No free-to-air TV live cricket until 2014.

[Brovion]

How to turn the national summer sport into a minority sport for the sake of a quick buck - truly pathetic, and confirming my long-held suspicion that cricket is a brilliant sport adminstered by utter cretins. This has NOTHING to do with the quality of the coverage: I'd settle for a latter day Tony Lewis or Peter West on a pavilion roof somewhere for the sake of being able to watch it without contributing more money to Rupert Murdoch. Botham's Ashes, the 2005 Ashes, even the 1984 "blackwash" - these will never be repeated as national, epochal events while it's being watched by a minority. Truly shameful.

I understand where you're coming from but I can't totally agree - especially with regard to the coverage. Like you I LOVED the old days with dear old Jim Laker (and even older, with Brian Johnstone before he was switched to radio) but the BBC moved away from that. The ECB weren't happy which is why they were happy to listen to a better offer from Channel 4. Having switched once it was easy to switch again for a few more quid. And now - it's the good old days again! Once more I can watch cricket all day Saturday and Sunday without interruption by other progammes or sports.

Anyway you've still got the radio. In the 'old days' it was always said that the radio coverage was better than the TV commentary anyway.

 

[Simster]

How to turn the national summer sport into a minority sport for the sake of a quick buck - truly pathetic, and confirming my long-held suspicion that cricket is a brilliant sport adminstered by utter cretins. This has NOTHING to do with the quality of the coverage: I'd settle for a latter day Tony Lewis or Peter West on a pavilion roof somewhere for the sake of being able to watch it without contributing more money to Rupert Murdoch. Botham's Ashes, the 2005 Ashes, even the 1984 "blackwash" - these will never be repeated as national, epochal events while it's being watched by a minority. Truly shameful.

The days of the entire TV schedule on a single channel being given over to the cricket are over. The numbers were never there, and it was well known that the BBC and ITV had British sport over a barrel financially because they operated a gentleman's duopoly agreement which kept the value of our sport artificially low.

IMO, the ECB should be selling live rights to the highest bidder, but ensuring that a suitable package was made available to the terrestrial channels. i.e. terrestrial channels should be able to bid for a package that allows them a 30 minute highlights window after the end of every session within 45 minutes of that session ending - or something like that.

I know that means they are not selling *exclusive* rights to Sky which would mean a lower bid, but this would be a small price to pay for keeping exposure to the game open to as many as possible.

 

[keaton]

The BBC and C4 are more interested in horse racing and formula 1 that's there choice, not the ECB or Sky's problem.

I pay £9 a month for Sky Sports 1 which has had nearly every hour of England cricket this summer and most of the domestic stuff so it's not too much for pure coverage without interruption and a great array of commentators and technology

 

[Mendoza]

I understand where you're coming from but I can't totally agree - especially with regard to the coverage. Like you I LOVED the old days with dear old Jim Laker (and even older, with Brian Johnstone before he was switched to radio) but the BBC moved away from that. The ECB weren't happy which is why they were happy to listen to a better offer from Channel 4. Having switched once it was easy to switch again for a few more quid. And now - it's the good old days again! Once more I can watch cricket all day Saturday and Sunday without interruption by other progammes or sports.

Anyway you've still got the radio. In the 'old days' it was always said that the radio coverage was better than the TV commentary anyway.

It doesnt matter how good the commentary is on sky, or even the technology they use.

The issue is that you have to pay extra on top of your TV license to watch English Test match cricket for the next 6 years at least.

It is a traditional summer sport of our nation, and a game that is suffering from a lack of players playing the game at grass roots level, which eventually leads to a poorer pool of players the national team can select from.

If it was free to watch on terrestrial TV, more kids may like it and want to start playing, and that can only be a good thing for the sport.

The more people you deny watching it, the less people you get trying their hand at the sport.
I dont know how much a Sky/Virgin package is per month to include the sports channels needed to watch the cricket, but I guess its a lot in todays climate for many people to justify spending on.

Kids that want to watch test cricket now have to rely on their parents a) liking sport and b) well off enough to pay for the channel or c) have the time and money to take them to a Test match.

Even for an adult, they have to wait until 7.15pm for channel 5's 45 minute round up, or take time off work and sit in a pub or friends house to watch it.

 

[keaton]

I understand where you're coming from but I can't totally agree - especially with regard to the coverage. Like you I LOVED the old days with dear old Jim Laker (and even older, with Brian Johnstone before he was switched to radio) but the BBC moved away from that. The ECB weren't happy which is why they were happy to listen to a better offer from Channel 4. Having switched once it was easy to switch again for a few more quid. And now - it's the good old days again! Once more I can watch cricket all day Saturday and Sunday without interruption by other progammes or sports.

Anyway you've still got the radio. In the 'old days' it was always said that the radio coverage was better than the TV commentary anyway.

Test Match Special is still free to air and is excellent

 

[The Large One]

The days of the entire TV schedule on a single channel being given over to the cricket are over. The numbers were never there, and it was well known that the BBC and ITV had British sport over a barrel financially because they operated a gentleman's duopoly agreement which kept the value of our sport artificially low.

