Well Done The ECB

[The Great Cornholio]

Apparently on Channel 4 there are breaks for racing and that.

Still and small price to pay in my book.

That's the irony - they gave full coverage - on Film Four which is only available on Sky. Put the horse racing on Sky - oh, it already is. Let the punters go to the Bookies if they want to watch the races - we want wall to wall cricket.

 

[Seagull73]

Totally irrelevant to the original point. It means you have no choice but to fork out to watch live cricket.

The ECB, with its responsibility to promote the game, has gone for the quick buck, rather than the longer term goal of encouraging pariticipation and interest in the sport by letting everyone see it for free.

What, like they did with the Premiership...? That's gone right down hill since Sky got hold of those rights hasn't it?

 

[Uncle Buck]

In fairness I would have thought that the Government deserve the blame for this happening as home test match series were removed from the crown jewels list of sporting events, meaning that they did not have to stay on free to air TV.

 

[The Large One]

That's the irony - they gave full coverage - on Film Four which is only available on Sky. Put the horse racing on Sky - oh, it already is. Let the punters go to the Bookies if they want to watch the races - we want wall to wall cricket.

To be fair, if your receiver (including Freeview) is CAPABLE of getting FilmFour, you could have watched it. We can get FilmFour, but don't subscribe, but we could still watch the cricket.

But the point is well taken - it should be free to air.

 

[Seagull73]

To be fair, if your receiver (including Freeview) is CAPABLE of getting FilmFour, you could have watched it. We can get FilmFour, but don't subscribe, but we could still watch the cricket.

But the point is well taken - it should be free to air.

You are right, it should be free to air, however that doesn't automatically mean the game is going to be worse off for it....

 

[The Large One]

What, like they did with the Premiership...? That's gone right down hill since Sky got hold of those rights hasn't it?

Football already had the captive audience, cricket doesn't have that. You can't compare the two. Darts, speedway, wrestling are all on Sky and have hardly become really popular.

And it's only the Premiership that has benefitted from Sky, most of the other 72 league clubs are still largely in the shit.

 

[Storer68]

and if the ECB hadn't taken the money on offer from Sky, that would be about four England centrally contrcated players out of a job. The ECB central contract salary is way above what the players would earn for six months as county club employees


so which ones do you want to make redundant

Vaughan ?
Flintoff ?
Giles ?
harmison ?

 

[The Large One]

My point is, the ECB may be better off, but cricket as a whole down to club level will almost certainly not be.

 

[Pevenseagull]

I am moved to check back on my drunken ramblings on this matter back in mid December last year (that search facility is jolly good innit- never used it before ................



MONEY BIT:

the difference in the money over the term is quoted (on the ECB website no less) as being 10%.

the suprise sucess of 20/20 cricket has resulted in a significant injection into the county side's coffers - this revenue from this will be even greater this year as the competition has been enlarged considerably.

It is disturbing to think that, even with this unexpected windfall, the county game is in such a financial mess that it needs to snatch at every available penny, irrespective of the uncontrovertibly detrimental long term effects on the game.

LIMITED AMOUNT THAT THE ECB ACTUALLY DO BIT:

County sides receive currently a little over £1,100,000 per annum as an annual sum from the ECB generated from the ECB's activities (there is no requirement for reporting how the money is used). Ignoring revenues from tests and other activities if ALL of the money distributed came from broadcasting rights and the 10% was passed on to the counties this would be a little over £100,000. I have sounded out a number of friends who play for club sides and they are unaware of any club side receiving more than £500 from the ECB.

PROFILE OF CRICKET BIT:

Next summer there is no competition - no Euro/World Cup football, no Olympics, no Ryder cup - The Ashes is THE biggest sporting event of the summer. A competitive Ashes series will raise the profile of cricket hugely.

Leaving aside established cricket fanatics, a major factor in the wider public's experience of this HUGE event will be the comprehensive terrestrial coverage that C4 will provide. The team that they have working on test cricket is superb and impressively inclusive, it's fun without being remotely condescending and features such as Simon Hughes' analysis give a superb, enthralling insight into some of the finer points of the game.

ECB HIPOCRISY BIT:

The ECB’s vision for cricket (from their site):
“To ensure that England becomes and remains the most successful and respected cricket nation in the world, and to encourage the widest possible participation and interest in the game throughout England and Wales.”

How can this decison encourage the widest possible interest in the game when the majority of the population will no longer be able to watch it live?

And what are non SKY subscribers left with? Forty 5 mins of highlights (probably less than 30mins of action once adverts etc are factored in) on a channel that is rightly renowned for atrocious programming standards - scheduled to go head to head with established family viewing. (that's if you can receive C5)

Perhaps they should revise and simplify your vision of cricket as follows:

"To take every short term opportunity to increase our coffers, even if the decision results in the marginalisation of interest in the sport and subsequently reduces participation."

 

[Storer68]

Essay, 2005

Hello Sky, Goodbye World

Almanack home
2005 home

Steven Barnett




TV cameramen atThe Oval in 1946 © Getty Images


While cricket supporters reputedly jammed the England and Wales Cricket Board switchboard to vent their anger over the decision to move English Test cricket off Channel 4 and on to satellite television, the trade magazine Broadcast had a rather different angle. Its response to the news was headlined "C4's cricket loss frees 200 hours". For independent television producers and Channel 4's commissioning editors – not to mention its finance director – this was definitely not a bad-news story.

From the summer of 2006, not a single ball of live Test cricket will be available to viewers on free-to-air terrestrial television, for the first time in 60 years. This loss of mass exposure will without doubt have unfortunate consequences for promoting cricket amongst young and less devoted followers. The ECB decided to trade coverage for cash on the basis that this would not be for ever, and that when the next deal starts in 2010, cricket could again be widely available. This misunderstands the nature of the broadcasting world.

When the ECB explained its reasoning – and in particular Channel 4's inability to match the four-year package of £220m primarily generated by BSkyB – a number of commentators condemned Channel 4 for its failure to commit itself to cricket. What they failed to appreciate was the unique difficulty of scheduling cricket in the heart of a mainstream TV channel that makes its living from selling commercials.

Cricket is a scheduler's nightmare. It takes up a huge amount of airtime, during most of which – to the uninitiated – not a great deal happens. It alienates large sections of the potential audience, especially women. Its finish time depends on the over-rate and is therefore unpredictable, which collides with the first rule of scheduling: always transmit your key early-evening shows at predictable times. In a competitive broadcasting environment, the early evening is critical to building audiences for the rest of the night. If two million switch on at 6 p.m. to watch The Simpsons, only to find an unknown Sri Lankan batsman playing for the close, they are unlikely to hang around. That is disastrous for the channel's revenue.

On top of that, there are the hours to fill when poor weather prevents play: the cricket lover isn't interested in time-fillers, and the non-believer thinks the cricket is on. So the channel loses twice over. Channel 4 can't even make do with old movies because it has a strict quota of original programming which would be severely compromised.

All these uncertainties have a cost, which in Channel 4's case is measurable. At its best, when England are doing well and a match is well poised, the channel can break even. At its worst, it loses money. Its original highlights package at 7.30 was drawing an average of 700,000 viewers instead of the usual 1.5 million. Sport is not part of its public service remit, which is defined by law and strictly monitored by the industry regulator Ofcom. None of this diminished the enthusiasm with which Channel 4 embraced the game. To almost universal acclaim, it revolutionised coverage and demonstrated vividly how lazy and unimaginative the BBC's approach had become. From Hawkeye to regular and concise explanations of some of the more eccentric Laws, it made the game accessible and fun to watch.

It also demonstrated its commitment off the air. Part of the ECB's rationale in 1998, when it dumped the BBC, was that Channel 4 could exploit its trendy image to appeal to a new, younger and multicultural audience. And indeed the station has invested money in inner-city cricket programmes, teaching packs for schools, a community cricket ground in Lambeth, and themed cultural events encouraging ethnic Indian and West Indian communities to participate. It has kept its side of the bargain. But over the next five years, the commercial environment will become much tougher. C4's new chief executive, Andy Duncan, has projected a funding gap of over £100m by 2012 and is already appealing to government for some kind of public subsidy for the first time in the channel's history. Against that kind of background, Channel 4 could hardly be blamed for not matching BSkyB's offer.

Unfortunately, the ECB doesn't seem to understand how difficult it will be to re-establish contact with terrestrial television. ITV's complete indifference to cricket – compared to rugby union, motor racing or European soccer – is one measure of the sport's lack of commercial viability. Channel Five may have committed itself to a highlights package at 7.15, but against Coronation Street, EastEnders and Emmerdale it will be lucky to attract an audience of half a million. Five certainly won't touch ball-by-ball coverage.



TV cameramen atThe Oval in 1946 © Getty Images


That leaves the non-commercial BBC, which for 60 years was televised cricket's natural home but this time did not even put in a bid. As it prepares for the decennial review of the BBC charter and makes its case for continued licence-fee funding, many cricket fans have been wondering why cricket should not be an integral part of the public service rationale. There are several reasons. First, the new director-general, Mark Thompson, has made it clear he intends to move away from a populist approach. That means making more room for some of the core public service areas such as current affairs, documentaries, arts, music and children's programming. While cricket lovers may be keen to add their sport to the public service list, there are too many other programme areas being vacated by the commercial channels, and which the BBC is under growng pressure to prioritise.

Second, the BBC has existing obligations to sports which have stayed loyal or returned to it. Wimbledon tennis, rugby union, the FA Cup and football highlights all have a place in the BBC's sports pantheon. Once a sport takes itself off to a competitor, the BBC can't be expected to wait patiently in the wings for a change of mind; its sports resources and personnel will have been diverted elsewhere.

Third, schedules need to be filled. As Test Match Special producer Peter Baxter put it, "the problem with moving a sport off a mainstream channel is that the hole closes over". Commitments are made not just to other sports but to other programming areas, often with long lead times. Something in the current schedule – which will probably have built its own loyal audience – would have to make way, particularly for such a huge chunk of television time as Test cricket consumes.

Meanwhile, BSkyB has a very different agenda. With three dedicated sports channels, there is no shortage of airtime, and subscribers who are willing and able to pay upwards of £400 per year will see full coverage. More importantly, it is live and exclusive sport which drives the BSkyB business. After years of facing very little competition in the multichannel world, it is now finding life more difficult against Freeview, the BBC's digital offering which requires only a set-top box and no monthly subscription – but offers a much smaller range of channels. Sky's monthly rate of signing up new households has been declining and the number of Freeview homes accelerating. Exclusive Test cricket is a valuable carrot to persuade an additional tranche of otherwise reluctant subscribers to join the BSkyB club and boost its subscription base.

This won't detract from the proven quality of Sky's coverage. But for Sky, as with all its exclusive sports, cricket is a commodity which it will want to buy as cheaply as possible next time around. And when the ECB starts looking in 2009 for competing bids from mainstream channels, it will be lucky to find any other potential takers for a sport which makes such enormous and unpredictable demands on airtime. Sky knows when it has a free run, and will be bidding accordingly – and the pot of gold which the ECB discovered this time round could prove to be a very short-lived cash bonanza.

There is one potential game-saving approach, which would depend on the government intervening to do what the ECB hasn't done and recognise the national significance of the game. Until 1998 home Test matches were among ten "listed events", the crown jewels of sport which were judged to be of such cultural value to the nation that live rights could not be sold exclusively to a non-terrestrial broadcaster. After intense lobbying from the ECB – and a much-touted "gentleman's agreement" between the board chairman Lord MacLaurin and the cabinet minister in charge of sport, culture secretary Chris Smith, that the game would not disappear from mainstream television – home Test matches were removed from the "A" list of protected events.

Unfortunately, the harsh reality of commercial life does not allow for agreements between gentlemen. So it is worth remembering the words of Chris Smith in June 1998 when he acceded to the request: "This is something for which the ECB and county cricket clubs have specifically asked. I expect to see their freedom used responsibly, with continued access for all viewers to a substantial proportion of live Test coverage. If those expectations are not fulfilled then I may, of course, need to review the listed criteria again." Both Smith and MacLaurin have gone now, but it may be time for the government to act on Smith's threat.

The English Rugby Football Union recognised its mistake in selling its Six Nations matches at Twickenham to BSkyB when live audiences allegedly plummeted to a tenth of their BBC1 size. The RFU understood the potential damage that was being done to maintaining a healthy grassroots interest in the sport, and reversed their decision. A rugby match is about one twenty-fifth the length of a Test match so the BBC could easily accommodate them. The same will not be true for cricket in 2009.

The current culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, is expected to move on after this year's general election. This may not be a great political issue, but cricket fans could certainly make their feelings known to the post-election guardian of the nation's cultural heritage. If cricket's governing body cannot be trusted to look after the best interests of our national game, some intense lobbying to have home Tests relisted might help the ECB recognise the dangers of its short-term thinking.

Steven Barnett is professor of communications at the University of Westminster. His books include Games and Sets, an analysis of sport on television.

© John Wisden & Co

 

[Storer68]

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.

Sky, too, offered less money - but this was part of a negotiating ploy to make sure they got all the cricket. Sky offered £18 million a year if they had to share with C4. Sky at present pay £25 million a year for one home Test, one-day internationals and county cricket. But Sky also made a bid for the entire summer's cricket, the only broadcaster to do so, and offered £52 million a year. The message was clear: give us all cricket and earn more money, make us share with Channel 4 and see your income drop.

Clarke said: "If Channel 4 had offered the money they pay now that would have made it a very interesting situation. The ECB would have had a complex decision. But in the end it was not a difficult decision. We had no choice.

"The question is, why did Channel 4 not bid for most of the rights? And why did the national broadcaster, the BBC, not make a bid? We have a water-tight agree-ment with the best friend of cricket and there's no question of going back."

 

[London Calling]

In fairness I would have thought that the Government deserve the blame for this happening as home test match series were removed from the crown jewels list of sporting events, meaning that they did not have to stay on free to air TV.

And I think we are mixing the levels of cricket here.

We are talking about our NATIONAL side not piddly league games.

Our England matches should be shown to a national audience.
The quality of the programme is an irrelvant issue, though of course the minimum standard should be Channel 4.

Frankly the media and yes the Government has been caught out by the enthisiasm of the UK public towards cricket.

LC

 

[Storer68]

So the ECB should be forced to take its best product (England Test matches) and sell it to the lowest bidder (Channel 4) ?

And next year a pair of piddly series against Sri Lanka and Pakistan (which no -one will be DESPERATE to watch - umlike an Ashes series) have got to compete against the wall to wall coverage of the football World Cup.

No one will be even giving the cricket a moment's attention next summer - it will all be "All we have to do is turn up and watch the lads bring the World Cup back home for the most glorious victory since 1966 - its coming home, and all thaT cant