|
|
Post by herring on Dec 17, 2019 14:42:10 GMT
It is ECB taking a risk that during next few years county cricket will die. Not because no interest but because to fit in new competitions most games are now played off season when nobody wants to watch cricket. May I ask if 20/20 was played in April,May and September and Hove crowds were down to 1500 would those running game say there is no interest. I think they would suggest it be moved to the summer months.
I have said many times when Graves retires he will say he has left cricket richer then ever with no mention of ruining County game.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Dec 17, 2019 14:48:37 GMT
BOYCOTT THE HUNDRED
Come and enjoy the 50 over cricket matches in Sussex
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Dec 17, 2019 19:16:03 GMT
As Christmas is upon us, perhaps, an apt response is "Bah Humbug!"  |
|
|
|
Post by glosexile on Dec 17, 2019 21:21:26 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/Wicked Cricket Are you really trying to imply that the £200m figure (£40m per year) is actually news to you? Amongst other sources, l do follow the Cricketer Magazine, Cricinfo and regularly lurk on the excellent Grockles and The White Rose forums. Various sources from which to absorb information and comment, whether by speculation or fact. Anyway, much closer to home it is pretty easy to find such comment on the figures: Post by Bazpan (21 October 2018) - mentioned the £200m figure and referred to a previous article in the Times (of 9 January). The following day you thanked Bazpan, but couldn't penetrate the paywall and then added "Does it say how the £200m sum was actually calculated or is this mere speculation. (You subsequently posted that you were registering with the Times to read for free). Post by Bazpan (13 May 2019) - included the following: 'By the ECBs own estimates, the annual running costs of the Hundred (£41m) will cancel out the portion of the five-year broadcasting deal that is attributable to the new competition (£200m)'. Post by Bazpan (1 August 2019) - included the following comment (obviously described more coherently than l managed earlier today): ' The broadcasting contract for 2020 to 2024 is worth £1.1bn of which £200m is for the Hundred. If the ultimate justification for the Hundred is that cash-strapped counties will have money chucked at them, couldn't the ECB have settled for a £900m broadcasting deal, and not had the Hundred with all its terrifying costs and all-round financial jeopardy and still made substantial contributions to county funds '. Strangely, I can't find any evidence that you subsequently challenged or commented on these last two posts. Admittedly, this is based on a quick perusal of the subsequent pages of this thread, so more than happy to be suitably enlightened. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Dec 17, 2019 23:33:18 GMT
glosexile, I have always been sceptical of this £200m figure. I believe the sum was first touted in The Times newspaper by arch The 100 sceptic, Lizzy Ammon. It was then mentioned again by fellow journo Simon Wilde. As to date I cannot find any other mainstream newspaper who mentions this financial figure. Perhaps, you can find one? Imho, the £200m simply doesn't add up when to repeat, SKY are paying an additional £145m a year to cover all formats. If it is only £40m for T he 100 where has the other £105m gone? The Championship, T20 Blast and RLC 50 over? Surely not, when SKY are only really interested in the T20. I agree BT Sport would have upped the price, but not to that extent. For a journalist vehemently against The 100, stating £200m is a way of demeaning the competition, perhaps? Also, this £200m appears to be a magic number in cricket journalism. SKY are paying the ECB £200m a year to cover all formats, whilst The Telegraph tells us county cricket is in debt to the tune of £200m. Back in 2008, the Telegraph also said the ECB had struck a deal with Sir Allen Stanford for $200m for his Quadrangular tournament and so on. Yet, there is another interpretation. In one of Ammon's articles she writes, "It is a competition which has so much hype and so much money being spent on it (£200 million over five years), the team and kit..." is she not referring to the money being lavished on the players, grounds, marketing, promotion etc. and NOT the money paid by SKY? To me, that makes a lot more sense. If you can track down an actual quote from the top ECB brass that states SKY paid £200m for covering The 100 over a 5 year period, kudos to you. Until then, I view this sum as fake news and see it instead as The 100 running and promotion costs. PS: Not forgetting, the ECB are paying the 18 counties an annual £23.4m (£1.3m each). Perhaps, that is also part of the £40m a year budget? |
|
|
|
Post by deepfineleg on Dec 18, 2019 9:18:18 GMT
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. Unless you're a bank or insurance company offering best deals to new customers |
|
|
|
Post by deepfineleg on Dec 18, 2019 9:25:34 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. A T20 at Hove at 7pm (or even 6.30) fits with after work for me. Not possible to do Southampton or London without taking time off. Will the extra spectators from the big cities make up for the loss of those within reach of the other 10 grounds? |
