Shut your eyes and think of England.

[Arthur Crabtree]

no it suggests there are a lot of bored people who wanted something more interesting to watch than Jeremy kyle or homes under the hammer

Isn't that why fta is valuable? Because it can do that.

[rich1uk]

no it suggests there are a lot of bored people who wanted something more interesting to watch than Jeremy kyle or homes under the hammer

Isn't that why fta is valuable? Because it can do that.

but at what cost ?

[Arthur Crabtree]

who says they have no exposure to it ?

isn't playing the game in schools exposure ?

isn't being able to go along to a local club exposure ?

isn't having a highlights package on FTA in prime time, as we do for home series exposure ?

what would be the point in having all these assumed masses flocking to schools or local cricket clubs to play if said schools and clubs have no money for coaches or equipment ?

Because we want people to watch.

I have no hope of this happening. Business is as likely to pump oil back into sedimentary rock as deny themselves money from subscription tv.

[Arthur Crabtree]

no it suggests there are a lot of bored people who wanted something more interesting to watch than Jeremy kyle or homes under the hammer

Isn't that why fta is valuable? Because it can do that.

but at what cost ?

The greater risk is if they don't.

[rich1uk]

the other side of this argument is having England games on FTA would potentially penalise your hard-core cricket fans

would SKY be prepared to invest the sort of money they do on coverage, on getting the rights for things like a series between NZ and SL or SA and WI if they weren't also getting the marquee home series ?

no way would FTA broadcasters pick up that slack

[rich1uk]

no it suggests there are a lot of bored people who wanted something more interesting to watch than Jeremy kyle or homes under the hammer

Isn't that why fta is valuable? Because it can do that.

but at what cost ?

The greater risk is if they don't.

you cant prove that tho

you cant prove that having cricket on FTA tv would actually increase participation more than what would be lost by not having the money to fund it in the first place

this isn't 2005 anymore , the media world has changed significantly in the last 10 years, losing the money for the ideal of FTA coverage could damage the sport more

[Dr Cricket]

this whole argument boils down to would the amount of money lost by having cricket on FTA damage the game more by not being able to fund programs like chance to shine, not being able to support counties and grass roots cricket as opposed to some romanticised notion that kids are going to pick up cricket bats and balls from being able to see cricket that they otherwise wouldn't because of it being limited to subscription TV

all of that without any real proof that having it on FTA would actually achieve that opposed to the real tangible impact the reduced funding would have

Might be wrong but the funding won't get cut if there FTA Cricket.
the only reason FTA is being mention by ECB is because unless number improve the Government will cut funding to grass root cricket.
Football,Rugby and Cricket have been threatened they could lose half or all of their funding if participation number don't improve and it is pretty much expected fund will drop in the next cycle which have been reduced every 4 years anyway because Sports England are not happy with numbers playing cricket.

FTA is the only option ECB got that will make them get number up and protect the funding from Sports England.
Sports England only care about number and results, FTA is the only one that guarantees increase numbers.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Not sure I agree. FTA makes new customers for Sky. Plenty of people who like watching a home series will find it just as enjoyable to watch a tour. Obviously, many won't be able to afford it, but that limit is always going to be there for subscription tv.

[rich1uk]

this whole argument boils down to would the amount of money lost by having cricket on FTA damage the game more by not being able to fund programs like chance to shine, not being able to support counties and grass roots cricket as opposed to some romanticised notion that kids are going to pick up cricket bats and balls from being able to see cricket that they otherwise wouldn't because of it being limited to subscription TV

all of that without any real proof that having it on FTA would actually achieve that opposed to the real tangible impact the reduced funding would have

Might be wrong but the funding won't get cut if there FTA Cricket.
the only reason FTA is being mention by ECB is because unless number improve the Government will cut funding to grass root cricket.
Football,Rugby and Cricket have been threatened they could lose half or all of their funding if participation number don't improve and it is pretty much expected fund will drop in the next cycle which have been reduced every 4 years anyway because Sports England are not happy with numbers playing cricket.

