I have just returned from an ECB meeting at Trent Bridge where the imminent Davies Report was one of the hot topics. For those that don't know it is felt that a rejigging of sport on terrestrial and satellite TV is going to be proposed and that the Ashes will be made a List A event - it would have to be on terrestrial TV and not Sky.

This would have massive repurcussions for cricket and YCCC if the Ashes is given List A status. Sky pay the ECB a lot of money, and the counties get a good pay day each year as a result.

ITV channels and Channel 4 have no money at the moment as advertising revenues have dropped sharply and the BBC appears to be no longer interested in cricket - it hasn't bid for the rights since 1998. None of these will particularly want cricket or to pay much for it and they will have no one fighting them to push up the price so potentially the ECB would lose well over £100 million pounds over a 4-year period and counties would suffer hugely.

You might wonder why the Ashes matters when there is so much more cricket for Sky to cover. Well it's the showpiece at the moment and asking Sky to cover the football World Cup without the latter stages would not be well received. The money in the coffers would drop massively.

It was felt at the meeting that if List A status was given to cricket then only Surrey and Middlesex would survive as professional Clubs without the ECB money.

That's how important this is! Do you want to watch Surrey play Middlesex every week? Whether you like Sky or not they keep our game afloat at the present time. This might be a short-term vote winner but it would kill cricket as we know it.

The ECB and the Clubs are going to lobby MPs and our members over the next few weeks and we all have to stand up, talk to people and make sure cricket survives!!

Please discuss this and raise the questions - let me know if you need this clarifying further...

Thanks for this, James. Appreciated.
Would you consider starting an online petition?

We are going to have a sit down at Headingley over the next few days and work out how we should play this as a Club.

We need to show MPs that cricket fans, at least, do not want to lose cricket - so it would not be the vote winner they might think.

Why don't the WRF and the Corridor combine to start an online petition - this is important to everyone?

I've never had a problem with Sky covering cricket, you pay your money and get what you pay for. More objection with the BBC having it because I have to pay the BBC regardless of what I watch.
Anyone remember the BBC coverage in later years? Trip to the newsroom every hour on the hour to hear the news that was the same an hour earlier, extended lunch break because ''everybody needs good neighbours'' and an early finish because ''everybody needs good neighbours'' again, or cash in the attic. C4 even moved coverage to a satellite channel if it clashed with racing from Bangor-on-Dee.

The licence fee should be abolished and the BBC made to stand on it's own two feet, no more national treasures and with the money saved you could pay a few quid for the Grand National, the Boat Race or the world Tiddlywinks Championship if you wanted to.

There is of course the contrarian view that major events should be accessible to all. There are those who for technical or financial reasons cannot or will not subscribe to Sky TV.
Sky is guilty of heavily promoting pyjama cricket to the detriment of the county game. How many on here had their first view of cricket watching test matches in black and white and followed it up with visits to their local county ground?

The short term drop in revenue may be no bad thing in the long term. The ECB in particular and the counties in general have been lethargic in reacting to the commercial realities. For their own good they cannot rely on hand-outs but should become self-sufficient. The ECB over the years have allowed the county game to meander with the consequent loss of income to the counties. How often have posters on this forum complained that they would attend much more county cricket at week-ends if such existed. Just one example of commercial opportunities not being exploited.

Cricket existed succesfully long before Sky came along.

I have Sky and the coverage of cricket is excellent. Gone are the days when the last 30 mins of play was lost every day so that "Home and Away" could start on time. Domestic cricket needs the money SKY provide and we need the excellent coverage. One or two of the commentators are a pain in the butt, such as Hussain who pluralises everybody and Willis who moans about everything but the rest are great especially "Bumble". How much cricket would the BBC show apart from the "Ashes" tests - none. Cricket fans would not see any overseas test matches, tests between other countries, CC matches, any twenty/20 cricket or 40 over matches. Sky do not "cherry pick" the best cricket events ,it is blanket coverage of everything, so why should the BBC be allowed to "cherry pick" the Ashes series to the exclusion of everything else. If they get the whole package thats fine but there is no way they would be able to do that. An ill thought out initiative that would financially cripple the counties and deprive the cricket supporters of most of their cricket viewing.