|
|
|
Post by philh on Dec 18, 2019 13:50:24 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. I’m not tempted, I’m afraid. Jofra will be on England duty mostly, I believe, and some of the others may be carrying drinks (and that’s assuming Tymal is fit enough to do that after the T20 Blast). I don’t particularly like the Ageas and I don’t feel the need to see Hampshire’s stars or whoever they’ve recruited for the tournament. I’d rather watch our reserves play at Horsham. |
|
|
|
Post by glosexile on Dec 18, 2019 18:02:32 GMT
glosexile, I have always been sceptical of this £200m figure. I believe the sum was first touted in The Times newspaper by arch The 100 sceptic, Lizzy Ammon. It was then mentioned again by fellow journo Simon Wilde. As to date I cannot find any other mainstream newspaper who mentions this financial figure. Perhaps, you can find one? Imho, the £200m simply doesn't add up when to repeat, SKY are paying an additional £145m a year to cover all formats. If it is only £40m for T he 100 where has the other £105m gone? The Championship, T20 Blast and RLC 50 over? Surely not, when SKY are only really interested in the T20. I agree BT Sport would have upped the price, but not to that extent. For a journalist vehemently against The 100, stating £200m is a way of demeaning the competition, perhaps? Also, this £200m appears to be a magic number in cricket journalism. SKY are paying the ECB £200m a year to cover all formats, whilst The Telegraph tells us county cricket is in debt to the tune of £200m. Back in 2008, the Telegraph also said the ECB had struck a deal with Sir Allen Stanford for $200m for his Quadrangular tournament and so on. Yet, there is another interpretation. In one of Ammon's articles she writes, "It is a competition which has so much hype and so much money being spent on it (£200 million over five years), the team and kit..." is she not referring to the money being lavished on the players, grounds, marketing, promotion etc. and NOT the money paid by SKY? To me, that makes a lot more sense. If you can track down an actual quote from the top ECB brass that states SKY paid £200m for covering The 100 over a 5 year period, kudos to you. Until then, I view this sum as fake news and see it instead as The 100 running and promotion costs. PS: Not forgetting, the ECB are paying the 18 counties an annual £23.4m (£1.3m each). Perhaps, that is also part of the £40m a year budget? Wicked Cricket Unfortunately, the lack of transparency/openness from the ECB, leads directly to the type of ongoing speculation to which you allude. The evasiveness of Harrison when appearing before the MPs Committee, did us absolutely no favours. Anyway, l have rather concluded that an ongoing debate regarding the authenticity/accuracy of the £200m figure, will potentially cloud the more important fundamental issue. Accordingly, for the time being, can we agree to merely park exact figures to one side? Looking exclusively at Test match and existing domestic cricket broadcasting rights, SKY were happy to bid an eye watering amount (in excess of a 100% increase) and completely dwarfing their previous deal. As a result, the ECB were to be be presented with a huge windfall of tens and tens of millions of additional money, for each of the five years (2020-24). So my turn for some speculation. Surely the ECB would want to allocate substantial additional funding towards areas such as the Chance to Shine programme, Disability cricket, Recreational cricket, Women's cricket, Team England etc. Similarly, my expectation is that each year County Cricket would justifiably be also allocated a share of the windfall cake. lnterestingly, although our respective starting points are from opposite ends of the spectrum, we seem to have ended up with a similar question: 'What is actually happening to the missing millions'? However, admittedly l would then go one stage further and completely diverge from your views. On a pure financial basis, was there ever really any compelling justification for the Hundred? Wicked Cricket - given your many contacts within the game, l wonder if subsequently you are able to shed any light on the mystery as to how the massive windfall is proposed to be allocated over he next 5 years. A future "light bulb moment" would help eradicate my current puzzlement. |
|
Bazpan
2nd XI player
Posts: 191 
County club member: Kent
|
Post by Bazpan on Jan 15, 2020 14:26:01 GMT
You might have been following developments regarding Australian players' availability for the Hundred. They were the only country with an empty diary for the duration of the tournament according to the ICC Future Tours Programme. Consequently ten of their players were picked up in the draft. An apparently late-breaking home series of three ODIs v. Zimbabwe in early August has complicated matters (the Hundred will run from 17th July to 16th August). The players and their agents are claiming that this is news to them, and initial reports indicated that Cricket Australia were trying to reschedule the Zimbabwe series to avoid a conflict. But in an article in The Age (which begins, slightly misleadingly, "Cricket Australia has moved to ease tensions") the board seems to have become more entrenched. This looks to be heading for a power struggle between Cricket Australia and the players.