FTA is the only option ECB got that will make them get number up and protect the funding from Sports England.
Sports England only care about number and results, FTA is the only one that guarantees increase numbers.

how much money does sports England provide to cricket compared to what would be lost by the ECB if they lost the SKY money ?

blaming the changes just on no FTA completely ignores all the other multitude of reasons kids don't play sport as much now and imo its wishful thinking and naïve idealism that bring cricket back to FTA will create the surge in participation that would be needed to balance out what would be lost from the programs that the SKY money funds now

[Arthur Crabtree]

Good point Bhaves.

Money the ECB puts into grassroots cricket is overestimated.

[rich1uk]

i'm going to bow out of this argument

I cant argue against wishful thinking with facts ...

[Arthur Crabtree]

how much money does sports England provide to cricket compared to what would be lost by the ECB if they lost the SKY money ?

blaming the changes just on no FTA completely ignores all the other multitude of reasons kids don't play sport as much now and imo its wishful thinking and naïve idealism that bring cricket back to FTA will create the surge in participation that would be needed to balance out what would be lost from the programs that the SKY money funds now

I'm looking at money spent on Downton and Gatting.

I'm not assuming people will like cricket just because they are exposed to it. I just know that they won't like cricket if they aren't exposed to it. If the game has no appeal to younger people it's finished anyway.

[Dr Cricket]

the other side of this argument is having England games on FTA would potentially penalise your hard-core cricket fans

would SKY be prepared to invest the sort of money they do on coverage, on getting the rights for things like a series between NZ and SL or SA and WI if they weren't also getting the marquee home series ?

no way would FTA broadcasters pick up that slack

Not sure anyone expect Test series or even ODI series in FTA but T20 international should be on FTA even if they are literally given away very cheaply.
Plus having the highlights on BBC is far more valuable than prime time highlights on Five.

It is embarrassing that ITV wanted an indian domestic league more than English cricket rights.
It seemed like ITV/BBC haven't really given any guarantees to ECB they would be interested in some rights even if the price is very cheap and pretty much free.

if that is true it is quite sad that even a 2-3 hour T20 game has no interest for BBC even when their show bowls or so many cheap winter sports on the red button or bbc 2.

If the ipl final is still the last FTA live game in this country in 20 years time FTA Channel/ECB need to be embarrassed for that.

[Arthur Crabtree]

ITV have WC highlights. Non England games to be shown on ITV3.

[Dr Cricket]

this whole argument boils down to would the amount of money lost by having cricket on FTA damage the game more by not being able to fund programs like chance to shine, not being able to support counties and grass roots cricket as opposed to some romanticised notion that kids are going to pick up cricket bats and balls from being able to see cricket that they otherwise wouldn't because of it being limited to subscription TV

all of that without any real proof that having it on FTA would actually achieve that opposed to the real tangible impact the reduced funding would have

Might be wrong but the funding won't get cut if there FTA Cricket.
the only reason FTA is being mention by ECB is because unless number improve the Government will cut funding to grass root cricket.
Football,Rugby and Cricket have been threatened they could lose half or all of their funding if participation number don't improve and it is pretty much expected fund will drop in the next cycle which have been reduced every 4 years anyway because Sports England are not happy with numbers playing cricket.

FTA is the only option ECB got that will make them get number up and protect the funding from Sports England.
Sports England only care about number and results, FTA is the only one that guarantees increase numbers.

how much money does sports England provide to cricket compared to what would be lost by the ECB if they lost the SKY money ?

blaming the changes just on no FTA completely ignores all the other multitude of reasons kids don't play sport as much now and imo its wishful thinking and naïve idealism that bring cricket back to FTA will create the surge in participation that would be needed to balance out what would be lost from the programs that the SKY money funds now

the funding is actually quite a bit.
ECB gets around 20-30M which is all spent on Grass roots cricket if that goes then ECB needs Sky to double it's tv rights just so it can fund grass roots cricket to the same level and none of Counties/England stuff get cut.
ECB are pretty keen to protect the funding since without it leave big holes in their finances.

I am assuming it 20-30M each year which would mean around 100-120M which is about half the Sky deal so lots of money would vanish.