|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Sept 23, 2018 12:24:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by chrischammond on Oct 5, 2018 22:34:30 GMT
Well - I for one ain’t interested. Forget this year. It wasn’t typical. I’m not going to fork out the best part of £30 to sit freezing to death in the company of pissed non-cricket supporters at night or occasionally during the day with bored kids running around screaming. And if that’s all the cricket that’s going to be on offer, I want a rebate on my membership.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Oct 9, 2018 11:31:29 GMT
Not surprisingly, the anti-sentiment towards Colin Graves, the ECB and the '100 Ball' Tournament continues with this article from The Independent written by Jonathan Liew who is still in the doghouse after daring to criticise Jonathan Agnew a few years back. I stand by my view. The '100 ball' is a win-win for county cricket. The financial costs for creating/marketing/promoting is primarily underwritten by SKY, where each county is given £1.3m a year over a 5 year period and if the competition flops, we return to where English cricket was before and SKY are the huge losers having taken the vast majority of the risk. Meanwhile, the Vitality Blast continues as before. www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/ecb-the-hundred-england-cricket-brexit-jonathan-liew-a8573501.htmlBack in 2002, 7 counties including Sussex voted against the creation of the original T20 competition. Look how wrong they were! www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/579245.html |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Oct 9, 2018 15:07:35 GMT
Not surprisingly, the anti-sentiment towards Colin Graves, the ECB and the '100 Ball' Tournament continues with this article from The Independent written by Jonathan Liew who is still in the doghouse after daring to criticise Jonathan Agnew a few years back. I stand by my view. The '100 ball' is a win-win for county cricket. The financial costs for creating/marketing/promoting is primarily underwritten by SKY, where each county is given £1.3m a year over a 5 year period and if the competition flops, we return to where English cricket was before and SKY are the huge losers having taken the vast majority of the risk. Meanwhile, the Vitality Blast continues as before. www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/ecb-the-hundred-england-cricket-brexit-jonathan-liew-a8573501.htmlBack in 2002, 7 counties including Sussex voted against the creation of the original T20 competition. Look how wrong they were! www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/579245.htmlWC, do you not agree with Jonathan Liew's sentiments? I think he sums up how most cricket lovers feel. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Oct 9, 2018 15:51:59 GMT
Fb,
No I don't. Rather like Brexit, a decision has been made, so let's make the best of it.
To repeat, the original T20 tournament almost did not go ahead in 2003, because no-one
believed it would be a success, as the Cricinfo article suggests.
The '100 Ball' could be the same. In fact, this may become the most successful cricketing
format yet seen and save County Cricket from bankruptcy. My view is what is there to lose
when it is underwritten financially by SKY. If it fails we simply return back to where we were
before.
I don't think cricket supporters are fully aware of the crisis that faces the Championship format.
Unless something bold is done now, I question whether it will be around in 10 years time.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Oct 9, 2018 16:39:20 GMT
Fb, No I don't. Rather like Brexit, a decision has been made, so let's make the best of it. To repeat, the original T20 tournament almost did not go ahead in 2003, because no-one believed it would be a success, as the Cricinfo article suggests. The '100 Ball' could be the same. In fact, this may become the most successful cricketing
format yet seen and save County Cricket from bankruptcy. My view is what is there to lose when it is underwritten financially by SKY. If it fails we simply return back to where we were before. I don't think cricket supporters are fully aware of the crisis that faces the Championship format. Unless something bold is done now, I question whether it will be around in 10 years time. Perhaps we'll revisit this quote in due course . . . Don't forget that Sky bought into a new T20 competiion. They won't cough up if they find they've been sold a pup. |
|
|
|
Post by glosexile on Oct 9, 2018 21:12:00 GMT
Not surprisingly, the anti-sentiment towards Colin Graves, the ECB and the '100 Ball' Tournament continues with this article from The Independent written by Jonathan Liew who is still in the doghouse after daring to criticise Jonathan Agnew a few years back. I stand by my view. The '100 ball' is a win-win for county cricket. The financial costs for creating/marketing/promoting is primarily underwritten by SKY, where each county is given £1.3m a year over a 5 year period and if the competition flops, we return to where English cricket was before and SKY are the huge losers having taken the vast majority of the risk. Meanwhile, the Vitality Blast continues as before. www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/ecb-the-hundred-england-cricket-brexit-jonathan-liew-a8573501.htmlBack in 2002, 7 counties including Sussex voted against the creation of the original T20 competition. Look how wrong they were! www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/579245.htmlFrankly, I am really struggling to understand/follow all of this. Perhaps someone could enlighten me. How has the ECB managed to shed almost 90% of it's cash reserves in the space of 2 years? (£70+ million seems to have dwindled to around £10 million). How have the costs of staging this new tournament somehow tripled from their original estimate of £15 million to now be £41 million? (Quite staggering that amongst the ECB workforce of 321 employees that they seemingly have so many incompetent financial experts). Back in 2017, the ECB admitted that the new competition would lose millions in the first year. Given the newly revealed spiralling costs, what are the supposed current projections for actually making a profit? So Wicked Cricket in his previous post (Sept 14th), states that......"If the '100 Ball' becomes a laughing stock, it will be SKY with egg on their face and not the ECB or county cricket who are the outright financial winners. All in all the '100 Ball' is a win:win for English cricket". Sorry, but I must have a completely different interpretation of what is Win:Win. If 'The Hundred' turns out a complete disaster, then the ECB will be bankrupt and cricket will be a laughing stock. Certainly, not a scenario that I wish to contemplate. With all this apparent money sloshing about, I have no doubt that there will be plenty queuing up to have their "snouts in the trough". |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Oct 9, 2018 21:24:57 GMT
Fb,
Don't forget that Sky bought into a new T20 competiion. They won't cough up if they find they've been sold a pup.
