 130 years of county cricket. Faragher says he has always been against the concept of the tournament, so why didn't Essex vote against it last year alongside Surrey, Kent and Sussex? Isn't it extraordinary that we should have Brexit, then the inauguration of Donald Trump and now the much smaller issue of the CBT, all within 9 months and all creating a black and white, divisive pro/anti response from an even split of the populace. Faragher says the ECB are investing £36m into the CBT (I have no idea where this figure comes from - certainly, in year one, the sum will be £15m); money which should have been spent on an expanded T20 Blast. But once again the nub of the debate is never mentioned. The £150m county debt. How else do you pay this off unless through a major new competition which the TV/Media are willing to financially support. To repeat: They are not interested in paying mega-bucks for an expanded Blast. Surely, in a debate, both sides of the argument are put forward in a balanced way and then those listening can make a sound judgment. In this CBT debate, the whole crux of the matter is rarely if ever discussed in the media or by the counties. Why is this? At least, after all of Faragher's sabre-rattling, he says at the end, "It's our responsibility to make the best of the new T20 competition." www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-4358344/Elitist-Twenty20-ruin-says-Essex-chairman.html |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Mar 29, 2017 12:33:53 GMT
It is now the turn of Essex Chairman, John Faragher, to harangue the new CBT, calling it "elitist" and a competition that "will ruin" the 130 years of county cricket. Faragher says he has always been against the concept of the tournament, so why didn't Essex vote against it last year alongside Surrey, Kent and Sussex? Isn't it extraordinary that we should have Brexit, then the inauguration of Donald Trump and now the much smaller issue of the CBT, all within 9 months and all creating a black and white, divisive pro/anti response from an even split of the populace. Faragher says the ECB are investing £36m into the CBT (I have no idea where this figure comes from - certainly, in year one, the sum will be £15m); money which should have been spent on an expanded T20 Blast. But once again the nub of the debate is never mentioned. The £150m county debt. How else do you pay this off unless through a major new competition which the TV/Media are willing to financially support. To repeat: They are not interested in paying mega-bucks for an expanded Blast. Surely, in a debate, both sides of the argument are put forward in a balanced way and then those listening can make a sound
judgment. In this CBT debate, the whole crux of the matter is rarely if ever discussed in the media or by the counties. Why is this? At least, after all of Faragher's sabre-rattling, he says at the end, "It's our responsibility to make the best of the new T20 competition." www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-4358344/Elitist-Twenty20-ruin-says-Essex-chairman.htmlAbsolutely right. Nearly everyone's become an advocate - we need more judges! |
|
|
|
Post by tigertiger on Mar 29, 2017 12:42:13 GMT
I think the previous vote was for more details only rather than supporting the scheme.
15m was the estimated first year loss rather than the investment.
The annoying thing in all this is that the ECB seem to claim that it is not all about the money which is why I would like to see some non-financial success critieria listed. Personally think that counties will take a financial hit in other areas. The ECB appear to be seeking parallels with the IPL/Big Bash without looking at cultural differences. e.g. Big Bash has a high number of women spectators ... yes, but other sports in Australia have a much higher proportion of women too. IPL matches sell more when there are Bollywood stars attending ... will we have an equivalent (each team gets a boy band member?)
Will Clubs get more Juniors ... tricky since most Junior sections that I know only run during term time - so nothing around whilst the tournament is on!
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Mar 29, 2017 16:06:41 GMT
I have not seen as much interest in cricket from the MSM since the Ashes in 2005. Now Nick Hoult from 'The Telegraph' gets into the act and finally burrows down into the financial numbers which, if true, are truly staggering. The ECB are looking to land a TV deal "worth up to a staggering £1.25bn when it puts its rights – including for its new Twenty20 competition – up for sale in May. WOW! Hoult continues, "The huge sum of money, on a par with that paid this month for Champions League and other European club football, will secure the future of the domestic game for a generation if the ECB can hit the target it has set for its first broadcast auction in five years. The ECB is looking to land between £230 million-£250m per year for five years from 2020 to 2024, an incredible threefold-plus uplift on the current £75m it currently receives annually from Sky Sports for exclusive coverage of all live cricket in England." Double WOW! There are so many positives in this article, it's making me hurt. How about this one: "It is also understood the BBC is about to re-enter the cricket market by agreeing a deal to show highlights from this summer’s Champions Trophy in England, the first time cricket in this country has been broadcast by the BBC since the 1999 World Cup." www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2017/03/28/ecb-wants-125bn-tv-bonanza-par-champions-league-football-rights/ |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Mar 29, 2017 18:15:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tigertiger on Mar 29, 2017 21:03:48 GMT
Difficult to say how much realism is in the ECB figure from that telegraph article. I think a key factor in the TV rights price is whether they can gain permission for Indian players. Have not seen any signs yet that the BCCi will relent their stance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Apr 7, 2017 14:16:04 GMT
|
|