IMO, the ECB should be selling live rights to the highest bidder, but ensuring that a suitable package was made available to the terrestrial channels. i.e. terrestrial channels should be able to bid for a package that allows them a 30 minute highlights window after the end of every session within 45 minutes of that session ending - or something like that.

I know that means they are not selling *exclusive* rights to Sky which would mean a lower bid, but this would be a small price to pay for keeping exposure to the game open to as many as possible.

Don't agree. They should be selling live rights to the bidder which promotes the game to its fullest advantage by allowing optimum coverage.

What's the point of the ECB becoming cash-rich if it can't promote the game by not 'letting the dog see the rabbit'.?

 

[Icy Gull]

I, and I honestly think it's about time ALL major sports were in their control, because the BBC and ITV are frankly embarrassing.

Nothing wrong with the Formula One coverage on ITV except the adverts and that wouldn't change on SKY, plus it's free. SKY can just f*** off imo, they've taken the football, too much of rugby union, I care not about cricket but I'd be well pissed of if they got F1, which no doubt they will do if Hamilton continues in his current form. I seem to think the BBC have it again next year so it's safe for while.

 

[Mendoza]

I think it's great news. Noone does sport like Sky Sports. Unless it's the Premiership, none of the 'free' channels would be remotely interested in any sport, certainly not to the extent that they would provide top quality coverage for a whole DAY. Sky does that, and even when England are playing poorly it's compelling viewing. I quite regularly waste five whole days watching, and it's not just because I like cricket. It's because Sky's coverage is so good. I'm glad they've got it until 2014, and I honestly think it's about time ALL major sports were in their control, because the BBC and ITV are frankly embarrassing.

For every one of you that has that opinion, there are probably at least 10 that cant come to that conclusion, because they cannot afford the sky equipement and subscription

 

[keaton]

BUt that's it apart from the Six Nations, the EDF cup(which is a bit shit) and England home matches there's no Football or Rugby Union free-to-air either. And if you're paying full-whack of £35-40 for the full Sky Sports package(If you're soleley getting sky/cable for the sports) to watch these three you're getting fantastic value for money.
It costs me about £30 a month to play five-a-side once a week, and it would cost me about £60 a month to watch every albion home game

 

[Brovion]

It doesnt matter how good the commentary is on sky, or even the technology they use.

The issue is that you have to pay extra on top of your TV license to watch English Test match cricket for the next 6 years at least.

It is a traditional summer sport of our nation, and a game that is suffering from a lack of players playing the game at grass roots level, which eventually leads to a poorer pool of players the national team can select from.

If it was free to watch on terrestrial TV, more kids may like it and want to start playing, and that can only be a good thing for the sport.

The more people you deny watching it, the less people you get trying their hand at the sport.
I dont know how much a Sky/Virgin package is per month to include the sports channels needed to watch the cricket, but I guess its a lot in todays climate for many people to justify spending on.

Kids that want to watch test cricket now have to rely on their parents a) liking sport and b) well off enough to pay for the channel or c) have the time and money to take them to a Test match.

Even for an adult, they have to wait until 7.15pm for channel 5's 45 minute round up, or take time off work and sit in a pub or friends house to watch it.

Two points: Firstly I have (some) sympathy with the complaint that you have to pay extra. However it's not that expensive and it comes down to priorities: as a family we have a Sky Sports and Movies subscription, we don't have Albion season tickets. Indeed a trip to the Albion for ONE game costs me nearly as much as TWO MONTHS worth of Sky! (Another family in our position may prefer a single Albion game to two months of Sky, fair enough, it's all about choice).

However I really don't agree with the view that as Test cricket is no longer broadcast live on free-to-air that there is somehow a whole generation growing up not knowing anything about it and thus not wanting to play it. When I was growing up football (except for the Cup Final) wasn't screened live; all we had was a late-night highlights package (MoTD or Sportsnight in midweek). It didn't stop people wanting to play football. Sky have had Rugby League for a decade now and it's still going strong and has even exported itself from it's north England heartlands (to an extent).

Finally it's funny that people are worrying about the future of Test cricket. In the early seventies there were also very real fears for it's survival as it was dying on it's arse through lack of interest. Now of course people are worried about the impact of Twenty/20 and that the popularity of that game will kill off Test cricket. Which channel shows the Twenty/20 games?

 

[Simster]

Don't agree. They should be selling live rights to the bidder which promotes the game to its fullest advantage by allowing optimum coverage.

What's the point of the ECB becoming cash-rich if it can't promote the game by not 'letting the dog see the rabbit'.?

Whereas I don't think there is a problem with selling the sport to a company prepared to pay for it, as long as there is enough exposure on free-to-air.

And the problem IMO is that the ECB have stupidly gone with exclusive rights (apart from a single hour-long programme on Ch 5) when they should have accepted a lower payment from Sky in exchange for better free-to-air coverage.

Sky have certainly done a brilliant job with their cricket coverage.