I would be utterly amazed if the ECB are going ahead without consent from SKY. In the past, I have suggested the
'100 Ball' concept may have been encouraged by SKY
glosexile,
I must have a completely different interpretation of what is Win:Win. If 'The Hundred' turns out a complete disaster,
then the ECB will be bankrupt and cricket will be a laughing stock.
It is surprising how far £1.1bn over 5 years can go.
...somehow tripled from their original estimate of £15 million to now be £41 million?
I would like to know where Jonathan Liew has gained these figures from, given the tournament is still at the drawing-
board stage. Perhaps, someone can point me in the right direction? Liew uses the word "suggests" to support these
financial figures which is rather like the political journalist who writes the phrase "an unnamed source" that is little
different to "maybe", "could", "perhaps" and "possibly". Words regularly employed to direct a viewpoint with minor
substance or support.
|
|
Bazpan
2nd XI player
Posts: 191 
County club member: Kent
|
Post by Bazpan on Oct 16, 2018 0:00:07 GMT
As I wondered when previously hijacking this topic in this way, I'm not certain that the successor to the South African T20 Global League deserves its own thread yet (if indeed something can be said to succeed something that didn't happen). But whereas the Global League was cancelled to reduce Cricket South Africa's losses on the tournament from $25m to $14m, this year's attempt looks as though it'll probably happen (they've got Eoin Morgan on board and everything). One reason for last year's cancellation was CSA's inability to agree a sufficiently lucrative TV rights deal. They've got round that problem this year by giving the rights away for nothing to the near-bankrupt national broadcaster.
In promising that the new league would have a "uniquely South African" name, CSA Chief Exec Thabang Moroe seemed to be laying the groundwork for this version of the league being a bit sub-global. The name has now been announced: it's the Mzansi Super League. I think 'Mzansi' is an affectionate vernacular term for 'South Africa'. (I suppose the Blighty Hundred might be our equivalent).
There's to be some draft on Wednesday, so at the moment it's just 'marquee' players such as the tireless Morgan, Universe Boss, Malan, Dwayne Bravo ... and a handful of SA internationals that have been lined up. I'm not sure how many other overseas players are in the draft or if the main point of the MSL is to render ostensibly provincial teams unrecognisable by randomly distributing domestic players among entities with witty names like Durban Heat (zzzz ... are they twinned with Brisbane?) and Cape Town Blitz and Nelson Mandela Bay Giants and stuff.
It'll be interesting to see what sort of a fist CSA make of the MSL, since they've only got a month to set it all up pretty much from a standing start. I can't help thinking money's going to be a problem. They've already been making ECB-type holes in their cash reserves after last year's abortive league and other big losses. It doesn't seem as though they're going to make any money from broadcasting. No sponsors have yet been announced. Meanwhile, several owners of last year's putative franchises are suing CSA for reneging on those agreements and replacing the previous eight franchises with six new locally-owned teams.
There's some entertaining drivel coming out of the gobs of CSA bigwigs. Regarding the selection process for the bidders for the six new teams ...
