Aussie Cricket
-
@Bovidae interesting, but not surprising. I would say viewing numbers are through the floor. Unless it's India or the Ashes, people don't care much. And the big money spinner would have been the one day series, but that has collapsed in popularity. Throw in the Big Bash is on 10 and killing it, and the Aus team battling for wins, and it sounds like a financial disaster.
The Ch9 deadshit commentary team will be shitting themselves.
-
Really? We've got an Ashes series coming up, which means a massive payday for 9.
I really hope they don't get the Big Bash, but they've got a deeper warchest than 10 so I'd say it's not unlikely to happen.
Cricket is the only game in town in Summer, and clearly this UBS poindexter has never watched Davey fucken Warner with the bit between his teeth against a firing Pommie bowling attack.
-
@mariner4life said in Aussie Cricket:
@Bovidae interesting, but not surprising. I would say viewing numbers are through the floor. Unless it's India or the Ashes, people don't care much. And the big money spinner would have been the one day series, but that has collapsed in popularity. Throw in the Big Bash is on 10 and killing it, and the Aus team battling for wins, and it sounds like a financial disaster.
The Ch9 deadshit commentary team will be shitting themselves.
First place to cut some dead weight- trim the fat
Sacking half the commentary team could recoup most of that $40m they lose each year -
@barbarian i hope you aren't serious, because that sounds like jingoistic nonsense.
Of course it's the only game in town, but that doesn't mean it is now worth the price CA are/have been asking. And i assume that's what this is all about, the price. I doubt the report said "dump it, don't bid" but more "dump it if you can't get the price down".
As i said, this summer will be golden, but the summer after? And after that?
Your last sentence the the opinion of the average Aussie cricket fan through and through "yea, we lost overseas, but wait till the boys get back to the flat, flat decks of home".
-
Sounds like sabre-rattling to me. Nine might hope to drive the price down, but then there's always the question of what they're going to show instead.
Maybe a bit like Sky and rugby in NZ. I don't expect they're that thrilled with how Super rugby is going (which probably contributes significantly to the subscriptions they've apparently been shedding), but it will be a cold day in hell that they let anyone else outbid them on rugby.
-
-
@mariner4life said in Aussie Cricket:
@barbarian i hope you aren't serious, because that sounds like jingoistic nonsense.
Yeah I was fucken serious maaate, as serious as a Patty Cummins bouncer at ya fucken SCONE!
But seriously, 9 are a bit hamstrung by the Packer legacy and tradition of cricket on the station. CA know they have them over a barrel, because 9 are never realistically going to walk away from cricket.
Agree that price is the issue. We're in a crazy period where the TV rights to big sports are going at ridiculous prices, and CA are obviously rubbing their hands together right now.
Though I think it would be even more interesting if 10 wasn't a complete basket case financially.
-
@barbarian the AFL deal changed everything i reckon. They got so much money for a product with no international market, so the NRL and cricket have gone "whoa, yea, time to get paid bitches". NRL got more, but 9 gave up a bit for it, as Foxtel now get to show every game live (except Origin and the GF).
But they can probably show increasing viewer numbers. With cricket, I doubt that is the case.
-
@Bovidae A bit like Steve Tew and Sky?
I reckon Cricket Australia have a stronger negotiating position with more competitive options than NZR.
I think it's a symbiotic relationship - both parties need the other and Nine can't stiff CA too hard, because ultimately it will degrade their product. If Steve Smith buggers off on the T20 circuit, Australia lose the Ashes....
-
-
How did i miss this Facebook page while the India tour was on? It's pretty fucking clever
-
@Chris-B. said in Aussie Cricket:
Maybe a bit like Sky and rugby in NZ. I don't expect they're that thrilled with how Super rugby is going (which probably contributes significantly to the subscriptions they've apparently been shedding), but it will be a cold day in hell that they let anyone else outbid them on rugby.
That's shit management then. If the product loses you money and doesn't have tangible, quantifiable benefits elsewhere, only a moron would continue such a business practice.
@Chris-B. said in Aussie Cricket:
@Bovidae A bit like Steve Tew and Sky?
I reckon Cricket Australia have a stronger negotiating position with more competitive options than NZR.
According to the article, there's one real option for CA.
-
@antipodean There are tangible benefits elsewhere. Tew has stated on various occasions that it's test rugby that makes money for NZR and both Super rugby and NPC run at a loss, so it wouldn't surprise me if the same is the case for Sky. But, rugby is bound up in a whole large package for Sky and is pretty clearly an integral part of making that package profitable, even if rugby per se (and certainly parts of it) might not be.
-
That's why I said if it 'doesn't have tangible, quantifiable benefits elsewhere'. I'm familiar with the concept of loss leaders but my point is you can't become wedded to a product - it has to make commercial sense.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Cricket:
my point is you can't become wedded to a product - it has to make commercial sense.
Remarkably, I'm familiar with that concept too.
-
quick quick, organise a test series against Australia next week! As of Saturday, there isn't an employed cricketer in this country.
The new pay deal needed to be sorted out, and it's devolved in to a WW1 style war of entrenched positions, neither side appears willing to budge.
From what i understand, it's a case of the players wanting the same funding model for their pay that they have always had (except including more, obviously) while Cricket Australia wants to break up that percentage of revenue model, and have a more direct contracting structure. They've made a few concessions along the way, but have stayed pretty true to their original position. While the players union isn't budging from their views that the current model should continue.
CA have tried to go around the union and negotiate with players directly, but they seem very unified, and all of those offers have been rejected. It's about to start affecting the on-field, as the Australia A tour of South Africa was supposed to leave on Friday, and they aren't going at this stage. Although i see the women's team is playing the world cup?
It's ugly, and the tour to Bangladesh, and even the Ashes are the next battlefields. It appears that the CA have the support of the international boards, so i can't see pressure coming from there to produce the best Aus team. The next couple of months will be very interesting.
-
It's a fascinating saga. I really side with the players on this one, and have no idea why CA are so insistent on playing hardball. This is a great article from Gideon Haigh:
And I like this one from Joe Aston in the AFR as well:
Cricket Australia's David Peever is living in Narnia
Is Peever and his board hallucinating or are they all just waiting for Aslan?
-
@mariner4life said in Aussie Cricket:
CA have tried to go around the union and negotiate with players directly, but they seem very unified, and all of those offers have been rejected.
They're unified until they can't pay their bills.
