|
|
Post by flashblade on Oct 24, 2019 19:24:31 GMT
Very interesting papers. I agree with your view of George Dobell's comments. |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Oct 26, 2019 14:26:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Nov 1, 2019 9:24:18 GMT
Jason Gillespie gives the thumbs up to The 100 as he's in to cricket innovation and points out the players loved playing in the trials
and are really excited by the tournament concept.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Nov 1, 2019 10:12:49 GMT
Jason Gillespie gives the thumbs up to The 100 as he's in to cricket innovation and points out the players loved playing in the trials and are really excited by the tournament concept.
All those involved (whether voluntarily or press-ganged) are under instructions to declare that they are EXCITED by the The Ton. Cricket followers have long since learned to filter out the PR spin. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Nov 19, 2019 13:42:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Nov 19, 2019 15:34:23 GMT
This is worth a look. Sounds as if members have become a dying breed at Old Trafford. Remind you of any other county you know? |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Dec 13, 2019 0:45:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Dec 13, 2019 9:29:49 GMT
Here are the telling paragraphs from that article: "In this context the nuances of the Hundred's potential unintended consequences, such as the possibility of the 10 smaller counties who will not host matches being sidelined, the downgrading of the 50-over format in which England are dual world champions and the continued trend of Championship cricket being moved to the fringes of the season, do not appear to be up for discussion.
'People will judge me on how it works, but I believe the Hundred will be a fantastic success,' Graves says. 'I don't see a risk. How can it be a risk when you have the money banked from the broadcasters for five years?' With just 32 group games in total, Graves says the ECB are budgeting for an occupancy rate of between 60 and 65 per cent across the eight venues, and even that may prove a stretch in Cardiff and Southampton, who host the Welsh Fire and Southern Brave sides respectively." Graves will slink off retire next year, leaving others to sort out his 'legacy'  |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Dec 13, 2019 10:40:49 GMT
How can it be a risk when you have the money banked from the broadcasters for five years?'
Personally, that neatly sums up the positives of the new tournament. If The 100 doesn't work, the ECB simply return to County cricket
as it is now. If it does work, there will be a lot more money sloshing around for both the players and the clubs and the future is assured
for the Championship.
If there had been a high risk to this tournament I, for one, would have been negative about it. Yet, after attending that meeting at
Hove with the ECBs Sanjay Patel several years ago, it became apparent that it's SKY who are taking the vast majority of the financial risk.
Even so, it is vital that the ECB do not allow their egos to control them and if The 100, after three years or so, is proving to be unsuccessful,
they don't throw good money after bad and know when to pull the plug.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Dec 13, 2019 11:28:52 GMT
How can it be a risk when you have the money banked from the broadcasters for five years?'Personally, that neatly sums up the positives of the new tournament. If The 100 doesn't work, the ECB simply return to County cricket as it is now. If it does work, there will be a lot more money sloshing around for both the players and the clubs and the future is assured for the Championship. If there had been a high risk to this tournament I, for one, would have been negative about it. Yet, after attending that meeting at Hove with the ECBs Sanjay Patel several years ago, it became apparent that it's SKY who are taking the vast majority of the financial risk. Even so, it is vital that the ECB do not allow their egos to control them and if T he 100, after three years or so, is proving to be unsuccessful, they don't throw good money after bad and know when to pull the plug. If/when the 100 fails, Sky might well want to claw back some of the deal by renegotiating their other deals with the ECB. I don't think Sky are naive. Graves sounds far too complacent to me - but then he won't stick around to pick up the pieces. |
|
|
|
Post by glosexile on Dec 17, 2019 13:03:55 GMT
