Big bash is aimed at the general population not just die hard cricket fans and it seems to be paying off in Aus. some of the 40k+ crowds are testament to that.
Sky Sports Cricket Coverage 2016
6 of 69
Originally Posted by Cricketblade:
“Big bash is aimed at the general population not just die hard cricket fans and it seems to be paying off in Aus. some of the 40k+ crowds are testament to that.”
“Big bash is aimed at the general population not just die hard cricket fans and it seems to be paying off in Aus. some of the 40k+ crowds are testament to that.”
A lot of the games have been over Christmas and new year period when many people are off school and work so they can attend the games..
Interesting Sale mentions whether Gower will have his contract renewed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...oadcaster.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...oadcaster.html
Originally Posted by Bhaveshgor:
“Interesting Sale mentions whether Gower will have his contract renewed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...oadcaster.html”
“Interesting Sale mentions whether Gower will have his contract renewed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...oadcaster.html”
Don't know why. And why is he making such a big thing about presentation being in the UK? Nothing new there.
Originally Posted by derek500:
“Don't know why. And why is he making such a big thing about presentation being in the UK? Nothing new there.”
“Don't know why. And why is he making such a big thing about presentation being in the UK? Nothing new there.”
It is the first time it's been done from the UK for a South Africa tour.
Originally Posted by Nova21:
“A lot of the games have been over Christmas and new year period when many people are off school and work so they can attend the games..”
“A lot of the games have been over Christmas and new year period when many people are off school and work so they can attend the games..”
Also, Australia's populations are already more concentrated in the big cities, and their affiliations are already with the city they live in, whereas in England, population is more spread out and doesn't have a cricketing affiliation with a city.
Originally Posted by derek500:
“Don't know why. And why is he making such a big thing about presentation being in the UK? Nothing new there.”
“Don't know why. And why is he making such a big thing about presentation being in the UK? Nothing new there.”
I know lol
from my knowledge world cups, England tours to india 06,08 and 2012 from the studio.
All pakistan tours have been covered from the studio
All sri lanka tours barring that odi last year from the studio
NZ have also been done from the studio.
if he wanted to make a fuss, the skype part is valid.
that the only difference I can see between cut Sky and the old sky.
Also the studio overseas/having the full comms overseas isn't the expensive part, the expensive part is getting the pictures back in the uk.
if they could find a cheap way of getting the pictures back in the UK, they would send the full comm overseas.
I'm a huge fan of the way Channel Ten have produced their Big Bash coverage. Flintoff is the biggest weak link by far but the rest of the team have a good natural chemistry, Mark Howard straddles the line of professionally calling the game for the cricket purists and for the casual fan perfectly. It wouldn't work for Test or ODI but for the domestic game, knowing your audience, he nails it. I also think Junior, Punter, Gilly all know what they are talking about but have fun at the same time. Not as keen on Flem but overall I think they've nailed it. I rarely see the games live but will watch the afternoon or evening repeat and find it genuinely enjoyable.
Mark Butcher has been excellent on the verdict and is a standout on Sky's domestic coverage.
They need to get him into the international comm box or surely BT will poach him?
They need to get him into the international comm box or surely BT will poach him?
Some things the ECB might want to consider when renegotiating the TV deal.
The ECB turns over £123m a year of which £65m is from sky, roughly £130k a game.
To watch televised cricket in England costs approx £540 a year, The majority of games go untelevised.
There is no internet subscription available. You get about 50 games per year in the UK, so the cricket fan pays around £10 per game.
Cricket Australia, a country with a third of the population, turns over £180m a year, of which half is in tv revenues from FTA broadcasters (channels 9 and 10). This works out at around £1m per game they are given the rights to.
To watch televised cricket in Australia costs nothing. You can buy an internet subscription for £10 a year, although this doesn’t provide access to every domestic game. Still, the average cost per game to the fan is around 20p per game.
The MLB ( a similar sport, and probably the best run of the 3) has annual tv revenues of over £ 5 billion. That’s not a typo. 5 billion. This grants various companies the exclusive right to show certain games. Most games of the 2500 played are sold, giving approximate revenues of £2m per game.
The USA has a population 5 times that of the UK, but the MLB has a turnover 43 times that of the ECB.
To watch baseball in the USA is virtually free, because the vast majority of games are shown on a basic tv package of about £5 a month.
To get access to all 2,500 games, an annual internet subscription of £50 is available. This works out as 2p per game.
In England: sky pays £130k per game, charge fans £10 per game.
In Australia: tv channels pay £1m per game, charge fans 20p per game.
In USA, tv channels pay £2m per game, charge fans 2p per game.
(I saw this in the comments of a cricket blog, so I'm taking its accuracy for granted)
The ECB turns over £123m a year of which £65m is from sky, roughly £130k a game.
To watch televised cricket in England costs approx £540 a year, The majority of games go untelevised.
There is no internet subscription available. You get about 50 games per year in the UK, so the cricket fan pays around £10 per game.
