Ciderhound
Cancelled
- Aug 15, 2009
- 956
- 1,070
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Take a bow passmark. Two gimmicks I hope to see the end of sooner rather than later - t20 cricket and GWS.
-
LIVE: Sydney v Brisbane Lions - 2:30PM AEST Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 61% chance -- What's your tip? -- Ticketing Buy, Sell -- Teams on Thurs »
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Grand Final
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round PF Winner: Still Me
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Big Bash Will Run 20 December - 15 February
- Thread starter Tulip
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Take a bow passmark. Two gimmicks I hope to see the end of sooner rather than later - t20 cricket and GWS.
It's not so much that we play T20, but we've just given over the whole of summer to it.
Crazy stuff.
Well, it looks like CA agree with you.
I don't buy the " 20/20 games ruin techniques" line. A real batsman knows the difference between a white ball and a red one. I still think they could have shortened the BB season or pushed it back, but the truth about our batting is a lot of our guys cricketing IQ is in single digits..
Not that simple though, is it? The focus on BBL means FC players won't train for FC cricket and won't play FC cricket. How will they develop into competent Test batsmen? Not to mention the focus on limited overs games and techniques in junior competitions, which more learned posters than me have gone into.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying T20 is the only problem, or even the root of the problem, but focusing on it now when our Test batting stocks are at a very low ebb is a terrible thing. If they pump all that money into developing good Test players, maybe - MAYBE - we can look back and say it was worth it. But will they? Do you have faith in the CA administration and the states to use that money well?
It really is that simple.
They play plenty of 20/20 in England and they beat us here and there in tests..
They play plenty of 20/20 in India and they beat us there in tests .
It's just a matter of application.
And to those people saying we should stop players going to the IPL, good luck.
The Indians could buy just about every player in the world and run the entire world schedule anyway they like. Think Kerry Packer x 50.
It's a balancing act.
I've heard you say this before, but you're yet to explain yourself. I do understand economics better than most, but have never looked into the economics of cricket in Australia. If you'd like to enlighten me I'd be happy - where the $ comes from, what it's spent on, etc. You can start with the annual report I linked to above.
If it's a balancing act, everyone at CA is sitting on one end of the seesaw at the moment. England and India have higher populations and more cricket money than Australia does, and as others have pointed out, they don't gut their FC seasons for T20. Not sure how they run their junior systems, but if what Western Royboy says is correct I doubt England's could be any worse. India is chaos at the best of times, and maybe that's manifest in the fact that for all their population and cricket $ their Test team is average. Decent at home, rubbish everywhere else. Bit like ours really.
Cheers Phone, will check it out. Thanks for the other reply as well - I didn't really know when tour income came or how it was paid. Do they work out a deal beforehand or is it based on attendances, TV rights, etc? Ignore if that's in the article - will check it out now.
Edit: read the article. I get where that perspective is coming from, but I'm not convinced on a few things. First, does the BBL really need to be longer even if it's a little more TV-friendly? Is the extra disruption to the Shield worth the money they gained for that as opposed to having the BBL over, say, a month? Of course, we'll never know.
Second, why can't other matches be played at least (as he says) when the BBL finals are on over an extended period? Sure, a few players will miss, but there must be some way of having both for at least part of the time.
Third, he says the money 'can be used' to promote the longer forms. That's my concern - we all know it can be, but will it be? The annual report says they want to invest 75% back into the 'three pillars' of the game and keep some as a cash reserve. Sounds dandy, but one pillar is promotion-related (the others are participation and national team performance), so that 75% could be used for, say, BBL promotion or anything CA decides is 'for the betterment of the game' in as broad or narrow a sense as they like. I'd like to see something more concrete.
Edit: read the article. I get where that perspective is coming from, but I'm not convinced on a few things. First, does the BBL really need to be longer even if it's a little more TV-friendly? Is the extra disruption to the Shield worth the money they gained for that as opposed to having the BBL over, say, a month? Of course, we'll never know.
Second, why can't other matches be played at least (as he says) when the BBL finals are on over an extended period? Sure, a few players will miss, but there must be some way of having both for at least part of the time.
Third, he says the money 'can be used' to promote the longer forms. That's my concern - we all know it can be, but will it be? The annual report says they want to invest 75% back into the 'three pillars' of the game and keep some as a cash reserve. Sounds dandy, but one pillar is promotion-related (the others are participation and national team performance), so that 75% could be used for, say, BBL promotion or anything CA decides is 'for the betterment of the game' in as broad or narrow a sense as they like. I'd like to see something more concrete.
Pretty simple:
Under the old financial model, CA made money once every four years - when India toured. Basically, the profit from this one season was made to cover losses in the other 3. There would maybe be a $5-6M profit when England tour, but they are the only other country that was even remotely close to breaking even.
There is also income from part ownership of the Champions League, a crap tournament but a good source of revenue. Don't ever think that we won't send our BBL teams here, they'll keep going until the end of time because of the cash.
CA recognised this was unsustainable so has positioned the BBL as a money making product. It's going to turn a better profit due to the new TV deal than they would have expected this early. Regardless of what you think of it - and I hate it - it was a smart business decision. The existing model was unsustainable, costs of running international cricket too high and something needed to give.
A few years back the board was told they needed to stockpile at least $60M in reserves for a business of CA's size. I believe they're close to or have hit this target now, but it's been a rough couple of years for the business - budget cuts left and right with the expectation of doing more with less.
The new TV rights deal won't mean the money will come cascading down straight away. Bank on at least 1-2 financial years of consolidation under the new deal before the money starts getting spent. However, if you know what to look for you will already see some of this money being invested in strategic infrastructure projects and I think everyone hopes that some of those will relate to the FC structure.
Regarding state distributions, under the old money it was a ridiculous system. NSW got the same as Tasmania, Victoria the same as SA etc. Didn't matter the size of the state, everyone got the same. Essentially, the biggest states needed to do three times as much with no more extra cash. Under the new model that system has changed and money will go to where it needs to go. CA will also take over the running of international cricket (may sound strange but they haven't been the ground tenants in the past), which will relieve a lot of the burden from states.
Wut? We won't even remember it next week.Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
