Eng v Zim Series on Sony TV
- Thread starter jamesdriscoll
- Start date
nik
International Cricketer
lol, i just about understood wat vibs was talking about!
vibs89
School Cricketer
Oh ok i thought we were talking abt the Indian sony Channel
Rangeela
International Coach
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2003
- Online Cricket Games Owned
-
maybe a little off topic to the in concern to eng vs zim series.. I wanted to know if any members living in uk knows what channel will air the ashes series next summer? Also is it going to be a local channel, or cable channel or a PPV subscription?
thx
thx
andrew_nixon
Chairman of Selectors
The Ashes will be on Channel 4, a free to air terrestrial chanel
you wonder why india and pakistan are way ahead some countries'because they show cricket live for free' and aussies and england and new zealand you have to order it' and that is the reason kids dont learn more about cricket because they cant watch cricket on tv live' and in pakistan and india and sri lanka and bangladesh you get to watch for free which helps some kids alot with there cricket career alot' and alos they learn about cricket and the rules'
jamesdriscoll
Club Cricketer
fardin said:
There is almost all of England's cricket on TV over here. All home tests are shown on Channel 4. Some C & G Trophy matches are on Channel 4 and all the one dayers and domestic cricket is on Sky. And I reckon most people do have Sky.
But it could definitely be better publicised over here. On TV and in Schools. But breaking the hold Football has on most people's sporting priorities is near enough impossible. Although things like Twenty20 are helping publicise the game more.
Noooooooo, put it all on Sky. Don't let that twat Mark Nicholas near a microphone ever again!
vibs89
School Cricketer
Ya in India is everything u get to see the match is free but in America u have to pay man
.
.
m_vaughan
Chairman of Selectors
What about watching the series online?
Stephen Bailey
Executive member
I personally wish Channel 4 would have the rights to all England games. I find the commentators on Sky sometimes sound like they're bored, on Channel 4 they're always nattering about something and really sound like they are enjoying themselves. I love all the strange facts and figures they come up with. And the fact that we don't have Sky in my house because my parents feel that the money that we would spend on it is better off being used on 'other stuff'. And if you're wondering why I know what Sky coverage is like its because my grandad has it and I get to watch a small amount there.
Ste
Executive member
From - http://www.sport.telegraph.co.uk/sp...c23.xml&sSheet=/sport/2004/11/23/ixsport.html
Can you imagine walking into a theatre and watching Hamlet from Act 4, or playing only side two of The Beatles' Sgt Pepper? That's the kind of madness the England and Wales Cricket Board are planning to inflict on England fans in their greed for cash.
Equal opportunity: Lord MacLaurin is a supporter of terrestrial TV
The Daily Telegraph revealed exclusively last week that, from 2006, there will be no live cricket on terrestrial television until mid-July. Channel 4's live coverage will be cut by half and they will be left with just the second Test series of the summer, at best just 25 days of cricket out of five months of the season. Sky Sports will have everything else - the first Test of the summer, one-day internationals, domestic and international Twenty20 and all county action.
The leaking of information about the deal has infuriated the leader of the ECB's negotiating team, Somerset chairman Giles Clarke. He refused to comment on the details obtained by The Daily Telegraph but offered this terse statement: "The ECB have an open tender process which they are carrying out for their TV, radio and new media rights. Those processes are ongoing. No decisions have been reached."
Lord MacLaurin, the former ECB chairman, has claimed that giving Sky the lion's share of coverage would break a gentleman's agreement he made in 1998 with the then Culture Secretary, Chris Smith. To reap more revenue from cricket's TV rights, MacLaurin persuaded Smith to move cricket from the 'Crown Jewels' A-list to the B-list, opening the way for Test matches to be sold to satellite TV. In return, MacLaurin promised Smith that coverage would be shared equally.
Smith, now a Labour backbencher, said: "At the time we encouraged the ECB to keep as much on terrestrial as possible. We expressed the hope that while opening it up to competition, it would nonetheless go substantially to terrestrial television so everyone could see it."
Clarke refused to comment on the Smith-MacLaurin pact and insisted the board were conducting negotiations within broadcasting rules: "The ECB are following the legislation and the legislative requirements laid down by Parliament and, in certain areas, by the European Union." The broadcast deal for 2006-09 will be more complex than in the past and include lucrative internet and mobile phone rights. Clarke said the complexity of negotiations could delay a final decision until February.
Whenever it is struck, it will be a multi-million pound deal. The previous three-year contract was worth ?147 million and some analysts believed the ECB were lucky to get that much. The counties get ?1.3 million every year from ECB, so there is great motivation to drive a hard bargain. More money from TV means more money for the counties. One source claimed Clarke was determined to secure a "big trophy" by signing the biggest TV deal in English cricket.
