Cricket telecast should be left to the experts

[icyman]

Nobody in the first place stopped them to bid. They did bid & lost.

Had SUN tv won, then rest of non tamil;s would have said the same.


U need a check up of ur head, if u have one in the first place.

And u would have compensated for that? Ur understanding of finances is really screwed. BCCI made 90% of the revenues with sale of right(telecast) & u want them to forgo that b'coz u cannot adapt to newer enviournment.

Do u know how many series have ESPN/STAR have produced? It was just one, yeah u read correctly BIG one when the first bidding process under dalmiya was setforth. What a great record. All that this channel has done is just telecast.

I think you should learn to be polite here.

1.Agreed that they bid and lost .But the bids must be on the basis of atleast telecastign or producing cricket for a minimum of 3 years.

2.Tomorrow Cartoon Network will come up with the maximum bid and the BCCI would be stupid enough to grant it to them ? :

3. As i said learn to be polite.You maybe banned if you continue this way.

4.We cannot adapt to the new environment.Accepted.
The main reason for this is because of the low quality of coverage provided.
As Skateboarder mentioned the BSkyB produce or even the Channel 9 produce for that matter is great.

5.ESPN Star have been in the process for a long time.True they did only telecast.Also they had produced 3 series before the first bid process under Dalmiya came.
These series are
1.India tour to NZ
2.India tour to England
3.India tour to Australia.

Also ESPN Star is the only sports channel in India apart from Ten.But Ten were new in the business.We are also not saying that TEn should not have got it,even they could have done a better job than what is being done currently.
Others were Sony and ZEE who have had the experience of showing World Cup matches.ZEE on the other hand ,has not had any experience otherwise.

THE MORAL : Give telecast to Experienced Campaigners and not to Stupid Production Houses.

 

[rituraj]

That is quite a rant, rituraj. If you have seen BSkyB's quality coverage here in England, you will certainly have a different view of Doordashan.

I am not defending either DD or sahara, but some dudes think that espn or ten is god or dont make mistakes, which isnt the case.

In case of Sky, yes their production is excellent. BCCI has also said that they would like to provide quality coverage. Do give them some time. Ppl dont appreciate the difficulties involved. India is till in analogue stage & digital is expensive & long process.

PS: I dont like ppl for silly reasons diss DD or other indian companies. I dont understand their attraction to anything foreign.

1.Agreed that they bid and lost .But the bids must be on the basis of atleast telecastign or producing cricket for a minimum of 3 years.

Well had CA or ECB had got similar bid & rejected it? NO.

2.Tomorrow Cartoon Network will come up with the maximum bid and the BCCI would be stupid enough to grant it to them ? :

Whose stopping?

4.We cannot adapt to the new environment.Accepted.
The main reason for this is because of the low quality of coverage provided.
As Skateboarder mentioned the BSkyB produce or even the Channel 9 produce for that matter is great.

Then quit watching matches played in India, b'coz BCCI isnt going to change how it deals.

5.ESPN Star have been in the process for a long time.True they did only telecast.Also they had produced 3 series before the first bid process under Dalmiya came.
These series are
1.India tour to NZ
2.India tour to England
3.India tour to Australia.

Totaly WRONG. When chennai high court heard the case of ESPN, who challenged BCCI decision to award rights to ZEE, it did said that ESPN didnt had relevent exp of production & has only done one series ie AISA CUP IN Srilanka. All that u have listed were done by
sky in NZ, Ch 4 (which outsource to BskyB) & Ch 9. If u think producing pathetic saz & waz is gr8 , then so be it.

Also ESPN Star is the only sports channel in India apart from Ten.But Ten were new in the business.We are also not saying that TEn should not have got it,even they could have done a better job than what is being done currently.

U again miss the pt. They are just broadcasters who show sports.

Others were Sony and ZEE who have had the experience of showing World Cup matches.ZEE on the other hand ,has not had any experience otherwise

Doesnt matter.

THE MORAL : Give telecast to Experienced Campaigners and not to Stupid Production Houses.

Morale of the story, MONEY COUNTS.

 

[icyman]

True that it does count,however the BCCI , i suppose is richer than the ICC.
I really don't think that they need all this.

 

[rituraj]

True that it does count,however the BCCI , i suppose is richer than the ICC.
I really don't think that they need all this.

Yes mate, Sabse bada rupaiya. Its like that all over the world.

One has to go through the dismay caused when BskyB was given english rights. Every one critised that, but did ECB budged? Its how they will used the monies that will be important.