Cricket Australia, a country with a third of the population, turns over £180m a year, of which half is in tv revenues from FTA broadcasters (channels 9 and 10). This works out at around £1m per game they are given the rights to.
To watch televised cricket in Australia costs nothing. You can buy an internet subscription for £10 a year, although this doesn’t provide access to every domestic game. Still, the average cost per game to the fan is around 20p per game.
The MLB ( a similar sport, and probably the best run of the 3) has annual tv revenues of over £ 5 billion. That’s not a typo. 5 billion. This grants various companies the exclusive right to show certain games. Most games of the 2500 played are sold, giving approximate revenues of £2m per game.
The USA has a population 5 times that of the UK, but the MLB has a turnover 43 times that of the ECB.
To watch baseball in the USA is virtually free, because the vast majority of games are shown on a basic tv package of about £5 a month.
To get access to all 2,500 games, an annual internet subscription of £50 is available. This works out as 2p per game.
In England: sky pays £130k per game, charge fans £10 per game.
In Australia: tv channels pay £1m per game, charge fans 20p per game.
In USA, tv channels pay £2m per game, charge fans 2p per game.
(I saw this in the comments of a cricket blog, so I'm taking its accuracy for granted)
Figure are not right + misleading.
Channel 9 only shows internationals + forced to show domestic one day stuff and I believe CA gives them money for it.
Sky figures include domestic games.
Channel 9 only shows internationals + forced to show domestic one day stuff and I believe CA gives them money for it.
Sky figures include domestic games.
Sky roughly shows 20 international games a year so that works out roughly 3.15 M per game.
although actually sky pays far more for the Test matches wouldn't surprise me if the test cost Sky 4 or 5 million each.
So if you are to break it up I would say the rights packages go like this.
35M Test
20-25M Odi
5-10M domestic/Women and any other cricket matches included in the ECB deal.
although actually sky pays far more for the Test matches wouldn't surprise me if the test cost Sky 4 or 5 million each.
So if you are to break it up I would say the rights packages go like this.
35M Test
20-25M Odi
5-10M domestic/Women and any other cricket matches included in the ECB deal.
35m for tests. I wonder what the value is they put on the ashes.
I'm convinced the way forward is for the ECB to separate the rights and invite bids for the following.
The Ashes.
The 2nd touring team of the summer (tests)
The 1st touring team of the summer (tests)
ODIs
The T20 competition.
County cricket
Women's cricket.
I'm convinced the way forward is for the ECB to separate the rights and invite bids for the following.
The Ashes.
The 2nd touring team of the summer (tests)
The 1st touring team of the summer (tests)
ODIs
The T20 competition.
County cricket
Women's cricket.
Only an estimation that figure.
but around 2009 when Labour were making plans to add Home ashes in the list, ECB said it could lose 50% of the value of the tv rights if that happened which is probably Sky saying their will be paying less.
I highly doubt they would try those tactics now so I can't see the value of the rights dropping if the Ashes were forced to be FTA.
No one really knows how the rights are packaged, ECB said the last rights had 35 media packs and no one has ever seen the tender or even listed the possible packages to confirm or disprove that rumer.
Guessing the packages include certain time slot highlights, Each individual test matches, each individual odi match etc.
ECB packages system were crap they need to create a perfect package system if they want the most money.
probably explain why no FTA even bothered to send a bid for any live games and only channel 5 bothered to bid for the highlights.
but around 2009 when Labour were making plans to add Home ashes in the list, ECB said it could lose 50% of the value of the tv rights if that happened which is probably Sky saying their will be paying less.
I highly doubt they would try those tactics now so I can't see the value of the rights dropping if the Ashes were forced to be FTA.
No one really knows how the rights are packaged, ECB said the last rights had 35 media packs and no one has ever seen the tender or even listed the possible packages to confirm or disprove that rumer.
Guessing the packages include certain time slot highlights, Each individual test matches, each individual odi match etc.
ECB packages system were crap they need to create a perfect package system if they want the most money.
probably explain why no FTA even bothered to send a bid for any live games and only channel 5 bothered to bid for the highlights.
A post from Alex2606 on an old thread, relating to the prices paid
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Bhaveshgor:
“Only an estimation that figure.
but around 2009 when Labour were making plans to add Home ashes in the list, ECB said it could lose 50% of his right if that happened which is probably Sky saying their will be paying less.
I highly doubt they would try those tactics now so I can't see the value of the rights dropping if the Ashes were forced to be FTA.
No one really knows how the rights are packaged, ECB said the last rights had 35 media packs and no one has ever seen the tender or even listed the possible packages to confirm or disprove that rumer.
Guessing the packages include certain time slot highlights, Each individual test matches, each individual odi match etc.
ECB packages system were crap they need to create a perfect package system if they want the most money.
probably explain why no FTA even bothered to send a bid for any live games and only channel 5 bothered to bid for the highlights.”
“Only an estimation that figure.
but around 2009 when Labour were making plans to add Home ashes in the list, ECB said it could lose 50% of his right if that happened which is probably Sky saying their will be paying less.
I highly doubt they would try those tactics now so I can't see the value of the rights dropping if the Ashes were forced to be FTA.