Clarke said: "As it's not just me, but a variety of people who will review the final positions that we reach, I don't see it as having anything to do with any individual's personality whatsoever."
The hunger for cash has priced terrestrial TV out of the market. Channel 4 were thwarted when they realised the ECB had put what amounted to a ?3 million price tag on each Test match. The channel still wanted to be the Test match channel, but ?21 million per year for all the summer Test matches was beyond their budget and they could bid only for the four or five Tests in the latter half of the season.
At one meeting, a Channel 4 executive was apparently told that they needed cricket more than cricket needed Channel 4 - a dangerously arrogant stance to take. Cricket would do well to remember what happened to other sports which sold out to satellite television. Remember boxing, that once popular sport we used to watch on ITV and BBC Sports-night? Here are some ratings statistics to ponder. Chris Eubank and Nigel Benn on ITV - audience: 10 million. Frank Bruno v Mike Tyson on Sky: 600,000. England Five Nations rugby, as it was then, also lost is mass appeal on Sky and did not waste much time returning to the BBC. Channel 4's typical audience for a Test match is around a million, rising to three million if England are doing well. Average audiences for Tests on the BBC in 1997-98 were between 1.7 and 1.9 million. Sky refused to reveal their Test viewing figures.
In Australia, all home Tests and one-day internationals are broadcast on free-to-air TV and many believe that has fuelled the game's popularity.
Tony Greig, the former England captain who commentates for Channel 9 in Australia, believes the ECB's broadcasting policy is flawed: "There is little doubt in my mind if free-to-air television doesn't cover all the Tests, one-day internationals and Twenty20 matches in England, it is only a question of time before interest in cricket starts to fade. The cornerstone of Australia's success is the partnership Cricket Australia has with free-to-air television. At the expense of a few extra bucks for the counties, the ECB should ensure that free-to-air have live coverage of Tests and one-day internationals."
What is not in dispute is Sky's ability to cover cricket. The company have led the way in creativity and Sky were first to broadcast regular live pictures of England's overseas tours. More cricket would be good business for Sky and the plain economic fact is that if Sky want something they have the money to pay for it. Until now, Premiership football has driven the satellite market, but sales of dishes have slowed and cricket could attract more subscribers.
Around 7.4 million homes in Britain have satellite TV, but Sky's prices are still beyond some people's pockets. Sports packages, including cricket, cost between ?26.50 and ?33 a month, with pay-per-view games costing an extra ?6 to ?7. Cricket clubs wanting Sky in the clubhouse have to pay the yearly business rate of ?2,735.40.
Paul Wojda, chairman of Whitchurch, a thriving cricket club who host the Shropshire versus Hampshire C&G Trophy fixture in May, said: "It's a hard job promoting cricket and it's short-sighted of the ECB to cut terrestrial coverage. We can't afford to pay for Sky at our club, and how are we going to explain to the kids that there's no cricket on their ordinary telly until July?"
With the success of the England team the ECB now have a more valuable product, and the board clearly have a responsibility to safeguard revenue from TV rights. But they also have a greater responsibility to protect the future of the game. That should not be compromised for short-term financial gain. Cricket, despite football's incursion, is the nation's summer sport and fans shouldn't have to wait until summer is nearly over to watch it on terrestrial TV.
It is probably too late to prick the conscience of cricket's money-grabbing decision-makers, but cricket risks paying a very high price if it sells out to satellite.
Can you imagine walking into a theatre and watching Hamlet from Act 4, or playing only side two of The Beatles' Sgt Pepper? That's the kind of madness the England and Wales Cricket Board are planning to inflict on England fans in their greed for cash.
Equal opportunity: Lord MacLaurin is a supporter of terrestrial TV
The Daily Telegraph revealed exclusively last week that, from 2006, there will be no live cricket on terrestrial television until mid-July. Channel 4's live coverage will be cut by half and they will be left with just the second Test series of the summer, at best just 25 days of cricket out of five months of the season. Sky Sports will have everything else - the first Test of the summer, one-day internationals, domestic and international Twenty20 and all county action.
The leaking of information about the deal has infuriated the leader of the ECB's negotiating team, Somerset chairman Giles Clarke. He refused to comment on the details obtained by The Daily Telegraph but offered this terse statement: "The ECB have an open tender process which they are carrying out for their TV, radio and new media rights. Those processes are ongoing. No decisions have been reached."
Lord MacLaurin, the former ECB chairman, has claimed that giving Sky the lion's share of coverage would break a gentleman's agreement he made in 1998 with the then Culture Secretary, Chris Smith. To reap more revenue from cricket's TV rights, MacLaurin persuaded Smith to move cricket from the 'Crown Jewels' A-list to the B-list, opening the way for Test matches to be sold to satellite TV. In return, MacLaurin promised Smith that coverage would be shared equally.
