keepcricketfree.com

[puddleduck]

Yes obviously Kev. The point I was making was that say you had 300-400,000 cricket fans watching Eng v Bangladesh last year, and you lose 100,000 of those due to Sky having the rights.

Due to the fact England were winning comfortably, you gain another 300,000 "fans" who tune in to see what was essentially one day cricket played over 3 days. Being the leadup to the Ashes, I am basically saying it was not massively surprising to see the viewing figures drop so alarmingly, albeit a worrying sign and feasibly detrimental to the future of cricket in this country. A chance was provided to the ECB to give cricket a much needed shot in the arm and gain an increase in youth players, unfortunately that seems to have been passed up much like any Lbw decision by Daryl Hair when the batsman gets on the front foot

 

[Kev]

Sorry puddleduck, my post was aimed at sureshot's last post not yours

 

[Sureshot]

Firstly, I'd much rather watch a decent match than a one sided affair and Secondly why would they release low figures if they weren't accurate, it doesnt exactly strengthen sky's position.

Oh Sky released those figures, thought it was an estimate by an un-Sky company.

Are these figures for each day? or a test aggregate, series aggregate or what?

 

[Stephen Bailey]

Oh Sky released those figures, thought it was an estimate by an un-Sky company.

Are these figures for each day? or a test aggregate, series aggregate or what?

I suspect it will be an average, although the most viewers they got at Lord's was just over 100,000....

 

[FreddieFan]

Very promising news, fingers crossed I will be able to watch some cricket in my extended summer holiday when my exams finish!

 

[Sureshot]

Not really, you may want it back on terrestrial and indeed it should be, but that means the ECB lose alot of money, of which the grass roots suffers from.

Tbh, I'm lucky enough to have SkySports, so I'm not massively bothered either way. Each side has a good case imo.

Sky - reduced viewing figures but alot more money.

C4 - More viewers but less money.

 

[Stephen Bailey]

Not really, you may want it back on terrestrial and indeed it should be, but that means the ECB lose alot of money, of which the grass roots suffers from.

Tbh, I'm lucky enough to have SkySports, so I'm not massively bothered either way. Each side has a good case imo.

Sky - reduced viewing figures but alot more money.

C4 - More viewers but less money.

I think the plan is to refund Sky/ECB the money that they would lose from losing the exclusivity. Also, if anyone will cover cricket live this summer apart from Sky, it's likely to be the BBC. They are the only ones that have shown an interest in it. Channel 4 simply can't afford it, they lost money on cricket every year they had it, except for last year I'd imagine.

 

[Sureshot]

You mean they might actually show some quality programming with our TV License money?

 

[Stephen Bailey]

You mean they might actually show some quality programming with our TV License money?

Scary thought, isn't it?

But yes, they are the most likely and with them already covering World Cup highlights, they are involved if you like!

 

[Kev]

You mean they might actually show some quality programming with our TV License money?

Yeah and for Quality programming you look to Sky do you? Apart from Sports (Which makes itself)
exactly what quality programming is made by Sky? Looks to me like they just buy in rubbish, charge you for it, then add in adverts on top

 

[Sureshot]

Did I ever mention sky with quality programming, Kev?

Nope, thought not.

 

[James219]

Gosh, it's appalling that cricket isn't on FTA television for you guys. Exclusive rights for Pay TV may produce more revenue for the ECB, but if the younger generations don't develop an interest in the game or a cricketing culture, whatever they pump into grassroots cricket will come to no avail. Fred Trueman's parents weren't cricket followers, and just by observing and gradually appreciating the game on television, he began to develop a strong attachment to it, and the rest is history.
Even though it was raised in 2004- meaning pre-Ashes 2005- I can't see the logic behind scrapping it, especially after the country was so captivated by the heroic victory over Australia- surely that would've been a good platform for the initiation of a new nation-wide cricketing campaign, seeing as so many new faces were becoming familiar with the sport?
The return Ashes series over here would've been a great way to contest with football in the UK, too.
I wouldn't know what to do if Nine ever lost the rights...

 

[Sureshot]

Sky had already won the rights before the Ashes last year.

FTA is probably needed in reality.

 

[James219]

Oh, ok, so I suppose they couldn't actually oppose it post-Ashes? By the way, would there be any chance of FTA gaining them before the contract expires?

 

[Stephen Bailey]

Oh, ok, so I suppose they couldn't actually oppose it post-Ashes? By the way, would there be any chance of FTA gaining them before the contract expires?

Not regaining full coverage, but possibly some. If all goes to plan, then I think the last test against Pakistan will get some coverage. After that I don't know.