Durhamfootman wrote:Two hundred matches a day?
that's a lot of matches
(sorry... couldn't resist)
Alviro Patterson wrote:Based on a test match costing £50k per day to stage, 33 Hundred matches including Finals Day cost £1.65 Million. Not having overseas players will cover the staging costs alone. Playing two Hundred matches a day at the same venue on some days can reduce costs further and have a tournament timeframe closer to 3 weeks than a month. The eight Hundred venues might take a hit on matchday income if matches are played behind closed doors, but that is better than all 18 counties losing £1.3 Million for non fulfillment of The Hundred
Alviro Patterson wrote:If overseas players can't play, they are guaranteed 12.5% of their draft fee. Replace the overseas players with domestic players on a £30k draft fee represents savings of £1.33 Million
Alviro Patterson wrote:As for other sports, a fair amount of events are cancelled or delayed due to coronavirus so The Hundred gains an advantage. From a Sky and BBC point of view, they will be dead keen in getting the tournament on.
sussexpob wrote:Alviro Patterson wrote:Based on a test match costing £50k per day to stage, 33 Hundred matches including Finals Day cost £1.65 Million. Not having overseas players will cover the staging costs alone. Playing two Hundred matches a day at the same venue on some days can reduce costs further and have a tournament timeframe closer to 3 weeks than a month. The eight Hundred venues might take a hit on matchday income if matches are played behind closed doors, but that is better than all 18 counties losing £1.3 Million for non fulfillment of The Hundred
You are missing one vital part of the equation, AP. The staging costs originally were absorbed inside the venues profit margin and ability to generate revenue through ticket sales, hospitality and catering facilities on the day, which as my example with Sussex match revenue shows, is more than ticket sale value. So when a county offers its facilities to the ECB, it does so offering its facilities for no overlapping fee, as the ECB award of matches are far more valuable than if it were to price itself out the game by charging a rent or fee for use. In fact, test make so much profit of marquee games, counties pay the ECB to host them. Cardiff paid 1 million for a single Ashes test for instance.
The model is now rendered totally null and void. The ECB might pay, on your figures, 50k per match to setup the cameras and switch around sponsor boards or what not, but the venue itself is making nothing for providing its facilities. With no way to find revenue streams hosting the event behind closed doors, its sheer common sense that the ECB will have to pay to use the grounds. And that will be a sheer loss, because they cant simply give away a portion of revenue they no longer earn themselves.
sussexpob wrote:
Take away all the foreign names, and what are you left with? A competition that resembles pretty much what you started with a few changes that cricket fans flat out hate, a bill for 60 million quid, and a joke tournament that has zero draw for the general public. The only difference between the IPL, Big Bash and T20 Blast is the top foreign players coming in larger numbers, to be considered an elite tournament worth of anything, you need the players. A few name changes to teams is not what the woman and kids want.
Also, just imagine you are SKY or the sponsors. You got sold a tournament with star talent to broadcast or back, you think they would be happy then to get a tournament with zero internationals in it? Id imagine at that point SKY could back out their TV deal, Id say the promise of a sellable talent pool and an elite world level competition was a fundamental term of their entering a deal. Cutting the talent could cost all the goodwill for the future.
Also, are foreign broadcasters going to bother with it when its such a low grade pile of nonsense? Cant imagine Indians tuning in to see reserve teams with no one of any note playing.
If the Premier League, La Liga and Serie A still plan to go ahead, then its likely to overlap with these events that return better viewing figures than home cricket internationals, which themselves return better figures than any domestic matches. So its very debatable if the cricket can compete.
Even if none of those go ahead and cricket is alone…. during this competition, England have 7 limited overs matches v Australia, a couple of tests vs Pakistan, and a possible delayed West Indies series that the ECB either lose or reschedule. Do you really think that the public are so enamoured by cricket, they will be watching it wall to wall? Nope, if anything people will turn on the internationals and ignore the county cricket option, unless its on the beeb.
Worth noting the IPL was on ITV free to air before. It returned decent numbers, but I did once read it was totally blitzedby a road cycling race shown on the Beeb at the same time, so there is no way it can compete with football. And thats the biggest tournament with the biggest talent, not in summer when people leave the house to be outside, and at perfect times on weekends.