 

[The Large One]

Whereas I don't think there is a problem with selling the sport to a company prepared to pay for it, as long as there is enough exposure on free-to-air.

And the problem IMO is that the ECB have stupidly gone with exclusive rights (apart from a single hour-long programme on Ch 5) when they should have accepted a lower payment from Sky in exchange for better free-to-air coverage.

Sky have certainly done a brilliant job with their cricket coverage.

That's kind of a moot point if the viewing figures are going to be severely limited.

 

[Mendoza]

Two points: Firstly I have (some) sympathy with the complaint that you have to pay extra. However it's not that expensive and it comes down to priorities: as a family we have a Sky Sports and Movies subscription, we don't have Albion season tickets. Indeed a trip to the Albion for ONE game costs me nearly as much as TWO MONTHS worth of Sky! (Another family in our position may prefer a single Albion game to two months of Sky, fair enough, it's all about choice).

However I really don't agree with the view that as Test cricket is no longer broadcast live on free-to-air that there is somehow a whole generation growing up not knowing anything about it and thus not wanting to play it. When I was growing up football (except for the Cup Final) wasn't screened live; all we had was a late-night highlights package (MoTD or Sportsnight in midweek). It didn't stop people wanting to play football. Sky have had Rugby League for a decade now and it's still going strong and has even exported itself from it's north England heartlands (to an extent).

Finally it's funny that people are worrying about the future of Test cricket. In the early seventies there were also very real fears for it's survival as it was dying on it's arse through lack of interest. Now of course people are worried about the impact of Twenty/20 and that the popularity of that game will kill off Test cricket. Which channel shows the Twenty/20 games?

The costs are indeed down to priority. Me personally I prefer the buzz of actually going to live sport, and dont think it can be matched by TV coverage. However I do like TV coverage and will watch anything that sports related on TV. I guess the costs of going to all these live games is way more than a TYV subscription, but as you said it is a matter of personal choice.

Living in a block of flats I have also found myself in a position where I am not allowed to put up a sky dish to watch these games, and Virgin dont have coverage in the area where I live.
This means to get sky I have to pay a huge connection fee to the communial dish or go with out.

As for the lack of free to air coverage affecting grass roots, its all ifs and buts. I agree there were no real live games on terrestrial TV in years gone by, but there was always something. Now for cricket there are 45mins a day in a test match.
I just think if it was on terrestrial TV, more people will discover the sport by accident and it will get a better following.

If you want to watch an England Test match live, I guess the choices are a £40 monthly subscription or £40 a day to go the venue - and we just have to accept that

 

[Simster]

That's kind of a moot point if the viewing figures are going to be severely limited.

Not really. If those people are paying enough for Sky to justify the rights fee, then it's far from moot.

I know it doesn't fit in with your argument that as many people should have access to live cricket as possible, but moot it aint.

I'm afraid I just don't agree with you, but I *would* rather that free-to-air offered far better coverage than it currently does.

 

[Mendoza]

Not really. If those people are paying enough for Sky to justify the rights fee, then it's far from moot.

I know it doesn't fit in with your argument that as many people should have access to live cricket as possible, but moot it aint.

I'm afraid I just don't agree with you, but I *would* rather that free-to-air offered far better coverage than it currently does.

I think the majority of people would compromise the quality of coverage if it meant that they could watch it for free

 

[Storer68]

Well, thats the death of English cricket as a spectator sport sorted...what next?

Why, its the same arrangement as the Premier League has. Don't see that being protrayed as the death of English football as a spectator sport.

in fact gates are increasing year by year

 

[Simster]

I think the majority of people would compromise the quality of coverage if it meant that they could watch it for free

Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing.

My argument is that the ECB should sell live rights to a TV company but that the simultanous free-to-air rights should be better than they are now. I would advocate them selling the rights to 3 half-hour highlight shows (which could be aired shortly after every session). This would necessarily mean accepting a lower bid from pay-per-view because it wouldn't be quite so exclusive.

As a side issue, I suggest that it is up to the pay-per-view company to produce the best quality coverage they can offer in order to keep those viewers reeled in. If they didn't, then people wouldn't watch. All I'm saying is that Sky realise this and their coverage is top notch.

 

[Storer68]

Test match tickets this season were £50 A DAY for the NZ test and £85 A DAY for South Africa.

Thats up to £340 to see the first four days..............

As opposed to £40 a month to watch it on Sky

So which offers better value for money?

 

[Storer68]

And the problem IMO is that the ECB have stupidly gone with exclusive rights (apart from a single hour-long programme on Ch 5) when they should have accepted a lower payment from Sky in exchange for better free-to-air coverage.

Sky have certainly done a brilliant job with their cricket coverage.

SKY pay a large premium for their exclusivity without which they are simply not interested in bidding.

If they don't bid then the market is limited to the public service terrestrial broadcasters all of whom will not be offerering anywhere near the same amount of money than SKY can and do offer. And their limits will be limited to what they can justify to the public rather than afford.

Last time the BBC did not even put a bid in for the main package which showed their interest in the game to the ECB.