Originally Posted by
Bhaveshgor:
“very good deal for CA, also CA have got a 25% increase on it's ESPN Star Sports deal.
they paid 1,100 crore Ruppes.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/...cle2698092.ece
which is about $194,432,169 for 5 years
If I am right in thinking this is the first time CA have got more money from Channel 9 and it's domestic cricket, compared to its deal with Espn Star Sports.
for years Cricket Australia have been using overseas rights, to fund having cricket on Channel 9 and in FTA.
Although the bad news is that Channel 9 will be making serious losses to show cricket, and they will be making cuts to their comm team, the channel 9 coverage might even get worse.”
Originally Posted by Bhaveshgor:
“Alex do you know how much Sky pays for england internationals.
found this odd tweet by Nick hoult
Channel 9 only spends $80 million a year for the rights, I swear Sky pays way more then that and the fact they got a similar deal for ESPN Star Sports mean ECB is getting far more for it's rights, In reality Cricket Australia were losing money by being forced to sell to an FTA broadcaster.
if the converter is right Channel 9 are paying £52 million a year, which is 3 times as much as before.
I might be wrong but don't ECB get around 80-90M each year from Sky.
And why would ECB be watching with interest, they already signed a long term contract, by the time it expires or the tender gets released, BT might not even be interested on the rights, none of the FTA channel will be interested on cricket.”
I'll do my best here.......although I can already see the misconceptions floating about on Twitter
When the latest ECB deal was announced it was reported that Sky paid in the region of £260 million, which works out at approx £65 million a year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cri...TV-rights.html
In it's latest deal CA will be getting AU$100 million a year combined, which works out at about £63 million, so in that respect CA are getting just under what the ECB do a year currently.
Interestingly there's a piece in The Age which says that for their dollar, Nine will get a heavy say in scheduling. It uses the example of Perth hosting first tests as it provides a prime-time lead in to the rest of the summer.
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/crick...603-2nm9w.html
It is important to establish though that in comparison to over here, sports rights in Australia are generally accepted as loss making anyway. I was surprised when I first heard a discussion about this, but the value over there is in the market position they establish for the channel and the subsequent advertising/sponsorship portfolio that brings in for primetime schedules etc.
It's also important to establish that Network Ten threw a whole monetary war chest at this. They've lost AFL rights, missed out on NRL rights and currently their only sport of value is the upcoming Lions series and possibly the next Commonwealth Games. If they missed out on some form of cricket rights they would have been left in the sporting wilderness.
Contrary to what some are saying on Twitter the amount Ten are spending on the Big Bash has little to do with the value of the competition and a comparison to any T20 League here would be false.
While I'm sure the ECB would like competiton, given the rights they are already accumulating it is highly unlikely BT would be able to spend anywhere near the amount of money required to worry Sky in the way Network Ten have