Message Board - Cricket: will move back to terrestial TV affect funding to grassroots?
13 Nov 2009 by barry glynn
The news that Ashes etc may move back to terresstial tv made me think about the above.
Personally, I would have Sky anyway so would be able to watch it anyway. I also think the coverage etc has improved tremendously since it has been on Sky and that if you go back to when the BC had it and if it had stayed with them, nothing much would have changed or iproved inn that direction.
On the other hand, the audience that cricket can be reached is reduced if it stays on Sky.
But pointing my groundsmans and cricket club man hat on, anything that that can reduce funds to grassroots is not good. So overall, if the ECB would gget less and therefore reduce the mon ies coming into grassroots, I would prefer it to stay with Sky. I am not actually sure what audience may be missing out anyway currently
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
13 Nov 2009 by DPC
The way I would look at is that:
The money that the ECB earn from selling the rights to Sky helps fund grass roots cricket
to pay coaches etc. etc.
There's no point having all these coaches if there isn't a huge demand for cricket amongst kids.
Terestrial Cricket will bring cricket to the masses and be the greatest publicity you could get to promote cricket.
After the '05 Ashes my club had a noticable increase in the number of new kids & adults taking up cricket.
You can't buy that kind of publicity.
It's only going to be 5 Tests and it's not until 2017 so surely Sky will still have enough of the share to make a significant payment to help fund grass roots cricket??
13 Nov 2009 by barry glynn
I think the reason 05 brought an influx of interest was that England actually won! Plus it was an exciting series and a ridiculus amount of hype after (Trafalger square etc)
The monies actually dont pay for a lot of coaching anyway. The vast majority of clubs have to pay for their coaches to be taught and then the coaches work for nothing within their clubs.
But monies are available and have helped clubs with obtaining machinery and help towards new pavilions etc.
Whilst obtaining grants is still riddled with red tape and can be very lengthy and invvolved, anything that would reduce the amounts available, imo, is not a good idea.
Also, are there really that many families that dont have Sky? Maybe there are, I m not sure.
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
13 Nov 2009 by jontaylor
I don't have Sky, nor do several of my club mates. But perhaps I'm just a tight luddite who thinks an annual fee of over £800 pre-tax is too much to spend on televised sport (I already have 50+ channels on freeview and only about 10 ever get watched)
My club is too "grass roots" to get any ECB funding.
Perhaps if ECB didn't have Rupert's millions they would reduce waste and find other ways to raise money.
I am sure that making exciting cricket available to all would increase grass roots interest.
The ciderman rolls
13 Nov 2009 by barry glynn
Jon
As I said, I dont know what the figures are and it is true that a lot of whats on Sky is a pile of dung.( not that BBC etc are better)
Unfortunately,putting your faith in the ECB finding other ways of raising money is, I think, a waste of time.
Anyway, it probably wont happen anyway.
You make a decent point about being too grassroots, I suppose there is only a certain amount of money inn the pot but what level your club plays at should not make any difference imo as to if you can get any fundinng or nnot.
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
13 Nov 2009 by Minormorris64
And lets face it how many cricket 'supporters' will be bothered 2 hoots if dare I say it, England LOSE the next home Ashes series............all the hype drives me absolutely crackers.
My personal opinion is that ALL home test matches should be on fee to view TV, not just the 'trendy' while Engalnd win 'Ashes'.
What goes around, comes around
13 Nov 2009 by barry glynn
Minor
The hype is nothing compared to the cr*p we have to endure with football. Anything that gives cricket some PR is ok by me.
I would prefer if all the Test matches were on free to view but my point was that at what expense to funding that might be.
It wouldnt take much for the ECB to reduce funding to club cricket if they could find an excuse to so.
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
13 Nov 2009 by paul kelsey
Barry
you waiting for a grant now you have the untouchable clubmark
13 Nov 2009 by barry glynn
Paul
Trying but Im certainly not holding my breath.
Im not an admin man though, more of an instigator 
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
13 Nov 2009 by jlawrence
Good to see I'm going to get something for that TAX I have to pay for owning a TV.
Free to view - erm, when I was a school, free didn't mean you had to pay whether you wanted to or not. I have to pay a tax for owning a TV and now because the powers that be have decided I also would have to pay for a digi-decoder if I didn't have one. As you might have guessed it bug's the **** out of me - I choose to have sky, I don't get a choice in the BBC. Given the choice I might well choose to pay, but I resent not being given the choice.
Nothing to do with this discussion I know, but it's time the BBC had to stand or fall on their own feet.