I am too not happy esp with sahara & DD with their advt policy, but we are powerless. The best thing i think is BCCI launching their own channel & do away with all channel except DD.

 

[aditya123]

Do u know how many series have ESPN/STAR have produced? It was just one, yeah u read correctly BIG one when the first bidding process under dalmiya was setforth. What a great record. All that this channel has done is just telecast.

ESPNSTAR have their own production team if you don`t know.
Thy have been producing all India matches(tours to NZ,SA,AUS,ENG,ZIM,BAN) and not just telecasting them since 1999.
We have a seperate set of commentators when India games are shown on ESPNSTAR , for e.g when India tour Australia , we get the ESPN produced feed and not the Channel9 feed and hence we have not been listening to Benaud and Co. whenever India have toured Australia since 1999 but instead have ben listening to Bhogle and Co.

ESPNSTAR are the first among the TEN,ESPN and other Indian sports channels to produce their own feed and not just telecast feed of Sky or C9.

 

[icyman]

I don't think that they did it since 1999.
I think they started producing as i have said in the 2002 South Africa - India series.

 

[rituraj]

ESPNSTAR have their own production team if you don`t know.
Thy have been producing all India matches(tours to NZ,SA,AUS,ENG,ZIM,BAN) and not just telecasting them since 1999.
We have a seperate set of commentators when India games are shown on ESPNSTAR , for e.g when India tour Australia , we get the ESPN produced feed and not the Channel9 feed and hence we have not been listening to Benaud and Co. whenever India have toured Australia since 1999 but instead have ben listening to Bhogle and Co.

ESPNSTAR are the first among the TEN,ESPN and other Indian sports channels to produce their own feed and not just telecast feed of Sky or C9.

And what did they produced? SAZ & WAZ :. U are not trying to understand the difference between having separate commentary team & producing the whole feed. Even chennai HC which had the matter under consideration, said that ESPNSTAR hasnt be eligible as producer of cricket. It didnt had the required exp.

 

[icyman]

If you are talking about the Chennai HC case ,then let me let you know that none of the bidders had the requisite experience of producing,only espn and sony had of telecasting...none else had it.

 

[rituraj]

If you are talking about the Chennai HC case ,then let me let you know that none of the bidders had the requisite experience of producing,only espn and sony had of telecasting...none else had it.

Thank you.

I will give one more example of how espnstar works. DD had indian rights for WC 99. They had their own commentary team then. Does that mean they were producers of the feed? Sidhu, kriti azad, wassan etc were part of that. This what i am trying to say, having separate commentary team doesnt mean producing in technical terms. Chennai HC dismissed this claim of espnstar.

 

[harishankar]

While talking on this issue, many people seem to ignore this point;

quality of highlights package and review shows

Remember, many people who work aren't lucky enough to view the match live. There is a huge audience for highlights shows after the match.

This one point alone is enough to negate all your arguments in favour of selling rights to the highest bidder. If the bidder is a non-sports channel, they're hardly interested in producing a quality highlights package or showing it at convenient times. ESPN, Star and Ten Sports are quite good in producing a professional and quality highlights show which doesn't just show ball-by-ball coverage unlike Doordarshan which is full of incompetent and unprofessional staff.

They should consider the interests of the viewers before selling out like this. The BCCI with their overflowing coffers don't need more and more money.

It's plain greed: and a pathetic situation for cricket lovers.

 

[Cricket_god]

ten sports is the best then nimbus and the worst is espnstar

 

[harishankar]

Yes, Ten Sports produces a good highlights package.

The problem with Nimbus is that even if they produce good highlights, who's showing it? DD? And at what times? That counts, doesn't it? If they show at odd times, that doesn't help many people.

worst is espnstar

But what's your issue with ESPN/Star highlights shows? They're decent, I don't notice anything particularly bad about them. Can you explain why you don't like it so much?

 

[icyman]

ten sports is the best then nimbus and the worst is espnstar

Yes,please explain.
I,atleast feel that its the best in India.

 

[Skater]

In England, we get a Doordashan feed but highlights shows are on at 4:30pm and 8:00pm on the day of every match. The live matches come on at 4:15am.

 

[icyman]

The problem with Nimbus is that even if they produce good highlights, who's showing it? DD? And at what times? That counts, doesn't it? If they show at odd times, that doesn't help many people.

Our money-mad cricket board,i.e,the BCCI has floated a new tender for channels interested in showing a 90 minute highlights package. :

So,we'll only know that when the tender process is complete.