|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Dec 2, 2018 21:48:12 GMT
Joe, “ the T10 is proving a hit “ Really? Who is it a hit with?I carried out further research this evening. The inaugural tournament was in 2017. There were 6 teams. The 2018 edition has 8 teams. It was given ICC approval this year. The Franchise cost has now risen from $400k to $1.2m a team. League Chairman, Shaji Ul Mulk has stated he is taking the competition to other countries with the USA a strong possibility. The players both former greats and those top ones involved are very excited by the T10. Some like Shahid Afridi believe this format could be the way in to the Olympics as the entire tournament can be played and completed within 8 days. Sony Pictures Network have signed a 3 year deal for the media rights (the fee is unknown). Countries the competition is being aired live to include South Asia, the Middle East and most interestingly, North Africa. The T10 lasts just 12 days. It is fast, furious, short, sharp and can be easily fitted in to an already busy cricketing schedule. As to the attendance numbers who watch the games live, I have no figure or for those who watch it on TV, tablet or on their mobile phones. Other evidence suggests it is not only a fast growing competition, but with a lot of potential, especially when used to open up new territories to playing cricket eg. China. www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/24179227/rashid-khan-andre-russell-feature-t10-league |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jan 7, 2019 21:29:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gmdf on Jan 8, 2019 8:05:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jan 8, 2019 8:32:46 GMT
gmdf,
As with any solid debate both sides of the argument have their merits. I find the pro-stance more eloquently written, but that, perhaps,
is my bias.
The 100 Ball will either be a great success or a total flop which makes this marmite-perceived competition so appetising. Those first
years from 2020 onwards will be fascinating to watch. The critics will jump in with their pitchforks damming every small failure,
citing that attendances are not as high as expected, whilst the pro-camp will point out that all tournaments take time to build.
Financially, thanks to SKY's staggering £1.1bn media rights deal, a majority of the money is already covered, although critics may
argue that the financial risks could harm county cricket in general, even though each county will be paid an extraordinary £1.3m
a year for five years for doing absolutely nothing... and on top of this those City grounds who host the matches will gain large additional
sums on top. This will financially revolutionise county cricket.
Just as with Brexit or part of Trump's governance, "Project Fear" is the only thing that critics have to use, at present. And like some
worn and scratched record, this is tediously repeated.
We won't know until the earliest of 2023 whether the 100 Ball will become a success, but having free-to-air TV covering the event is,
in my view, the greatest asset and if the tournament flops, so we return to where county cricket was before, none the wiser, but a lot
richer.
Imho, there are more pros than cons.
|
|
|
|
Post by gmdf on Jan 8, 2019 10:02:15 GMT
Actually I think there's a good chance that the 100 will attract a reasonable crowd to begin with if (& it's a big 'if') the weather is good as the millions (£40 million!!!) spent on publicity will have some initial effect. But pretty quickly that curiosity will fade and interest will decline to a level well below the hype (but maybe above the 'total fiasco' level it deserves). By year 2 or 3 there will be a strong case for replacing it. I have to say if supporters of the 100 liken it to Trump or Brexit, then I rather hope for the fiasco outcome. You really do your case no favours. I don't find Brexit a joke. FWIW Having read the 2 Wisden articles, I found the anti much more persuasive. But let's let those interested read them both and decide for themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jan 8, 2019 11:42:58 GMT
gmdf, You really do your case no favours. I don't find Brexit a joke.How on earth do you interpret my comment as a joke? I quite agree it is no joke. The situation is extremely serious. My point is that when there is no evidence yet of a future outcome, "Project Fear" is ever more used as a basis of argument which is no different to staring into a crystal ball. Come 2024, it will be interesting to see which one of us is correct.  |
|
|
|
Post by gmdf on Jan 8, 2019 16:44:31 GMT
gmdf, You really do your case no favours. I don't find Brexit a joke.How on earth do you interpret my comment as a joke? I quite agree it is no joke. The situation is extremely serious. My point is that when there is no evidence yet of a future outcome, "Project Fear" is ever more used as a basis of argument which is no different to staring into a crystal ball. Come 2024, it will be interesting to see which one of us is correct. Whether you meant it or not, your comment sounded like a version of Gove's crass statement “people in this country have had enough of experts”. And that comment was pernicious and dangerous rubbish. It reminds me a bit of this cartoon:  |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jan 9, 2019 8:05:15 GMT
gmdf,
...your comment sounded like a version of Gove's crass statement “people in this country have had enough of experts”.