David Warner's agent, James Erskine, has said “There was no cricket on at the time. Cricket Australia can’t basically schedule retrospectively against the Hundred. There are lots of Australians who have made commitments to the Hundred. My gut feeling is they will all turn around and say ‘Find some other dates’".
Cricket Australia remember things differently, and have released an email from operations manager Peter Roach that was sent to agents and state associations on 5th August (11 weeks before the Hundred draft on 20th October). This is the part of the email that the players and their agents seem to have missed: "the Australian men’s T20 and ODI teams will be playing matches in England just prior to The Hundred, and the ODI team also has an existing FTP commitment of 3 matches in early August in Australia versus Zimbabwe". In fact the FTP is still showing the Australia v. Zimbabwe series in its original June slot, but it looks as though the players might struggle to make the case that they hadn't been warned about the conflict.
Ominously for the players, Roach stresses in his email that "All players will require an NOC (No Objection Certificate) from CA to compete which will, as normal, be subject to fitness and the player not being required for international duty", so I don't know where that leaves Warner and his Hundred-contracted compatriots if they're planning on compelling CA to reschedule the Zimbabwe series (again. Presumably there was a reason why it was shifted from June in the first place).
Meanwhile, the ECB are taking an uncharacteristic interest in the development of Australia's emerging players. The article says "The England and Wales Cricket Board wants CA to use the Zimbabwe series as a developmental campaign for younger or inexperienced players". Of course England have form for picking 'experimental' squads if a particular series doesn't seem all that important to them, but I'm not sure that's Australia's style. And I do wonder how receptive the ECB would be if another country's cricket board took a look at our international calendar and said "We recommend you put out a Lions side for this particular series".
www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/agents-players-knew-about-zimbabwe-series-cricket-australia-20200115-p53rk5.html
|
|
|
|
Post by sussexforever on Jan 15, 2020 21:22:14 GMT
The England and Wales Cricket Board wants CA to use the Zimbabwe series as a developmental campaign for younger or inexperienced players". Of course England have form for picking 'experimental' squads if a particular series doesn't seem all that important to them, but I'm not sure that's Australia's style. And I do wonder how receptive the ECB would be if another country's cricket board took a look at our international calendar and said "We recommend you put out a Lions side for this particular series".