I think you're painting a very short term and unnecessarilly apocalyptic picture here. Cricket existed before Sky Tv and will exist after it - possibly not in the same form but that may be no bad thing. You are suggesting - in effect - that the game only survives because of the largesse of one broadcaster. This would mean that we exist entirely at the scheduling whim of that broadcaster - and they would ultimately - and not unreasonably - expect to play an ever increasing role in the future of our game.
There are very many of us that would not like to see this happen.
I actually think the Ashes should be available to all the population of this country on free to air TV. Cricket is a national game - or used to be - and should be available to all. You must take a much longer strategic view of the game; The Ashes success in 2005 was the best thing that happened to our game for 50 years - the WHOLE nation was gripped and you must admit that County memberships and attendances increased afterwards. At my local club, 150 new kids turned up for coaching sessions.
This was only achieved because the whole nation was able to share it - and i would contrast that impact with the 2009 Ashes series which caused barely a ripple on the National consciousness.
If cricket can only be seen on Satellite TV it's general appeal wil diminish, and the essence of our game will be diluted. It's inevitable that Sky will want more easily marketable 20/20 and the longer versions of the game will be left to wither on the vine.
You're presenting a view of the future that is far too simplistic. There are funding issues which need to be addressed - but not at the expense of selling our game to a broadcaster that has no real interest in the game itself. I'm perfectly happy for Sky to broadcast cricket - they do it very well - but it isn't healthy for them to enjoy a monopoly. The long term vitality of the game is more important than short term financial expediency.

As UI've said elsewhere I'm no fan of Murdoch ... but Sky do an excelent job ... although I'm one of those who tends to listen to TMS via a DAB radio

My view has been that one test a summer should be 'free to air' whils tthe rest are open to bids (i.e. will only be on Sky). This already happens with some sports & appears to work well

Something about this doesn't quite make sense. If Sky are paying an enormous amount of money for cricket, it can only be because the competition offered something in the same region. If there is no longer any competition, then next time around Sky will offer peanuts. Either way, domestic cricket will have to adjust.

Well county cricket is a bit of a cosy, self perpetuating club. Look at the playing staff we carry, many of whom will never be much more than average at best. Two other aspects of the inaccessibility of cricket are the prices for international cricket and the size of the stadiums. Lets smash the cartel of county test match grounds charging ridiculous prices and admiting less than 20,000 to pretty average sitting areas; how many seats at headingley with a really good view, less than a 1,000, if that:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/8319376.stm

I can't believe that the club are asking fans to campaign against the possibility of test cricket returning to free to air television. I think that this is an unbelievaly short-sighted view.

I concede that I am not an expert on the club's accounts but i feel it was a crying shame that this summer's Ashes were only watched by those who had access to Sky, which as everybody knows is a small fraction of the viewing public. I have many friends who enjoy cricket and will watch England on tv but will not pay for Sky for the priveledge.

Our sport has lost and will continue to lose huge numbers of casual fans if it continues to marginalise itself by allowing television access only to paying subscribers. If it is not careful in years to come it will find itself in the unenviable position currently occupied by my other favorite sport, boxing, which made a similar decision to abandon terretial television in favour of Sky some years ago. It has now become a minority sport and struggles desperately for tv coverage. I really hope cricket does not go the same way.

I can understand everyones annoyance at the "ashes" series not being on terrestial tv. But the alternative is worse. If we let a terrestial channel show the "ashes" live that will be all the cricket we will see on tv. The terrestial channels will not show any domestic cricket, overseas tours or test matches between other countries. Sky are not going to make a realistic financal bid for the other bits so we will end up losing 100 plus days of televised cricket a year just to get a 4 or 5 match ashes series every 4 years on the box. We lose a massive amount of televised cricket to gain a paltry 4 matches every 4 years. A better alternative is for everything to remain on Sky as now, and the BBC to then pay a fee every four years to Sky for the rights to televise the Ashes live on terrestial tv. I am not a spokesman for Sky but another alternative is to subscribe to Sky Sports just for the 2 months that the Ashes take place ( a far better and cheaper option than paying £60 every day for tickets.