And that comment was pernicious and dangerous rubbish.
I am not clear how positive comments about the '100 Ball' and a passing mention of Brexit can lead to words like
'pernicious and dangerous rubbish' alongside an aeronautical cartoon, but if you are seeking a political debate then
this is not the Forum, so I shall bow out.
We hold opposing views of the '100 Ball' which is healthy and in 5 years time there'll be a clearer picture of who is
correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by gmdf on Jan 9, 2019 9:06:40 GMT
gmdf, ...your comment sounded like a version of Gove's crass statement “people in this country have had enough of experts”.
And that comment was pernicious and dangerous rubbish.
I am not clear how positive comments about the '100 Ball' and a passing mention of Brexit can lead to words like 'pernicious and dangerous rubbish' alongside an aeronautical cartoon, but if you are seeking a political debate then this is not the Forum, so I shall bow out. We hold opposing views of the '100 Ball' which is healthy and in 5 years time there'll be a clearer picture of who is correct. Sigh... You posted a pro-100 article form the Wisden Magazine, but not the anti-100 one. So I corrected that for the sake of balance. As far as I was concerned the matter could have rested there... But no, you replied with a long post including the sentence: Just as with Brexit or part of Trump's governance, "Project Fear" is the only thing that critics have to use, at present. And like some
worn and scratched record, this is tediously repeated.
Now you make think that a witty response, but some of us regard Brexit and the rise in xenophobia it has caused as something less than amusing. So I pointed this out. Politely. You then claimed it wasn't a joke (making the choice of words used worse, IMHO) and went on the imply that any reasoned argument about the outcomes of the 100 was akin to 'Project Fear' (again, showing you can't help bringing Brexit up). Quite frankly I find that insulting, because of the serious results of ignoring expert opinion is having on our country. I decided to illustrate that by means of a humorous (IMHO) cartoon - I thought of the (many) showing lemmings, but went with the one I did. To make a point. Politely. However again you seem to demand the last word, so claim that I have made this into a political debate...But I didn't!!! You did, by your crass reference to Brexit. Again, let me point out that I got into this by simply posting a link to an article that offered the opposite opinion to the one you posted. However, like many zealots, you seem unwilling to accept that there are other points of view, and have done everything to shut down expression of them.... No wonder then you bring up Brexit.  |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jan 9, 2019 10:05:26 GMT
gmdf, You are very welcome to your views, views which I respect, but it seems the words 'Brexit' and 'Project Fear' have touched a raw nerve within you. So, let us leave it that. |
|
Bazpan
2nd XI player
Posts: 191 
County club member: Kent
|
Post by Bazpan on Jan 9, 2019 15:14:53 GMT
The 100 Ball will either be a great success or a total flop which makes this marmite-perceived competition so appetising. Those first years from 2020 onwards will be fascinating to watch. The critics will jump in with their pitchforks damming every small failure, citing that attendances are not as high as expected, whilst the pro-camp will point out that all tournaments take time to build. Financially, thanks to SKY's staggering £1.1bn media rights deal, a majority of the money is already covered, although critics may argue that the financial risks could harm county cricket in general, even though each county will be paid an extraordinary £1.3m a year for five years for doing absolutely nothing... and on top of this those City grounds who host the matches will gain large additional sums on top. This will financially revolutionise county cricket.
No one here is dismissing anyone's pro-Hundred views as Project Credulity, so I'd like to think reasonable scepticism can't just be written off as Project Fear. Wicked Cricket is unimpressed by crystal ball-gazing, but is happy to state that the Hundred "will financially revolutionise county cricket". Well we're all in the prediction game to some extent or we'd have nothing to discuss, so gaze away! In my earlier post I was doing the same by trying to get a feel for the economics of the Hundred. Of course there's nowhere near enough information (that I possess at any rate) to make financial projections with any confidence or accuracy, but I thought it was worth starting to think about what is a pretty fundamental aspect of this competition. Others on here may be way ahead of me.