www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/agents-players-knew-about-zimbabwe-series-cricket-australia-20200115-p53rk5.html
I think Zimbabwe's board might take offence as well! I see the ticket prices have been revealed as well, and to be fair, they are dirt cheap. Does make you wonder how much it'll hurt the county T20 crowds? The attendances will be of particular interest. Considering we sell out home test matches and get good crowds in across all international cricket, the expected 50% to 60% attendance at games full of international stars is a complete failure. Anything less and the ECB are a laughing stock. Hope that is the case of course! Already got a ticket to go with a workmate for the T20 derby with Surrey at the Oval..hoping I get the bragging rights. Neither of us will be going for the 100 ball nonsense! |
|
Bazpan
2nd XI player
Posts: 191
County club member: Kent
|
Post by Bazpan on Jan 16, 2020 0:43:12 GMT
The England and Wales Cricket Board wants CA to use the Zimbabwe series as a developmental campaign for younger or inexperienced players". Of course England have form for picking 'experimental' squads if a particular series doesn't seem all that important to them, but I'm not sure that's Australia's style. And I do wonder how receptive the ECB would be if another country's cricket board took a look at our international calendar and said "We recommend you put out a Lions side for this particular series".
www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/agents-players-knew-about-zimbabwe-series-cricket-australia-20200115-p53rk5.html
I think Zimbabwe's board might take offence as well! I see the ticket prices have been revealed as well, and to be fair, they are dirt cheap. Does make you wonder how much it'll hurt the county T20 crowds? The attendances will be of particular interest. Considering we sell out home test matches and get good crowds in across all international cricket, the expected 50% to 60% attendance at games full of international stars is a complete failure. Anything less and the ECB are a laughing stock. Hope that is the case of course! Already got a ticket to go with a workmate for the T20 derby with Surrey at the Oval..hoping I get the bragging rights. Neither of us will be going for the 100 ball nonsense! As full members of the International Cricket Council go, Zimbabwe carry less weight than most. That doesn't mean they deserve to be treated with contempt. Their team has been going through some tough times recently (when hasn't it?). They were only readmitted to the ICC a couple of months back, and they're not exactly awash with cash. It would be pretty insulting if they get themselves over to Australia in August as invited, only to find themselves rather unwelcome guests with all their host country's best players citing a prior engagement in some comedy franchise league on the other side of the world. But just as the ECB gave the world Twenty20, they're now looking to globalise the 'development competition' concept that we'll be experiencing with the the Royal London Cup.
Possessing a masochistic streak as I do, I've persuaded a couple of like-minded sorts to come to the Oval with me for the first Hundred match on 17th July. 'Our' team (the Invincibles) will be at home to the 100% non-Welsh Welsh Fire, who may or may not contain Steve Smith and Mitchell Starc. In apparent denial of the ongoing Zimbabwean discussions, the ECB are negotiating with Cricket Australia for Smith and Starc to be permitted to appear for Welsh Fire in that inaugural match. The problem there is that the last match of the England v. Australia ODI series is a day-night game in Bristol the previous day. Logistically it's very do-able of course (maybe a three-hour drive?), but perhaps there are contractual series aftermath obligations that CA might or might not hold Smith and Starc to. (Don't Australian cricketers have to spend the day after the last match of a series singing Under the Southern Cross as a round or something?)
Shorn of that pair, the first match of the Hundred will largely resemble a truncated Blast match featuring a familiar assortment of domestic limited-overs players augmented by sundry Kolpaks, only playing for teams you can't care about, in an annoying format and with more fireworks (in daylight).
Yes you could certainly call the ticket prices competitive! When the ECB start doing cartwheels about Hundred attendances (as they undoubtedly will, no matter how good or bad they are), the vindication they'll claim must be considered in the context of admission prices that are less than half of what it costs to watch the officially 'mediocre' T20 Blast, and with the Hundred benefiting from a marketing budget five times as much as the ECB spend promoting the England team's entire home programme.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Feb 10, 2020 10:10:49 GMT
I am very aware that many on this Forum are just dying to go and see a 100 Tournament match come July/August, so here is the complete fixture list.  www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/51413861 |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Feb 10, 2020 11:24:43 GMT
I am very aware that many on this Forum are just dying to go and see a 100 Tournament match come July/August, so here is the complete fixture list. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/51413861 |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Feb 14, 2020 14:33:49 GMT
For all The 100 doomsayers out there, think again. This is a positive start. Judging from this
the Hove County ground should see a sell-out for The 100 Women's Final.
|
|