The best solution by far is for the BBC to be gauranteed rights to one or two Ashes Tests every series. This is very easy to do in these digital red button days - there's no reason why the BBC couldn't offer a complete service -without any interruptions for adverts. They should also be guaranteed a highlights package to be screened in the same way. Sky TV is desperate for programmes to fill it's channels, they aren't going to walk away simply because The BBC show two games every four years.
Sky's ultimate aim is Pay per view - they keep trying it with football. If they're given a total monopoly on cricket it can only be a matter of time before certain games carry a specific surcharge.
The analogy with Boxing is a very good one. Carl Froch is a multiple World Champion and arguably one of the best British Boxers in the last 25 years and yet I'd be surprised if many people would even recognise him because he's only ever been seen on satellite and pay TV. In five years time kids will be growing up unable to recognise the English cricket team.This is no way to develop or maintain our sport.

I am sure that some compromise agreement can be made by all parties. I just do not want to lose the rest of the "family silver" in pursuit of the "crown jewels". As long as we do not lose our existing extensive cricket coverage, I am ok with the ashes being on terrestial tv. Otherwise its best being left where it is on Sky.

How did kids before the age of tv ever see the England cricket team? Too busy playing to worry about what they looked like I guess? The talent still came through. More and more people have Sky tv, probably many more watch Sky than watched the BBC in 1950 or even 1960.
BBC is not ''free to air'' to me. I have to pay for a licence whether I watch it or not. I only ''buy'' Sky because I choose to. Cricket coverage is fantastic and no other channel could hope to compete. My only quibble would be that with channel time to fill, a county championship game could be covered each round.
Sky is there for anyone who wants or can afford it. The BBC is also there for anyone who wants or can afford it. Sky costs four times more than the BBC but gives ten times better coverage. Good value, I'd say.

The fact is that not everyone CAN afford it. Are they to be denied the chance to watch any live cricket on TV. The Ashes series - i would suggest - is part of the cultural fabric of our Nation. We shouldn't deny access to those people who either can't afford it, or choose not to subscribe to Sky.

I have Sky and it is fantastic, their cricket coverage is outstanding.

But yes it is a shame that a lot of the population did not get the chance to see the Ashes. However part of the problem is is that terrestrial TV companies are:

BBC - Pathetic, wastes money on Formula 1
ITV - Skint and only interested in football
Channel 4 - skint, apparently they have a 'director of sports' - that must be the easiest job in the world!, the only sport they show is horse racing.
Channel 5, too small, by its own admission can only afford to show highlights.

If Channel 9 in Australia was as unsupportive and pathetic as the BBC, ITV or Channel 4, the Aussies would tell them to clear off.

I also agree with a poster above who mentioned that the counties spend too much on propping up county staffs, Yorkshire are certainly guilty of this.

The ECB should also use the Olympic Stadium for cricket after the Olympics, then we would finally have a truly large cricket ground in this country.

SteveC is correct. Why should anyone be denied the chance to see the Ashes on TV, just because they can't afford Sky and why should I be denied an Aston Martin just because I can't afford one? Its just not right. Lets pay everyone exactly the same, irrespective of whether they work.

That isn't what i'm saying at all, and don't misrepresent my views.
There are some things which unite us as a nation - Christmas, The Royal Family, the Health Service, Harry potter, William Shakespeare, Heinz Tomato sauce - too many other things to list - and National sport.
I genuinely believe that sport is a terrific source of national pride - be it our performance in the Olympics or Jenson Button winning the World Championship. I passionately believe that every National England football game should be shown on free to air Televison, along with Wimbledon and The Open Golf, the Boat Race and the Olympics, and whatever else is on the reserved list. I think at least one Test match a year should be available for all to see.
Don't try some pathetic comic book juvenille attempt at pigeon-holing my politics. This has got nothing to do with Aston Martins, it's to do with national pride in one of our national games.
The long term future of our game depends upon the general public's continuing affection for our game. We will be sidetracked into the peripheral sporting wastelands if we continue to allow the broadcasting rights to be monopolised and sold for commercial gain to a few diehards....
(Apologies for the rant.)

I absolutely agree with Steve C. VERY WELL put, I might say.

