Ste
Executive member
Quite a long reply then! What did you send him?
Cricket On Tv - In The Uk ( lack of )
- Thread starter The_gas
- Start date
Stephen Bailey
Executive member
I'll see if I still got it, I wasn't best pleased at the time I sent it.......
I've actually just found a e-mail I got from Somerset CCC:
Subj: Re: (no subject)
Date: 17/12/2004 09:53:03 GMT Standard Time
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Thank you for your e-mail and in response we attach the official ECB Press Releases and a copy of the speeches made. Perhaps upon reading these documents you may wish to reflect that the ECB has accepted a deal which is in the best interests of cricket at all levels. As you will know, large elements of the game at recreational and professional level rely on funding from the ECB. If terrestrial television stations are not prepared to make realistic market bids then how on earth can the ECB function on behalf of all cricket.
We are sorry you seek to demonise Giles Clarke in particular and Somerset CCC generally. Giles Clarke acted on behalf of the whole game and his actions had the full unanimous backing of the ECB Management Board which incidentally has four people from the Recreational game on it.
To that, I replied (be prepared, its fairly long):
Subj: Re: (no subject)
Date: 17/12/2004 10:39:21 GMT Standard Time
From: Stjoba378
To: [email protected]
In no way was I seeking to demonise Giles Clarke. I was stating that many (young) people like myself will not be able to watch live test cricket. Yes there is no doubt the money for the ECB is good, i'm not denying that, but when less than half the country has Sky, how can it become more popular? The highlights package on Five, yes its on at prime time viewing, but also on at that time there are the major soaps, how will the highlights show compete with the likes of Eastenders? Also, Five is not available in some parts of the country. There have been a couple of people already say that in Kent there is no Five service, so for those people who don't have Sky, they have nothing, which is a disgrace! Even those families with Sky, they mostly have the sports channels for football, not cricket.
From what I understand and from the many reports i've read, the joint offer was 10% less than the sole Sky coverage. Now, surely the substantially increased exposure is better for the game than taking 10% more money and restricting the coverage to around 25% of the country? I am about to show you figures for the first and second tests in the New Zealand series that clearly show how restrictive the Sky coverage is:
1st Test v NZ (Ch 4) | 2nd Test v NZ (Sky)
Day 1: 631,000 | 97,000
Day 2: 827,000 | 163,000
Day 3: 955,000 | 219,000
Day 4: 1,038,000 | 334,000
Day 5: 1,014,000 | 85,000
Each day, channel 4 had much higher viewing figures, especially the fourth and fifth days. This shows how many people could not watch the Second test. So therefore, fewer young people like myself can watch it!
In families that have Sky, there is no guarentee that the young people in the family get to watch what they want too. I can speak from experience on this subject. We use to have Sky, but now can't afford it. I never use to get a choice in what to watch on it! My parents chose what was put on, alot of the time it was channels like Sky One, or Sky News, or when football was on, that would be on.
I'm not arguing the point that the money is obviously good for the game, but clubs like mine (Optimists & Clifton CC) will die or atleast function in a much lesser capacity. Without young players the sport will be seriously damaged. But, what happens in 2010, when the rights are up for grabs again, no one else will bid for them, therefore Sky can put in a substantially lower offer. The ECB will have to accept this because its the only way to get any coverage on the T.V.
Cricinfo, the best cricket website on the internet, has recieved around 80% comments that are negative! I think that says it all.
Steve Bailey
I've actually just found a e-mail I got from Somerset CCC:
Subj: Re: (no subject)
Date: 17/12/2004 09:53:03 GMT Standard Time
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Thank you for your e-mail and in response we attach the official ECB Press Releases and a copy of the speeches made. Perhaps upon reading these documents you may wish to reflect that the ECB has accepted a deal which is in the best interests of cricket at all levels. As you will know, large elements of the game at recreational and professional level rely on funding from the ECB. If terrestrial television stations are not prepared to make realistic market bids then how on earth can the ECB function on behalf of all cricket.
We are sorry you seek to demonise Giles Clarke in particular and Somerset CCC generally. Giles Clarke acted on behalf of the whole game and his actions had the full unanimous backing of the ECB Management Board which incidentally has four people from the Recreational game on it.
To that, I replied (be prepared, its fairly long):
Subj: Re: (no subject)
Date: 17/12/2004 10:39:21 GMT Standard Time
From: Stjoba378
To: [email protected]
In no way was I seeking to demonise Giles Clarke. I was stating that many (young) people like myself will not be able to watch live test cricket. Yes there is no doubt the money for the ECB is good, i'm not denying that, but when less than half the country has Sky, how can it become more popular? The highlights package on Five, yes its on at prime time viewing, but also on at that time there are the major soaps, how will the highlights show compete with the likes of Eastenders? Also, Five is not available in some parts of the country. There have been a couple of people already say that in Kent there is no Five service, so for those people who don't have Sky, they have nothing, which is a disgrace! Even those families with Sky, they mostly have the sports channels for football, not cricket.
From what I understand and from the many reports i've read, the joint offer was 10% less than the sole Sky coverage. Now, surely the substantially increased exposure is better for the game than taking 10% more money and restricting the coverage to around 25% of the country? I am about to show you figures for the first and second tests in the New Zealand series that clearly show how restrictive the Sky coverage is:
1st Test v NZ (Ch 4) | 2nd Test v NZ (Sky)
Day 1: 631,000 | 97,000
Day 2: 827,000 | 163,000
Day 3: 955,000 | 219,000
Day 4: 1,038,000 | 334,000
Day 5: 1,014,000 | 85,000
Each day, channel 4 had much higher viewing figures, especially the fourth and fifth days. This shows how many people could not watch the Second test. So therefore, fewer young people like myself can watch it!
In families that have Sky, there is no guarentee that the young people in the family get to watch what they want too. I can speak from experience on this subject. We use to have Sky, but now can't afford it. I never use to get a choice in what to watch on it! My parents chose what was put on, alot of the time it was channels like Sky One, or Sky News, or when football was on, that would be on.
I'm not arguing the point that the money is obviously good for the game, but clubs like mine (Optimists & Clifton CC) will die or atleast function in a much lesser capacity. Without young players the sport will be seriously damaged. But, what happens in 2010, when the rights are up for grabs again, no one else will bid for them, therefore Sky can put in a substantially lower offer. The ECB will have to accept this because its the only way to get any coverage on the T.V.
Cricinfo, the best cricket website on the internet, has recieved around 80% comments that are negative! I think that says it all.
Steve Bailey
Apparantly there's not even any plan in place to spend this money other than giving it to the counties to spend on more expensive overseas players...
Des Wilson article
Des Wilson article
andrew_nixon
Chairman of Selectors
If I remember correctly, Vodafone's sponsorship deal with England is up for renewal shortly. So will they want to give as much money if there's fewer viewers for TV coverage?
Stephen Bailey
Executive member
Npower are already after a cheaper deal because of the coverage going exclusively to Sky. I'll see if I can find the article its in........
Potential 'glitch' and more.
Potential 'glitch' and more.