No one really knows how the rights are packaged, ECB said the last rights had 35 media packs and no one has ever seen the tender or even listed the possible packages to confirm or disprove that rumer.
Guessing the packages include certain time slot highlights, Each individual test matches, each individual odi match etc.
ECB packages system were crap they need to create a perfect package system if they want the most money.
probably explain why no FTA even bothered to send a bid for any live games and only channel 5 bothered to bid for the highlights.”
Yes because if that is true its a mess. 35 packages is too much to digest let alone decide which ones are winnable and then marketable.
The £65m per year Sky figure is 2014/17.
Sky has subsequently exercised an option on 2018/19 - I haven't seen any reports on the price for those years - it's likely to be quite a bit higher.
How does CA have a much higher turnover than ECB despite earning less from TV rights? Are these numbers definitely correct? Even if they are, are they actually directly comparable?
eg does CA get all gate receipts whereas here gate receipts belong to counties who then pay staging fees?
Sky has subsequently exercised an option on 2018/19 - I haven't seen any reports on the price for those years - it's likely to be quite a bit higher.
How does CA have a much higher turnover than ECB despite earning less from TV rights? Are these numbers definitely correct? Even if they are, are they actually directly comparable?
eg does CA get all gate receipts whereas here gate receipts belong to counties who then pay staging fees?
Originally Posted by Neil_Harris:
“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.”
“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.”
No it doesn't.
£1 = AUS$2.09
So AUS$100m = £48m
Also do you have source for the AUS$100m figure - the years it relates to, plus dates contracts signed.
Sky deal for 2014/17 was signed back in January 2012 - before BT entered the market, at time of very low competition. So not comparable. Competitive auction now would generate far, far, far more than £65m per year.
Originally Posted by Neil_Harris:
“Cricket Australia, a country with a third of the population, turns over £180m a year, of which half is in tv revenues from FTA broadcasters (channels 9 and 10).”
“Cricket Australia, a country with a third of the population, turns over £180m a year, of which half is in tv revenues from FTA broadcasters (channels 9 and 10).”
I'm afraid the above looks completely wrong.
50% of £180m is £90m yet in the later post you say TV revenue is £63m which itself should only be £48m!!!
I would also like to see a source for that £180m figure - it looks very, very high to me - I'm not sure how CA could earn £132m from sources other than TV revenue.
Originally Posted by Neil_Harris:
“Some things the ECB might want to consider when renegotiating the TV deal.”
“Some things the ECB might want to consider when renegotiating the TV deal.”
Sorry, what precisely should they be considering? I am not sure what point you are making with a a bunch of random stats with no regard for the different natures of each of the three markets.
Also, where in the US can you watch a regional sport network for £5 per month? Basic cable tiers only carry the free-to-air networks and maybe one or two cable networks such as TBS.
In most, if not all, of the US you are looking at a minimum of at least $50 per month before tax for a tier that carries RSNs.
Incidentally, £65m for 50 games would be £1.3m each, not £130k.
Originally Posted by Bhaveshgor:
“here.
http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/06/04...ket-australia/
$590 million”
“here.
http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/06/04...ket-australia/
$590 million”
Thanks a lot.
So it's AUS$590m for 5 years = AUS$118m per year = £56m per year.
Do you have a link for total CA turnover?
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“The £65m per year Sky figure is 2014/17.
Sky has subsequently exercised an option on 2018/19 - I haven't seen any reports on the price for those years - it's likely to be quite a bit higher.
How does CA have a much higher turnover than ECB despite earning less from TV rights? Are these numbers definitely correct? Even if they are, are they actually directly comparable?
eg does CA get all gate receipts whereas here gate receipts belong to counties who then pay staging fees?”
“The £65m per year Sky figure is 2014/17.
Sky has subsequently exercised an option on 2018/19 - I haven't seen any reports on the price for those years - it's likely to be quite a bit higher.
How does CA have a much higher turnover than ECB despite earning less from TV rights? Are these numbers definitely correct? Even if they are, are they actually directly comparable?
eg does CA get all gate receipts whereas here gate receipts belong to counties who then pay staging fees?”
I'd be surprised if it was much higher.
I thought the figures looked iffy, its why I brought them here to try and get peoples thoughts.
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“
50% of £180m is £90m yet in the later post you say TV revenue is £63m which itself should only be £48m!!!”
“
50% of £180m is £90m yet in the later post you say TV revenue is £63m which itself should only be £48m!!!”
To clarify. The two posts are by different people. Neither are my words.
http://annualreport.cricketaustralia...ue-net-result/
CA made a total revenue of $380 million Australian dollars although the higher percentage is due to the world cup and india visit, so isn't actually a fair comparison in the first place, since when ever India tour the revenue will be the record high.
Around $118 million of it came from Australian tv rights.
CA made a total revenue of $380 million Australian dollars although the higher percentage is due to the world cup and india visit, so isn't actually a fair comparison in the first place, since when ever India tour the revenue will be the record high.
Around $118 million of it came from Australian tv rights.
6 of 69