AJ (ex-Pat in Australia)

I for one miss the Test matches on the Beeb. Christ you can't even get a live radio broadcast anymore. There is something very wrong at the moment, and allowing one organization to totally dominate the broadcasting of cricket is wrong at so many levels.

I would like to see a lot more sport protected from Sky and all cricket test matches. There seems to be plenty of daytime room on BBC3 & 4 for which a Sky subscription is not required. I realise the consequencies on staffing levels and pay but they will have to be borne as they are in similar circumstances in other companies. In any case, I agree with a previous comment that Sky is unlikely to pay more than it has to in future years.

I would quite like the ECB to sell the rights for each test to an internet provider so I can watch on my laptop at work, like the recent England football match perhaps..... Apologies for my selfish point of view!

Comparing how the BBC might broadcast now with how it did when it last had the rights is meaningless as we now have more BBC channels as well as the 'interactive red button' so we could still see full coverage despite the news, Neighbours or Weakest Link having to take priority.

If less money comes into the game from Sky, then why should the county game automatically suffer? Should those who seem to get the most out of the Sky deal (ie Englands elite central contracted players) not see significant reductions in earnings initially?)

I can see that the money filtering down to Yorkshire may not be as much as before, but equally, the money on offer to Durham for winning the title each year may also have to reduce back to where it was previously.

If our 'bloated' staff list had to reduce as well then it may not be a bad thing so that we have to weedle out some of the mediocrity that is never going to rise to the top. Sorry Chris Taylor, Lee Hodgson, Rich Pyrah etc but (and I hope he does not take this the wrong way) perhaps people like James himself may find that the revised budgets don't stretch to allow for his role to be paid for in the future.

Surely, the compromise solution is for the terrestrial channels to have access to one test a year on the 'national treasured list' and for SKy to still have the rights to broacast this live (as they do with the FA Cup Final).

I also think Sky should think about a pensioners package with some discount on their subscriptions.

There is an individual - who always chooses to hide behind anonymity needless to say - who tries to ridicule and over simplify my views in a childish and unnecessarilly provocative manner. I apologise for responding so vehemently!
This is a key issue for the future of our game - would it be worth organising one of your legendary polls Alex?
I'm still quite surprised that the Club see the issue in such black and white terms - it suggests quite a gap between their percpetion of the game and the experience of their supporters.

It does rather more than that, Steve. It suggests that the entire financial strategy of the first-class clubs is predicated on a continuing injection of massive cash from Rupert Murdoch. When he has no more competitors, he will, as I mentioned earlier, offer very much less for his privilege. This is the law of what the Americans taught us to call the "free" market.

the problem is that those companies who try to make a challenge to Murdoch like ITV Digital, Setanta and now ESPN appear not to be able to make a decent job of it and survive - fingers crossed for ESPN.

Perhaps they should look at a joint bid with BBC?

As I was trying to hint above, there are enormous entry costs where a market of this kind is concerned. Once a monopoly is established, it is very difficult to break.

If the government does seriously want the Ashes on terrestrial TV, it will have to take a more comprehensive approach to the whole problem. Just putting the name on a list won't work. Some sort of further support package would seem to be needed.

But the global crisis caused by the US subprime meltdown, not to mention the burden of the Olympics, hasn't left much elbow room.

lets hope we don't win the 2018 World Cup bid as well then.

The ashes deserve to be seen by as many people as possible not just those with Sky. James you are painting a distorted picture and frankly just scare mongering. Maybe a career in tabloid journalism beckons. The reason the BBC have not bid since 1998 is they know they can't currently compete on bids with SKY etc, to say they are not interested in cricket anymore is just plain daft.Without the return of at least the ashes to mainstream tv future generations of kids could grow up without every seeing or playing cricket, and then it will just become a minority sport played by public school boys. Its already dying in state schools.Is that what you want? Cricket should be played by kids of all backgrounds and they should all have the chance of seeing the best series in the world on television.

and if they want they should be able to watch the games live, paying reasonable prices to access grounds that can cater for the demand and provide world class seating for everybody.

