keepcricketfree.com

[tomcress2000]

Also note that the only way Sky are going to be able to promote the game is by advertising on free to air TV Channels. And loads of people watch the adverts don't they?

And you still have not addressed the sponsorship issue.

There is no sponsorship issue and your making assumptions that there will be an issue, you dont know for sure that it will.

20/20 cup is getting packed stadiums, is getting kids interested in cricket, its been a massive success and yet it isnt shown on free tv, its all on sky.

More and more people are getting sky, free tv is dying anyway.

 

[Stephen Bailey]

More and more people are getting sky, free tv is dying anyway.

As I cast my mind back to the New Zealand series last year, I remember some statistics. Sky's coverage of the 2nd test at Headingley peaked at just over 100,000 over the match, Channel 4's peaked at over a million in the next test. Yep, well done the ECB, fantastic decision.

I'd be willing to put money on the fact that there will be sponsorship issues over the next few years. It's simple, a company gets less exposure so will pay less money or pull out entirely.

 

[andrew_nixon]

They get to watch Channel 5's highlights programme. It's on in PRIME TIME!!! That should surely be enough.

Channel 5 is not available in all of the UK. And why is that time prime time? Well, it's because thats when losts of people watch TV. ON OTHER CHANNELS!!!!!!

 

[tomcress2000]

ok well i bow to all your superior knowledge on the matter.

The people running cricket in this country obviously arnt as well informed as some people on here, if only they knew all the facts you know.

Oh well its done now, lets see what happens over the next few years.

 

[Sureshot]

Why don't one of the terrestrial (or all of them) create a terrestrial sports channel?

 

[themuel1]

They get to watch Channel 5's highlights programme. It's on in PRIME TIME!!! That should surely be enough.

I agree with Andrew but also what do you mean enough? We have just gone from having 5 5 day test matches, in full on Channel four to half an hour on channel 5 which I sometimes get sometimes don't!

 

[Stephen Bailey]

ok well i bow to all your superior knowledge on the matter.

The people running cricket in this country obviously arnt as well informed as some people on here, if only they knew all the facts you know.

Yeh, we wish they had brains too. We should've known what was coming when a county chairman was appointed to head up the deal. We all know what the counties want, money, money, money!

Also, its not free TV that is dying it will be analogue, in a few years time.

From 'rumours' around Sureshot, BBC and ITV are apparently in talks over a sports channel, how true that is I don't know.

 

[barmyarmy]

ok well i bow to all your superior knowledge on the matter.

The people running cricket in this country obviously arnt as well informed as some people on here, if only they knew all the facts you know.

Oh well its done now, lets see what happens over the next few years.

That's a pretty arrogant statement seeing as the deal has been pretty much universally condemned by ex-players and pundits alike.

 

[andrew_nixon]

That's a pretty arrogant statement seeing as the deal has been pretty much universally condemned by ex-players and pundits alike.

And by the previous head of the ECB.

 

[barmyarmy]

Just heard Giles Smith interviewed on 5-live. His points for selling the rights to Sky:

1. Channel 4 didn't bid enough for them. There would to be 40% cuts across the board to finance such a deal. BBC didn't bid at all.
2. People who want to see test cricket can watch the highlights on C5. Quote: that's what people do for football.

I think we've dealt enough with point 2 in this thread already so I want to address point 1. Do the ECB seriously expect us to believe that the cost of keeping cricket on terrestrial would have been so devastating? Cricket has been on free-to-air for 50 years and has managed not to go bust everytime the rights were renegotiated. It would be incredibly bad business management to somehow, on the back of the biggest victory in English cricket for a long time, be unable to provide a sustainable development plan without selling the rights to Sky. In my opinion there is something very wrong with his figures and if there isn't, what the hell have the ECB been spending money on recently? He claims that Australia are able to keep the cricket on free-to-air by not having a bowling coach. What a load of b*llocks! Not only is that a strategic decision as much as a financial one but if the only thing keeping live cricket from terrestrial TV is Troy Cooley's contract we're paying him far too much and his dismissal would be a sacrifice most of us would be willing to make.
I simply refuse to believe the doomsday scenario painted. I fail to understand how keeping the rights for people to actually watch it would have resulted in half the English cricket counties going bust (!), thousands of local cricket clubs closing (!) and the sacking of most of the backroom English team (+ the end of professional cricket in this country it would seem).
There is something very wrong here. Either Giles Smith has been embezzling a lot of money or the ECB are simply narrow-minded, short term pr*cks who don't give a damn about the future of the game. Either way I'm even more sad and angry about this having heard him try to defend it.

 

[Reider84]

They 'Sold Out' , end of story.

ECB are right, cricket is becoming the new football.....

 

[Sureshot]

Yeh, we wish they had brains too. We should've known what was coming when a county chairman was appointed to head up the deal. We all know what the counties want, money, money, money!

Also, its not free TV that is dying it will be analogue, in a few years time.

From 'rumours' around Sureshot, BBC and ITV are apparently in talks over a sports channel, how true that is I don't know.

Hate to be a pedant but there's no such thing as free TV as you pay tv licenses or indeed should do.

 

[tomcress2000]

The ECB have never released the details of the negotiations, but they worked out that a joint C4/Sky deal, like the present one, would mean a loss of ?14 million a year. Such a deal would have earned the ECB ?28 million a year, but Sky were willing to pay ?52 million a year for all cricket - home Tests, one-day internationals and all county cricket.

There were several bidders in the early rounds, and at one stage ITV were keen on showing the Twenty20 Cup. But Brian Barwick, who was then head of ITV Sport, left to become chief executive of the Football Association and ITV's interest cooled. With the BBC not bidding, the final rounds were between C4 and Sky.

Channel 4 told the ECB they had been losing money on cricket ever since they started broadcasting the game in 1999. At present they pay ?20 million a year for six Tests. Add production costs and this means ?25 million a year to show cricket, with the channel not getting anything like that back in advertising revenue.

For the new four-year deal, which will run from 2006-09, C4 wanted less cricket. They only wanted to broadcast the summer's major Test series of either four or five Tests, for which they were prepared to pay ?11.25 million a year. They also wanted the highlights package but did not offer any money for it. This meant that C4, currently paying ?3.25 million a Test, were offering ?2.3 million a Test.

 

[Sureshot]

But Cricket shouldn't be turning into the new football and being dominated by money.

 

[Reider84]

But Cricket shouldn't be turning into the new football and being dominated by money.

I agree with you and I'm hoping it won't. I don't think it would ever go that far but then you never know, it all has so start somewhere and lets just hope this is not it.