How can it be a risk when you have the money banked from the broadcasters for five years?'Personally, that neatly sums up the positives of the new tournament. If The 100 doesn't work, the ECB simply return to County cricket as it is now. If it does work, there will be a lot more money sloshing around for both the players and the clubs and the future is assured for the Championship. If there had been a high risk to this tournament I, for one, would have been negative about it. Yet, after attending that meeting at Hove with the ECBs Sanjay Patel several years ago, it became apparent that it's SKY who are taking the vast majority of the financial risk. Even so, it is vital that the ECB do not allow their egos to control them and if T he 100, after three years or so, is proving to be unsuccessful, they don't throw good money after bad and know when to pull the plug. 'It's SKY who are taking the vast majority of the financial risk'. I am rather struggling to fully understand this. Are SKY actually taking a financial risk? Surely they have merely paid for some more broadcasting cricket coverage rights, to add to their already bulging sports coverage. Admittedly, they could easily be accused of overpaying when the rights were negotiated back in 2017, but they were undoubtedly spooked by the prospect of competition from BT. Anyway, £200m for 5 years is mere spare change for a corporation the size of SKY. Unlike an investor, they do not have any share in potential profits. Equally they don't lose their investment if it flops - perhaps the prospect of some reduced advertising revenue or the more unlikely prospect of lost subscribers, but I somehow doubt that it would cause them any sleepless nights. So my personal risk register regarding the Hundred, includes the following: 1. The ECB makes significant losses running this competition. They have previously forecasted an initial loss. When is it expected to break even? Amazingly, Harrison doesn't even seem to know the actual budget for the Hundred, so perhaps their Business Plan is akin to some naive contestant on the BBC Apprentice show. 2. The impact of the Hundred drives unrealistic salary expectations for County Cricketers. So we have acknowledged skilled cricketer being paid a mini fortune for appearing in the comp. Additionally, we have some bang average domestic cricketers getting £30,000 for 5 weeks of squad filling (aka drinks carrying). 3. Will increase the current trend of players only wanting to play white ball cricket. Financially (and potential injury wise), why join the "slog" of county cricket. 4. Regular cricket supporters become increasingly disillusioned leading to reduced membership. A fundamental rule of good business, is that you always try to look after your regular customers. Any business who decide to ignore the wishes of their core customers are following a high risk strategy. 5. Existing Blast seen as a second rate competition, particularly by the occasional ("let's have an evening out) punter. 6. Fully agree with Wicked Cricket........'Don't throw good money after bad and know when to pull the plug'. However, personally l would fully expect there to be a significant penalty clause if the ECB defaults on the contract. Somehow think that the longer term fears and risks have been previously rehearsed, so won't repeat at this stage. Finally, with SKY willing to significantly increase their live cricket deal, why couldn't the counties merely share some of this extra bonanza (i.e £900m without a new comp, rather than the £1.1 deal to include a new comp). Agreed, sounds far too simplistic so somehow my thought process must be seriously flawed. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Dec 17, 2019 13:56:35 GMT
glosexile, (i.e £900m without a new comp, rather than the £1.1 deal to include a new comp)Are you suggesting that SKY paid the ECB £200m separately to cover the new 100 Competition for 5 years or £40m a year? If so, where do you get this figure from or is this one of George Dobell's or Lizzy Ammon's speculations? Was it something that Graves or Harrison actually said on the record? Before, SKY paid 75m a year, now its around £220m, so how do you get £40m from this? What happened to the other £105m? Agreed, the additional bidding from BT Sport pushed the bar up, but without the new tournament, highly unlikely it would have come anywhere close to £1.1bn. Therefore, I would suggest, 'the 100' had a far more influential financial say. www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-4653980/England-cricket-return-BBC-1-1bn-deal.htmlwww.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2017/06/30/game-changing-tv-deal-sky-bbc-will-broaden-crickets-appeal-says/ |
|
|
|
Post by philh on Dec 17, 2019 13:56:40 GMT