"The buzz phrase for the independent assessment was the ‘Fan Journey’" which includes 'interaction activities and opportunities specific to the fan experience. From our observations of other T20 Leagues around the world and competitions in other sporting codes it has become clear that the fan experience is all important. Our research has shown us that the match day experience is enhanced by fans ‘leaving their seats’, either to engage with other fans in different areas of the stadium, to partake in various sponsor and event activations or to cheer and support their favourite team/player".
Well I'm sure they know their audience - better than the ECB knows theirs anyway. That aspect of the Fan Journey might not play so well in The Hundred, where a fan, having been encouraged to leave his seat, might decide to just keep going and leave the ground altogether (regardless of the various sponsor and event activations placed in his way).
“The event tagline is ‘FUN. FAST. FOR ALL’ which speaks volumes about the competition’s concept as well as the unique Mzansi touch and appeal that we want to showcase to the world".
FUN. FAST. FOR ALL. Someone probably earning about five times what I do came up with that.
"This competition will be a combination of the game's traditions as well as new-age elements such as the presence of personalities like we have never seen before" (e.g., Eoin Morgan and Dwayne Bravo).
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Oct 16, 2018 12:19:30 GMT
Given the saturation now of the T20 Franchises and/or Tournaments around the world and because England came so late to the party that many are already leaving it, the '100 Ball' makes even more sense. Giles Clarke did some good things for England Cricket during his tenure, but his row and personal feud with Lalit Modi and the disastrous ECB decision to put off the EPL just when England could have been a pioneer of this T20 gravy-train, has put Colin Graves so much on the back-foot that creating a new format, in my mind, seems the only option. Let us hope the place the ECB find themselves in is a successful one!  |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Oct 23, 2018 12:52:29 GMT
Here is the latest view of the '100 Ball Tournament' from The Cricketer Magazine written by Huw Turbervill and James Coyne.   |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Oct 23, 2018 15:05:09 GMT
Pleased to see the initial, tentative signs of wanting to stick with the T20 format. I look forward to watching how the ECB squirm their way out of their ridiculous "One Hundred" fiasco.
|
|
Bazpan
2nd XI player
Posts: 191
County club member: Kent
|
Post by Bazpan on Oct 24, 2018 19:01:32 GMT
Here's some crude Hundred arithmetic that doesn't really go anywhere. Just trying to make a start on getting a feel for the financial truth of all this.
I'm sure it's never actually been claimed that the Hundred will single-handedly generate £1.1bn in TV revenues over five years, but the new league and the total value of the broadcasting deal are quoted in close proximity often enough that I feel as though we're being invited to subconsciously kind of believe that it will. Actually the Hundred is worth about £200m of the overall deal, I read the other day.
The similarity between £200m of TV rights over five years and the projected £41m annual cost of running the Hundred ... is quite eye-catching. Other specific costs have been identified, such as £6m a year for 'event production' (i.e., fireworks), and an unspecified but terrifying-sounding sum for marketing (five times what the ECB spend on promoting all of England's matches apparently, which comes across as a boast but is nothing to be proud of). I should be careful to avoid double counting, and assume that these other costs are all included in the £41m.
Anyway, summating the annual TV revenues and the tournament running costs, the ECB are already £1m in the hole. The £1.3m annual payment to all counties is explicitly not included in the £41m running costs, so the Hundred is losing £24.4m a year before we look any further.
The eight hosting counties will each receive £150,000 a year from the ECB. Annual loss from the Hundred is now £25.6m.
Then it gets more speculative. What sort of ticket revenue can be expected? In a 2010 report Deloittes reckoned an elite T20 competition would draw crowds of 15,000 on average, so let's go with that. What of ticket prices? The ECB have said they want to make it affordable (broadcasters don't like showing empty stadiums), but they won't want to give it away, and it'll look a bit silly if the officially mediocre Blast is much more expensive than the Hundred. Shall we say twenty quid for now?
There will be 36 matches, and hosting counties will get to keep 30% of their gate revenues. That looks like a total ticket revenue from the Hundred of £10.8m, with £7.6m going to the ECB and £3.2m going to the hosting counties (£400,000 for each of the eight counties).
So far the ECB are losing £18m a year on the Hundred, but then there's sponsorship of course, and whatever other sources of income (and expenditure) there may be. In 2010 Deloittes projected £9m of sponsorship revenue from an elite T20 league. Be a bit more now ... £12m, say? Annual losses on the Hundred are now standing at £6m. There'll be merchandise of course, and the ECB will doubtless have a large stake in that since they're so keen to assert their ownership of the Hundred brand. Value of same would be utter guesswork on my part.