Free market economy my 4rse.
I doubt very much that the government will make up any shortfall in funding created by their decisions - nowt new there then.
Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.
14 Nov 2009 by barry glynn
Well Jon
btw, it aint half slashing down, so much for thinking about doing some spiking with my old Patterson, it would look like the Somme if I tried now!
Cant remember what the TV licence is now but suspect we could all easily afford to pay for whatever we wanted to look at if we didnt have to pay it.
I do thiink it will affect monies coming or not coming as it is into cricket. Think we will have to push really hard to get grants in the next couple of years. Any organisation funding the public will do anything it can to hold onto its empire of paper shufflers when the money gets tighter, so funding will be affected if it goes through. Funding has been much better in recent years due to the increased monies the ECB have got from Sky.
Mind you, the Tories may reverse the idea of taking it off Sky if they get in.
I agree the BBc should stand on on its own feet but historically it has never done that. Ok I am biased because I am a sport nut but to me they seem to spend fortunes on making period dramas when no one wants to to watch them.
Adverts do drive me nuts though.
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
14 Nov 2009 by jlawrence
I really don't mind what the BBC spend money on but they should have to raise that money the same way as all the other companies.
Unfortunately, It's not the only business arena within this country where it simply isn't a level playing field.
Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.
14 Nov 2009 by pacman75cricket
Concern would be that funding would be cut to grass roots cricket as counties keep paying for kolpak players.
We should be developing players for counties/test side.
14 Nov 2009 by barry glynn
Very true pacman aand whats makes that even more likely is that in some counties, the county holds the purse strings for monies from ECB and passes them down to grassroots or not as may be.
One county, 2 seasons ago, paid 20k for an over the hill ex-test fast bowler for 3 games, he took one wicket.
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
15 Nov 2009 by Aladdin
JL,
You appear to be under a misapprehension. You don't have to pay a tax for owning a TV. It is required to receive or record broadcasts as they are transmitted.
You wouldn't believe the hassle you get if you don't have a TV Licence, legally or not.
Anyway, sorry to go off topic but this is something I have an interest in.
Dunno about the cricket side of things but, it seems to me, that things are made as difficult as possible for grass roots football clubs.
For example, I recently became aware that the Football Foundation will not fund floodlights for Step 7 Clubs but will for Step 6.
What does a Step 7 Club need to be eligible for Step 6? 
From the posh end of the room!!
15 Nov 2009 by vid
Its a difficult balance - there is no doubt incomes from Sky are the highest available - will the BBC, ITV or 4 offer as much once they know it will have to be screened by one of them - I doubt it. So it will be a case of reckoning whether being viewed by more people will be more lucrative than being paid for by less viewers. I would like to think that because it is watched by more people more people will want to pay - however I dont think that holds upin reality. More people being interested does not necessarily mean more income - in fact unless government funding is available the opposite is probably true where there is a bigger demand on the next to free introduction to the game offered by most clubs and counties
15 Nov 2009 by barry glynn
The majority of ECB income seems to go into the pro game to the counties, approx, 2million to each county I believe. If income was reduced by BBC getting back some of the cricket at a reduced rate( because that would be what would happen), then I doubt very much if the couunties would recieve much less. As has been said, the counties will still be able to spend it on mediocre Kolpak players rather than invest in developing home grown talent.
Government funding to sports will always be cr*p and to cricket even worse. With the mess the economy is in, there is zero chance of that changing.
Football stands more of a chance because it requires less investment to helps kids and is more popular with the masses, just look at the back pages of the Sun, even in the summer and 5 million people "read" that comic every day.
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
15 Nov 2009 by jlawrence
Aladin, you supposedly have to have a license for having the ability to receive the broadcasts whether or not you actually watch them is irrelevant - so effectively you are paying for owning tv receiption equipment.
As to the original topic, It'll be interesting to see if the BBC et al are forced to pay a going rate for the sports that they are (via the government) force-ably removing from the competitive market place.
Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.
24 Nov 2009 by paul.
All
D P C for president!
Will 2017 be too late, lets not forget the game in this country was on its backside before those amazing ashes!
Giles Clark might not have a job without channel four and that series.
It all seems much the same as selling lords,
Money is very often long term, not best!
24 Nov 2009 by Aladdin Last edited 24 Nov 2009
Not so JL.
Check out Rudd v. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 1987 in which the Law Lords ruled on the difference between "use" and "has available for use"
Apologies for going off topic.
From the posh end of the room!!
Back to Top - Go to Next Unread Message
This Message is closed, you may not post a reply at this time