Alviro Patterson wrote: Counties hosting Hundred matches receive a staging fee for use of the grounds, that cost is already factored in before a ball is bowled. The matchday revenue debate is a red herring should social distancing measures continue to be in place. The Hundred model is not reliant on matchday income for it to be a success, the Big Bash and CPL started off running at a loss.
Seem to be forgetting that The Hundred will be having players who have won the 2019 Cricket World Cup. Kids would love to see Jonny Bairstow smashing sixes into the River Taff or Jos Buttler play his trademark 360 degree shots
So basically three domestic football competitions going ahead (at a time "when people leave the house to be outside") compared to Tour de France, Wimbledon, Open Golf, Euro 2020 and Olympics being cancelled or rearranged. If anything The Hundred's chances of attracting a new audience on TV has improved significantly (after all some games will be on free to air). Therefore translating to more spectators at the grounds in future editions.
sussexpob wrote:Alviro Patterson wrote: Counties hosting Hundred matches receive a staging fee for use of the grounds, that cost is already factored in before a ball is bowled. The matchday revenue debate is a red herring should social distancing measures continue to be in place. The Hundred model is not reliant on matchday income for it to be a success, the Big Bash and CPL started off running at a loss.
I dont think you get the point again, AP.
If you said to me you wanted to rent out my concert hall for a gig, and offered me a deal where you paid me a fee to cover just my costs, do you think anyone would accept such a deal? No, obviously not. Why would I give you a venue for no benefit whatsoever to me or my business? Of course, in this situation you would, like the ECB have, offer me a situation where I get a cut of the ticket sales, a cut that is balance in favour of yourself on a 30 to 70 split, because in reality when you bring punters into my venue, I then make up the difference by selling additional services to them. So in the end, once the burgers, beer and merch has been sold, we both walk away with an equalish profit. Now imagine if you came to me and said "btw, I am not actually selling tickets, I am just going to film someone in an empty room and sell online tickets through another vendor"; you think that a you and another third party streaming the concert walking away with everything is in line with our original agreement? Of course not. Id only have agreed not to simply charge a rental fee on the room had I know it would be empty. The original agreement would be null and void, you wouldnt get a concert. You cant uniquely sell TV rights and expect to fulfill any part of the arrangement. It would be dishonesty at the highest level.
In this situation Id imagine its contractual frustration, and that counties are legally entitled to claim unforeseen wider circumstances as rendering the contract null; its quite common, and always relates to event bookings that dont go ahead for some reason, this seems quite a dramatic but textbook case. The ECB would then have to come up with an agreement to rent the space. The 50k is the cost to host the event. Its not a profit or a fee, its now much the venue has to pay to make it the way the ECB wants, with their own sponsors showing and camera stups, the clubs get nothing out of it for themselves. You dont rent a wedding venue out for 10k, order 10k worth of flowers for it and charge it to the host because its part of the room you wanted, and therefore its even…. you pay to hire the room, you pay for the services and decoration you tailor it to. Thats what that money is.
So the ECB will have additional costs to rent the grounds out if they are empty.
sussexpob wrote:Seem to be forgetting that The Hundred will be having players who have won the 2019 Cricket World Cup. Kids would love to see Jonny Bairstow smashing sixes into the River Taff or Jos Buttler play his trademark 360 degree shots
Didnt the ECB say the International players were just added for marketing? And that players would be released potentially just for finals day, that would fall in the gap between two tests. There is a ODI and three test matches in the tournament scope, there is pretty much zero hope that any international squad member is turning up for anything but maybe one token hundred game.So basically three domestic football competitions going ahead (at a time "when people leave the house to be outside") compared to Tour de France, Wimbledon, Open Golf, Euro 2020 and Olympics being cancelled or rearranged. If anything The Hundred's chances of attracting a new audience on TV has improved significantly (after all some games will be on free to air). Therefore translating to more spectators at the grounds in future editions.
All of which are established part of the summer culture of Britain. The hundred is not. Of course, there is scope to penetrate the market with 8 matches free on BBC, but then again as I said, I imagine after being stuck inside anyone left watching sport inside will be watching the end of the football season.
I do believe there has been talk of PL matches being offered free to air due to the crisis. Also a lot of football clubs to make ticket revenue back are trying to put streaming packages together to get fans to stump up cash. This all squeewes the 100s opportunity for successful viewership.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest