Ashes back on TV

[Gwylan]

Another angle I've not yet seen mentioned.

As a minor counties junior cricket coach I'd suggest it should not be underestimated how much money / sponsorship is pumped in by Sky at tye lower levels. All tutor coaches kit is Sky Sports logoed and lots of training kit comes courtesy of Sky too.

ECB have also been on a campagn for some 5 years now under something called "Chance 2 Shine" the moto being "bringing cricket back to state schools" & "from playground to test areana". I've spent the last 3 summers taking Yr5/6 & 7/8 kids in school term and delivering "professional" cricket coaching - being paid by ECB money.

So, whilst there is a debate about the impact on the first class game - there will almost certainly be an impact in the recreational game too, be it at club, youth or school cricket - this is where our test stars of the future are "hooked" or lost to another sport.

Sten posted a link earlier pointing out that this "support for grass roots cricket" has been greatly exaggerated.

And besides, as other people have pointed out, the Sky money won't be replaced by nothing. I suspect that broadcasters will pay a hefty fee for the rights to the Ashes series and it could well be that another deal could insist on proper amounts of money going to grass roots cricket.

 

[Simster]

Maybe it's just because I have the full sky package, but I think if TV is a commercial enterprise (which all but the BBC is) it should be free to bid for exclusive rights to any sport or entertainment 'event'.

There's plenty in this world I can't afford, but I don't begrudge people who can afford it. I don't expect first glass seats on an airplane to have as little leg room as economy, nor do I expect them to have the same meagre selection of entertainment options, or dinners.

I can't afford a ferrari sports car, but I don't insist Ferrari only make used bangers.

No one does.

So why do we expect different of TV?

You can arrive at the answer by taking your analogy a step further.

If you can't afford a Ferrari sports car, you buy an MX5 instead
On the other hand as things stand, if you can't afford live and exclusive Ashes cricket featuring round the clock and admittedly top drawer coverage, you can't opt for limited live TV coverage for only a couple of hours a day. Instead, you have to wait to the end of the day and put up with half an hour highlights, which isn't really the same thing.

 

[Man of Harveys]

Another angle I've not yet seen mentioned.

As a minor counties junior cricket coach I'd suggest it should not be underestimated how much money / sponsorship is pumped in by Sky at tye lower levels. All tutor coaches kit is Sky Sports logoed and lots of training kit comes courtesy of Sky too.

ECB have also been on a campagn for some 5 years now under something called "Chance 2 Shine" the moto being "bringing cricket back to state schools" & "from playground to test areana". I've spent the last 3 summers taking Yr5/6 & 7/8 kids in school term and delivering "professional" cricket coaching - being paid by ECB money.

So, whilst there is a debate about the impact on the first class game - there will almost certainly be an impact in the recreational game too, be it at club, youth or school cricket - this is where our test stars of the future are "hooked" or lost to another sport.

Never mind that some non-Murdoch funding will also be in place for such schemes, these "test stars of the future" will be entirely unable to have any concept at all of cricket's existence at the highest level unless their parents are spending £40-odd quid a month on Sky.

Whereas I'd have thought vastly greater numbers of them would be inspired to pick up a bat or ball by seeing something as momentous as an Ashes series becoming the talk of the nation via the BBC or Channel 4, as it was in '81, '85, '05 etc etc.

 

[PHCgull]

Sten posted a link earlier pointing out that this "support for grass roots cricket" has been greatly exaggerated.

And besides, as other people have pointed out, the Sky money won't be replaced by nothing. I suspect that broadcasters will pay a hefty fee for the rights to the Ashes series and it could well be that another deal could insist on proper amounts of money going to grass roots cricket.

Back in late 2004, when the first Sky exclusive deal was signed, the ECB negotiators naively made Sky aware that they were prepared to sign an "exclusive" deal with a broadcaster. Sky immediately altered their bid for the rights to £lots for exclusive and £not much for shared, knowing that they could financially muscle their way to an exclusive deal.

In fact, if the ECB were able to negotiate their way out of a paper bag (which they arent) it should be perfectly possible to negotiate a deal which involves Sky AND a terrestrial broadcaster sharing coverage. This would significantly increase circket's reach and bring sponsors like Vodafone back to the game (who left in 2006, complaining that their sponsorship of the England cricket team was no longer giving them "reach" into their target market).

So, in short -Sky and C4 pay for a shared ownership of live test cricket and the rest is supplied by sposnorship/promotion. I bet vodafone would love to supply trackies to the chance-to-shine kids, just as much as Sky do.
Simples innit

 

[keaton]

Never mind that some non-Murdoch funding will also be in place for such schemes, these "test stars of the future" will be entirely unable to have any concept at all of cricket's existence at the highest level unless their parents are spending £40-odd quid a month on Sky.

Whereas I'd have thought vastly greater numbers of them would be inspired to pick up a bat or ball by seeing something as momentous as an Ashes series becoming the talk of the nation via the BBC or Channel 4, as it was in '81, '85, '05 etc etc.

They could actually go and watch cricket?

 

[Man of Harveys]

They could actually go and watch cricket?

Why would they, when they've only heard their dads going on about it and caught a brief glimpse of it in a park or something? You might as well suggest they go and watch chess or bridge, either of which they're likely to have had as much exposure to.

Whereas the rest of us of a certain age, as Gwylan says, have fond memories of watching great series during school holidays etc. I'll never forget watching the "blackwash" series in '84, say.

 

[ezzoud]

Out of curiosity how many "test stars of the future" do people believe there are who really want to get into cricket but can't because they don't have access to Sky Sports.

I've never really got this argument as it has always seemed to me that the less well off sections of society put a higher priority on having "subscription tv" than the more affluent.

Who is it that is missing out? Genuine question, no axe to grind or political point to make...

 

[PHCgull]

Out of curiosity how many "test stars of the future" do people believe there are who really want to get into cricket but can't because they don't have access to Sky Sports.

I've never really got this argument as it has always seemed to me that the less well off sections of society put a higher priority on having "subscription tv" than the more affluent.

Who is it that is missing out? Genuine question, no axe to grind or political point to make...

its not a socio-demographic issue. You are right, poorer areas often have high Sky penetration.

Its a question of cricket's place in society. 10 million people watched the ashes in 2005 (highest viewing figures). This year it was 2 million. That is eight million people not watching (quite a lot). Grandfathers encouraging youngsters to put down their wii and watch the cricket etc mentions on richard and judy etc. Nobody in this country will recognise "the next Flintoff" as he walks down the street unless cricket expands its TV reach.

 

[Questions]

I wonder what inspired the Sir Garfield Sobers and the Sir Donald Bradmans of this world ?

 

[Nigella's Cream Pie]

Surely if you'd want to watch the Ashes LIVE, you'd really be interested in cricket - so would be willing to fork out a bit for the HUGE amount of cricket they have on Sky?

 

[Questions]

Surely if you'd want to watch the Ashes LIVE, you'd really be interested in cricket - so would be willing to fork out a bit for the HUGE amount of cricket they have on Sky?

God you are missing the point here.................... YOU HAVE TO HATE MURDOCH AND N.I. which means you have to hate Sky. Never mind that they have taken sports coverage to new heights. Get rid of them.

 

[gonefishing]

This has happened as a direct result of The Sun switching sides to back the Tories. It is the govt trying to hurt Murdoch. When Cameron gets in, this will be dropped.

very much doubt it would get changed, as per the sun and murdoch they never supported one labour policy if you actually read it, blair was just a useful tool for murdoch

 

[PHCgull]

erm, wrong. You dont have to hate them. You just have to wish they would share the coverage so that millions of disenfranchised cricket fans who dont have, cant get or dont want the rest of the shite on Sky can watch some televised live cricket.

Sky could broadcast it on a free digital channel and attratc 10 million viewers but instead they keep it on subscription.

Sky coverage is excellent btw. Its a shame so few people actually vote with their feet and pay the forty quid for it. Do you remember what happened to snooker when they sold their audience for the Sky dollar? No one gives a toss about it now, but in the eighties it was a very popular sport. Now theyve rerturned to BBC but their moment has passed. cricket could potentially go the same way...

 

[The Oldman]

Never mind that they have taken sports coverage to new heights. .

..........and that is the problem. Sky Sports coverage is simply the best. Do we really think that BBC and ITV would have offered the same depth of coverage (5 24 hour channels for a start) with the techinical innovations that Sky have introduced and continue to do so. If sky had not been started we would be left with the awful sports coverage of ITV, Channel 4 (who interrupted Test Match Cricket for Horse racing remember?) and the dear old Beeb.

Yes Mr Murdoch is not exactly loveable but without him I doubt if we would have a newspaper industry or the range of television that is now available.

Having said all that I know that so many will enjoy watching the Ashes for "free" but remember who set the standard for televised sport.

 

[Questions]

erm, wrong. You dont have to hate them. You just have to wish they would share the coverage so that millions of disenfranchised cricket fans who dont have, cant get or dont want the rest of the shite on Sky can watch some televised live cricket.

Sky could broadcast it on a free digital channel and attratc 10 million viewers but instead they keep it on subscription.

Sky coverage is excellent btw. Its a shame so few people actually vote with their feet and pay the forty quid for it. Do you remember what happened to snooker when they sold their audience for the Sky dollar? No one gives a toss about it now, but in the eighties it was a very popular sport. Now theyve rerturned to BBC but their moment has passed. cricket could potentially go the same way...

Do you think football would return to the old days if Sky went away ?
If the product is worth having then Sky will take it and improve everyones lot. If kids cannot watch cricket because their parents refuse to subscribe because of some outdated 'Free sports viewing to all ideal' then let them miss out for all I care. There is always the excellant BBC coverage of bowls and curling to be enthralled by and maybe those kids will be encouraged to try those sports.

 

[rcf0712]

that really sucks that it was only on Sky in the UK, out here we had the Sky broadcast on both Fox and terrestial tv (SBS) every ball of the way...
I'd be worried about the next series out here though, my god will the Aussies be up for it.

 

[Gwylan]

If kids cannot watch cricket because their parents refuse to subscribe because of some outdated 'Free sports viewing to all ideal' then let them miss out for all I care. There is always the excellant BBC coverage of bowls and curling to be enthralled by and maybe those kids will be encouraged to try those sports.

It's not a question of refusing to subscribe, it's a question of affordability. If Sky offered a cricket package of, say, £5 a Test, then I'd have no problem with that but they don't, they, as PHCGull puts it succinctly "bundle it up with the rest of the shit". My cable company offers Sky Sports for £35 a month - if there are 10 ten Test matches in a year that works out at £42 a Test, that's more than going to watch the Albion.

We haven't had a family holiday for a couple of years because we can't afford it, so my wife would have a fit if I signed up for such an expensive pay-per-view (and frankly I'd agree with her).

 

[PHCgull]

Do you think football would return to the old days if Sky went away ?
QUOTE]


I am NOT asking for Sky to "go away". I am asking for SOME live cricket to be shown on free TV. This is something SKy could achieve without the rights reverting to the BBC/C4. Clear?

In football, Sky has the premiershite, fine. But even money-obsessed Football realises that SOME free live football increases its broader appeal in society (kids whose parents dont like football, people in nursing homes who cant choose what channels are bought etc). Hence we have live FA cup and championship on the BBC. In rugby union, Sky has the twickenham England games and those of us who dont have Sky can enjoy Wales v NZ last saturday (a brilliant game). Rugby officials realise that without some free live rugby they wont get the critical mass of attention.

In this country we have NO FREE LIVE TEST MATCH CRICKET. At all.

That sucks.