All these numbers (mine, Deloittes' and the ECB's) will be wrong, but by how far? Probably not by an order of magnitude. If anyone can fine-tune my estimate of minus £6m a year before the merchandise, plus and minus all the other financial factors I haven't thought of, that would be very interesting. Since history rarely shows people like the ECB and Deloittes to have been pessimistic in their financial projections, the Hundred is feeling a bit sub-Eldoradan to me, on the information to hand. But I have very little information to hand, and don't really know what I'm talking about in any case.
Of course I shouldn't forget that a lot of the ECB's outgoings will be the counties' incomings: £1.3m a year to the non-hosting counties, and perhaps £1.85m (plus some merch! And food & drink) to the eight hosting counties. That won't all be pure income of course. For example, it seems that the host grounds will have to be sterile for the duration of the Hundred; i.e., those counties' sponsors will have to make way for Hundred's own sponsors, and all other business at those grounds (cricketing and non-cricketing) will be mandatorily suspended for that five-week period. And perhaps Blast gates will suffer if the public appetite for cricket matches of 120 balls or fewer per innings is already close to being sated.
Edit: I forgot they're going to need some players. Each team will have a budget of about £1.1m to spend on 16 players. Host counties' annual revenue from the Hundred is now down to £750,000 (plus & minus bits), in this clunky analysis.
|
|
|
|
Post by theleopard on Oct 25, 2018 13:24:19 GMT
That won't all be pure income of course. For example, it seems that the host grounds will have to be sterile for the duration of the Hundred; i.e., those counties' sponsors will have to make way for Hundred's own sponsors, and all other business at those grounds (cricketing and non-cricketing) will be mandatorily suspended for that five-week period.
Totally unworkable at The Oval for a start - the OCS Stand is basically a business and conference centre with seats tagged on, with things on every day. Plus I think there are some businesses housed in former/unused corporate boxes. The PCA and Chince to Shine are also based there, I think.
Secondly, what are all the host counties' players expected to do for five weeks? Give up all of their state-of-the art training and fitness facilities for five weeks in mid-season? To be based where? I mean based, not just play.
|
|
Bazpan
2nd XI player
Posts: 191
County club member: Kent
|
Post by Bazpan on Oct 25, 2018 21:49:25 GMT
theleopard knows the commercial lie of the land at The Oval much better than I do, and these restrictions are going to be a problem at all of the hosting grounds, you'd have thought. (They would even be a bit of a problem if The Hundred was to be played at Canterbury).
I ought to provide some sort of citation for this stipulation. This Cricinfo article is a year old but I've read similar stuff more recently.
www.espn.co.uk/cricket/story/_/id/21123993/counties-concern-moving-goalposts-new-t20
"Some of the hosting clubs are also uneasy that the ECB's demand for 'clean grounds' during the tournament will incur huge costs and damage their own commercial agreements. A clean ground, as defined by the ICC, means the hosting club cannot use it for games (or, potentially, conferencing purposes) or retain any of its own sponsorship agreements visible in the stadium for the entirety of the tournament. Effectively, therefore, clubs would have to move out of their own grounds for five-weeks in mid-summer."
The reference to conference-hosting being forbidden sounds speculative in Dobell's article. I'm sure I've read it put much more strongly than that, but I'm afraid I can't find the relevant quotes just at the moment. Well I'd like to think sense will prevail in this respect. The prohibition of what's melodramatically called 'ambush marketing' is nothing new. It seems excessive to insist that no other cricket is played during The Hundred, though I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise. (It would be a crime if the quality of the cricket to be played under The Hundred rules was jeopardised by worn pitches). But since there'll be about 30 days during the five-week tournament when games of The Hundred won't be being played at a particular ground, to refuse the hosting counties permission even to use their facilities for weddings and seminars and whatnot just seems gratuitous.
I might be getting confused (forgivably, I hope) about who will pay for the players. So far I've got the host counties picking up the tab, but I'm not at all sure this will be the case. If, say, the county that owns the host ground called Old Trafford was to pay for the squad that will be based at that ground, then that team would give the undeniable impression of being Lancashire-based. And yet, the ECB have said the teams will have no geographical connections. But the ECB get all irritable if you refer to the prospective teams as franchises, so presumably they won't be owned by private consortiums. Will the ECB own the teams, and pay the players directly? I can see how it would suit them, so as to disenfranchise (bad choice of word) the counties even further. Then even the elite eight would be doing little more than just providing a venue (especially as the ECB will be taking control of 'event production'). It would be a bit like being paid to make yourselves scarce while someone puts on one concert a week at your cricket ground.
|
|