According to an article in the October Wisden Cricketer, there has been a spectacular DROP in Test match viewership since Sky took over. The data is from the Broadcast Audience Research Board, and is as follows:

2005 (Channel 4) 5 million
2006 (Sky) 280,000
2007 (Sky) 360,000
2008 (Sky) 345,000
2009 (Sky) not available

It does seem that a whole generation of young English cricket fans will not see Test cricket on TV. The longer term ramifications for cricket's popularity in England are obvious. Someone needs to fix this problem, and fast.

My 16-year old son, who was once an avid cricket fan, but has now migrated over to football as his big sports interest. He has never watched a Test match on the tele since we don`t subscribe to Sky and he has never been to a Test match since he can`t afford the incredible prices of Test match tickets these days. A sad situation, but I`m sure he is only one of many lost cricket fans since Sky took over.

Michael Benson (Leeds)

Dare I say that any understanding of history informs one that all empires ultimately sow the seeds of their own destruction.

Without Sky very few 16 year olds will have seen many Premiership football matches in their life either. As to being there ''live'' then I guess for example, you could watch half a season at cricket's Old Trafford for the cost of 90 minutes at the other Old Trafford.

The figures quoted are not really that startling, I'm sure everyone and his dog could have predicted them.
Can anyone provide tv figures for the 1930 ashes series? The 1934 ashes series? I think Pathe news covered Hutton's 365 at selected cinema's in 1938. How many in England watched any England game abroad before Sky came along? I recall a pre-lunch session in 1983/4.
Sky give us great coverage and I think a lot of people think BBC, ITV, C4 or whoever would give us the same coverage should they have the rights. The fact is they wouldn't. Emmerdale or Notts v Warks on a tuesday night? Know which I'd rather watch but I doubt ITV will go for the same.
500 quid a year to watch all sorts of cricket on Sky. Nigh on 200 quid to pay for no cricket whatsoever.
I know there are many who refuse to pay for Sky on principle but the real gripe should be towards the government who make you pay for channels you may never watch.
Anyway, going to have an hours sleep before I can watch live international cricket from Australia on Sky.

I suspect that the response to the original post was not what YCCC wanted or expected.

Could YCCC confirm what their standpoint is on this important issue having now opened it up to discussion.

Surely the point here, illustrated by James Buttler's original post, is that cricket is a business which is wholly financially reliant for its future on TV revenue. We have county grounds showing games to sparce audiences and the effort by the clubs to get more bums on seats is, frankly, pathetic - a behaviour they get away with thanks to the enormous subsidy they receive from the TV companies via the ECB. The sudden panic has been caused because they are now being threatened with having to stand on their own two feet financially, and they know full well that it would take many years to build up a spectator base sufficiently large to balance the books - by which time they would have folded. The entire future financial viability of the county clubs is based on the assumption that the TV revenue will continue.

Of course we should worry about this as we will lose our game if it happens. However, I can't help but feel that the complacent reliance on TV money and consequent lack of interest in maintaining independant financial viability (through spectator numbers) has been a serious miscalculation which has now turned round to bite the clubs' backsides.

the game will still exist even if the revenue from Sky reduces considerably.

it existed before Sky came along and will exist if they walk away from the game or reduce their 'investment'.

However, those who have taken the biggest slice of the Sky Pie (no not the one that Bob Willis completes at the end of a days play in the Test) may have to take a smaller portion.

Its the England set up that seems to take a lot of the pie, and some of the fringe players and support staff may be surplus to requirements and central contracts may not be as attractive or widely handed out.

The counties too may have to look at their own payrolls - playing and non-playing - but I think one of the pluses of the ground redevelopment etc at Headingley is that it is geared towards generating revenue around the whole year and not just from cricket but presumably from the Met and the facilities being used in the winter.

There is also the added danger of subs going up but counties may also need to actually get some value from money from their marketing departments and find new sponsorship deals.

What will the players do if they find their salaries across the county staffs reduced? Go overseas? No other countries play when we do. Leave for another county? They will be all in the same boat. Look to improve their game and get a better deal and international recognition? There may be a silver lining to the 'cloud' after all

I do think Yorks could do more to try & get some bums on seats. Outside the Hutton Gates there is always an advert for the rugby ... but often you'd find it hard to realise that cricket was being played

The page won't load for me!