Smith, now a Labour backbencher, said: "At the time we encouraged the ECB to keep as much on terrestrial as possible. We expressed the hope that while opening it up to competition, it would nonetheless go substantially to terrestrial television so everyone could see it."
Clarke refused to comment on the Smith-MacLaurin pact and insisted the board were conducting negotiations within broadcasting rules: "The ECB are following the legislation and the legislative requirements laid down by Parliament and, in certain areas, by the European Union." The broadcast deal for 2006-09 will be more complex than in the past and include lucrative internet and mobile phone rights. Clarke said the complexity of negotiations could delay a final decision until February.
Whenever it is struck, it will be a multi-million pound deal. The previous three-year contract was worth ?147 million and some analysts believed the ECB were lucky to get that much. The counties get ?1.3 million every year from ECB, so there is great motivation to drive a hard bargain. More money from TV means more money for the counties. One source claimed Clarke was determined to secure a "big trophy" by signing the biggest TV deal in English cricket.
Clarke said: "As it's not just me, but a variety of people who will review the final positions that we reach, I don't see it as having anything to do with any individual's personality whatsoever."
The hunger for cash has priced terrestrial TV out of the market. Channel 4 were thwarted when they realised the ECB had put what amounted to a ?3 million price tag on each Test match. The channel still wanted to be the Test match channel, but ?21 million per year for all the summer Test matches was beyond their budget and they could bid only for the four or five Tests in the latter half of the season.
At one meeting, a Channel 4 executive was apparently told that they needed cricket more than cricket needed Channel 4 - a dangerously arrogant stance to take. Cricket would do well to remember what happened to other sports which sold out to satellite television. Remember boxing, that once popular sport we used to watch on ITV and BBC Sports-night? Here are some ratings statistics to ponder. Chris Eubank and Nigel Benn on ITV - audience: 10 million. Frank Bruno v Mike Tyson on Sky: 600,000. England Five Nations rugby, as it was then, also lost is mass appeal on Sky and did not waste much time returning to the BBC. Channel 4's typical audience for a Test match is around a million, rising to three million if England are doing well. Average audiences for Tests on the BBC in 1997-98 were between 1.7 and 1.9 million. Sky refused to reveal their Test viewing figures.
In Australia, all home Tests and one-day internationals are broadcast on free-to-air TV and many believe that has fuelled the game's popularity.
Tony Greig, the former England captain who commentates for Channel 9 in Australia, believes the ECB's broadcasting policy is flawed: "There is little doubt in my mind if free-to-air television doesn't cover all the Tests, one-day internationals and Twenty20 matches in England, it is only a question of time before interest in cricket starts to fade. The cornerstone of Australia's success is the partnership Cricket Australia has with free-to-air television. At the expense of a few extra bucks for the counties, the ECB should ensure that free-to-air have live coverage of Tests and one-day internationals."
What is not in dispute is Sky's ability to cover cricket. The company have led the way in creativity and Sky were first to broadcast regular live pictures of England's overseas tours. More cricket would be good business for Sky and the plain economic fact is that if Sky want something they have the money to pay for it. Until now, Premiership football has driven the satellite market, but sales of dishes have slowed and cricket could attract more subscribers.
Around 7.4 million homes in Britain have satellite TV, but Sky's prices are still beyond some people's pockets. Sports packages, including cricket, cost between ?26.50 and ?33 a month, with pay-per-view games costing an extra ?6 to ?7. Cricket clubs wanting Sky in the clubhouse have to pay the yearly business rate of ?2,735.40.
Paul Wojda, chairman of Whitchurch, a thriving cricket club who host the Shropshire versus Hampshire C&G Trophy fixture in May, said: "It's a hard job promoting cricket and it's short-sighted of the ECB to cut terrestrial coverage. We can't afford to pay for Sky at our club, and how are we going to explain to the kids that there's no cricket on their ordinary telly until July?"
With the success of the England team the ECB now have a more valuable product, and the board clearly have a responsibility to safeguard revenue from TV rights. But they also have a greater responsibility to protect the future of the game. That should not be compromised for short-term financial gain. Cricket, despite football's incursion, is the nation's summer sport and fans shouldn't have to wait until summer is nearly over to watch it on terrestrial TV.
It is probably too late to prick the conscience of cricket's money-grabbing decision-makers, but cricket risks paying a very high price if it sells out to satellite.
sachinisgod
International Cricketer
well - if Indian team is playing outside India we cannot watch it here for free...the only advantage here is that perhaps the prices are not that steep...it amounts to about 6 $(US) per month...for about 100 channels that include almost all sports channels available in Asia...if something's on C-9 or C-4 or Sky it will be bought by ESPN Star and telecast here...works out pretty well...
Similar threads