Anyone flogging through this post might also be prepared to look back to my previous one (third post up from the bottom on page 38), so I'll spare you too much of a recap. If Wicked Cricket or anyone else has any information or opinions on the areas I've speculated about (or confessed total ignorance of), that would be very interesting. Essentially, I concluded (with an awful lot of assumptions) that:-
The ECB would lose £6m a year on the Hundred before taking into account profit from merchandise (and doubtless all kinds of other things - positive and negative - that I hadn't thought of).
Hosting counties would make £1.85m a year if they're not responsible for players' salaries. Otherwise they'd make about £0.75m a year. Plus sales of merch and food & drink. And possibly minus some sponsorship revenue and income from private clients (functions, etc).
Non-hosting counties will of course get their £1.3m but might lose some sponsorship revenue, and all counties could suffer reduced attendances for T20 Blast games. And then there's all the other known & unknown unknowns of course.
I'd welcome an informed demolition job on these projections. If I'm going to make a fool of myself pontificating inexpertly in pubs about the Hundred, then I'd rather
get my opinions changed on here first by people I won't have to meet face to face.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jan 9, 2019 16:29:41 GMT
Bazpan, I'd rather get my opinions changed on here first by people I won't have to meet face to face. There is nothing more unnerving than meeting someone face-to-face, for the first time, whom you've been 'robustly' arguing and disagreeing with via the hidden vaults of a Forum. I was reminded of this Telegraph article that offers good insight into the financial machinations of the recent 1.1bn SKY deal. Of course, only a part of the money goes to the '100 Ball', but its influence alongside the BT Sport bid increased the previous 5 year ECB media deal from £445m or a £655m rise which, imho, is a phenomenal rise. How much of that was due to the '100 Ball' can only be speculation. www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2017/06/30/game-changing-tv-deal-sky-bbc-will-broaden-crickets-appeal-says/ |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jan 9, 2019 17:11:44 GMT
Bazpan, I'd rather get my opinions changed on here first by people I won't have to meet face to face. There is nothing more unnerving than meeting someone face-to-face, for the first time, whom you've been 'robustly'
arguing and disagreeing with via the hidden vaults of a Forum. I was reminded of this Telegraph article that offers good insight into the financial machinations of the recent 1.1bn SKY deal. Of course, only a part of the money goes to the '100 Ball', but its influence alongside the BT Sport bid increased the previous 5 year ECB media deal from £445m or a £655m rise which, imho, is a phenomenal rise. How much of that was due to the '100 Ball' can only be speculation. www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2017/06/30/game-changing-tv-deal-sky-bbc-will-broaden-crickets-appeal-says/ |
|
Bazpan
2nd XI player
Posts: 191
County club member: Kent
|
Post by Bazpan on Jan 9, 2019 19:13:57 GMT
Bazpan, I'd rather get my opinions changed on here first by people I won't have to meet face to face. There is nothing more unnerving than meeting someone face-to-face, for the first time, whom you've been 'robustly' arguing and disagreeing with via the hidden vaults of a Forum. I was reminded of this Telegraph article that offers good insight into the financial machinations of the recent 1.1bn SKY deal. Of course, only a part of the money goes to the '100 Ball', but its influence alongside the BT Sport bid increased the previous 5 year ECB media deal from £445m or a £655m rise which, imho, is a phenomenal rise. How much of that was due to the '100 Ball' can only be speculation. www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2017/06/30/game-changing-tv-deal-sky-bbc-will-broaden-crickets-appeal-says/It's true that my posts on this topic are rich in speculations, but prefacing them with 'Actually' would be a good way of making a fool of myself (like I'd care about that anyway, here in the sanctuary of the hidden vaults). I saw that figure of £200m for the Hundred portion of the TV deal in a couple of places a while back. This must have been one of them.
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ecb-eyes-attitudes-to-the-hundred-in-search-for-new-director-22zhhdbf9"The Hundred, which is calculated to have put £200m onto the new broadcast deal worth £1.1bn, is one of the pillars of the ECB’s future planning."
Of course just because it was in The Times doesn't necessarily make it true!
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jan 10, 2019 10:30:08 GMT
Bazpan,
Thank you for the link, but I don't subscribe to The Times and therefore can't penetrate the paywall. Is there any chance
of an article copy and paste?
Does it say how the £200m sum was 'actually' calculated or is this more speculation?
|
|