How can it be a risk when you have the money banked from the broadcasters for five years?'Personally, that neatly sums up the positives of the new tournament. If The 100 doesn't work, the ECB simply return to County cricket as it is now. If it does work, there will be a lot more money sloshing around for both the players and the clubs and the future is assured for the Championship. If there had been a high risk to this tournament I, for one, would have been negative about it. Yet, after attending that meeting at Hove with the ECBs Sanjay Patel several years ago, it became apparent that it's SKY who are taking the vast majority of the financial risk. Even so, it is vital that the ECB do not allow their egos to control them and if T he 100, after three years or so, is proving to be unsuccessful, they don't throw good money after bad and know when to pull the plug. 'It's SKY who are taking the vast majority of the financial risk'. I am rather struggling to fully understand this. Are SKY actually taking a financial risk? Surely they have merely paid for some more broadcasting cricket coverage rights, to add to their already bulging sports coverage. Admittedly, they could easily be accused of overpaying when the rights were negotiated back in 2017, but they were undoubtedly spooked by the prospect of competition from BT. Anyway, £200m for 5 years is mere spare change for a corporation the size of SKY. Unlike an investor, they do not have any share in potential profits. Equally they don't lose their investment if it flops - perhaps the prospect of some reduced advertising revenue or the more unlikely prospect of lost subscribers, but I somehow doubt that it would cause them any sleepless nights. So my personal risk register regarding the Hundred, includes the following: 1. The ECB makes significant losses running this competition. They have previously forecasted an initial loss. When is it expected to break even? Amazingly, Harrison doesn't even seem to know the actual budget for the Hundred, so perhaps their Business Plan is akin to some naive contestant on the BBC Apprentice show. 2. The impact of the Hundred drives unrealistic salary expectations for County Cricketers. So we have acknowledged skilled cricketer being paid a mini fortune for appearing in the comp. Additionally, we have some bang average domestic cricketers getting £30,000 for 5 weeks of squad filling (aka drinks carrying). 3. Will increase the current trend of players only wanting to play white ball cricket. Financially (and potential injury wise), why join the "slog" of county cricket. 4. Regular cricket supporters become increasingly disillusioned leading to reduced membership. A fundamental rule of good business, is that you always try to look after your regular customers. Any business who decide to ignore the wishes of their core customers are following a high risk strategy. 5. Existing Blast seen as a second rate competition, particularly by the occasional ("let's have an evening out) punter. 6. Fully agree with Wicked Cricket........'Don't throw good money after bad and know when to pull the plug'. However, personally l would fully expect there to be a significant penalty clause if the ECB defaults on the contract. Somehow think that the longer term fears and risks have been previously rehearsed, so won't repeat at this stage. Finally, with SKY willing to significantly increase their live cricket deal, why couldn't the counties merely share some of this extra bonanza (i.e £900m without a new comp, rather than the £1.1 deal to include a new comp). Agreed, sounds far too simplistic so somehow my thought process must be seriously flawed. I think you have some good points, glosexile , about the long-term risks. The one question I would challenge is what effect it will have on the T20 Blast. That's a bit of an unknown but I don't see anyone within 20 miles of Hove deciding to have a bit of 'an evening out' just off the M27 in Hampshire. Bizarrely, it could increase interest in short-form cricket. I think we will have to wait and see on that one. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Dec 17, 2019 14:10:33 GMT
philh, Well, I will be driving down to the Ageas Bowl to watch the Southern Braves and see Jofra Archer playing alongside Jordan, Rawlins, Mills and Garton. Come and join a group of us.  |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Dec 17, 2019 14:40:57 GMT
philh, Well, I will be driving down to the Ageas Bowl to watch the Southern Braves and see Jofra Archer playing alongside Jordan, Rawlins, Mills and Garton. Come and join a group of us. Absolutely not, WC. The prospect of driving all the way to Southampton, negotiating that awful car park, and watching a travesty of our wonderful game, as part of a pitifully small crowd holds no appeal! If a "Boycott the 100" movement is formed, I would be an early subscriber. |
|
