Dear Valued Customers,
As the frosts harden and sales of Costcutter cocoa start to peak, one’s thoughts inevitably turn to Christmas – that special time when harmony and goodwill to all men (and women, never forget the world cup winning women) flows like craft gin at a St John’s Wood wine bar.
Love really is all around. It’s tangible. And therefore it’s time for all our stakeholders – including you, our most treasured source of income – to put our differences aside and unite around our philanthropic mission for 2020: saving English cricket.
One of the great causes of social tension is that insidious and nefarious concept called ‘misunderstanding’. People simply don’t get each other sometimes. And we at the ECB, which includes Tiny Tom, Lord Brocket, and Ash The Bashed, believe we’ve been on the receiving end of some weapons grade misinterpretations over the last year or so. If only you knew how sad this makes us all feel.
Consequently I’d like to utilise this festive communique to fire away the fallacies and clear away the confusion that has dragged the ECB’s once stellar reputation through the metaphorical mud. In particular, we’d like to address two specific points of contention: the absence of Test cricket on terrestrial television, plus Tiny Tom’s terrific new tournament The Hundred.
Firstly, I want to reassure you all to a man (and to a woman, never forget the women) that much as we absolutely adore and cherish Test cricket, much like a doting doe cherishes her fawn, the sad truth is that free-to-air television simply doesn’t want it.
I know this is tough news to take. Indeed, when we were forced to sign those hugely lucrative deals with Sky after millions had tuned in to watch the 2005 Ashes on free-to-air television we were literally crying as we did it. But, alas, cruel necessities are an inescapable part of life.
The news that the heinous House Of Lords, that out-of-touch pit of scoundrels earning hugely inflated and undeserved sums, has recommended returning The Ashes to the tawdry list of television ‘crown-jewels’ is therefore extremely worrying. Indeed, it’s no exaggeration to say that this represents an existential threat to English cricket.
Can you imagine what would happen if millions of young people were suddenly able to watch the highest form of the game FOR FREE?! All hell would break loose. Cricket would almost certainly die a very sudden and tragic death from over-exposure.
Thank God that myself and Tiny Tom are here to prevent such anarchy from occurring. Did you know, for example, that screening just one Test per year would “bankrupt the game“? Believe me, this information is from a very reliable source – I think it was me – so there’s no need to challenge it.
We did some research back in 2010 which proved that cricket would lose £137 million over 4 years if The Ashes returned to the list of crown jewels. As you know, we only received a paltry £1.1 billion from our TV deal that starts next year, so removing £0.137 billion from the coffers – so we only receive a figure just short of £1 billion – would be absolutely crippling.
The consequences of this loss would be catastrophic. We might not, for example, even be able to pay the next ECB chairman £150,000 per year for a 2-3 days per week job. What self-respecting tycoon would want the job in those circumstances?
Therefore, my friends, it’s absolutely key, mandatory even, that you never ask yourself the fundamental question – “if nobody else wants Test cricket then why have Sky been prepared to pay so bloody much for it over the years”? Instead we simply ask that you trust us … and keep paying those inflated ticket prices and satellite subscriptions, of course.
And so we move on to the real burning issue of the day – the issue that burns redder than Santa’s cheeks and (Jacques) Rudolph’s nose. I’m talking, of course, about The Hundred.
Now I appreciate you may have heard vicious rumours that this brave, simple, and totally necessary non-vanity project is actually a foolish, complex, and totally unnecessary vanity project. However, let me reassure you that the latter is just pure speculation.
As those closest to cricket, the ECB are speculating that the game will die unless we spend millions on setting up and marketing a new competition that’s going to make a big loss in its first few years. And that’s the speculation that counts.
I can also assure you personally that alienating you, our most valued customers, is by far the best way to grow the game. Just ask your World Cup winning captain Eoin Morgan, who said last year that the Hundred was a great idea because “it’s upsetting people that already come to a game and that’s the point of the product”.
As you know well, the ECB always back our players 100% – so much so, in fact, that we’re quite happy to take their advice on all off-field matters. It would therefore be thoroughly irresponsible for us to ignore the totally impartial advice of the captain of London Spirit, a man who has no dog in this fight whatsoever.
What is more – and I cannot stress this enough – The Hundred was only founded after exhaustive research. As a great believer in evidence-based speculative actions, I’m proud to reveal that we’d be delighted with attendances of approximately 65% come July next year.
The prospect of witnessing a scantily clad Sophia Gardens and a half-empty Headingley will make our huge investment in time and treasure all worthwhile. This fabled new audience sounds absolutely huge and I can’t wait to see those several thousand empty seats.
However, even if the grounds are completely empty, and not a single soul turns up (except those expecting a rap concert), Tiny Tom’s tournament will still be a success. After all, we’ve already banked £1.1 billion from the TV deal!
Never forget, my friends, that this enormous windfall was purely because of The Hundred. How do I know this? Because nobody watches existing forms of cricket. Not even the 8 million who watched the World Cup final. Or the millions who watched Ben Stokes’s heroics at Leeds.
So now I’ve explained where we, the esteemed ECB, are coming from, I think it’s only fair that you shut the fuck up and know your place. In the spirit of Christmas, naturally.
Yours Insincerely,
Colin Graves
Brilliant. I wonder if Colin Graves will bother reading it? (I wonder who he asked to write it for him?)
Dear Colin,
I never expected to receive a seasonal message from you and I felt important to respond and mention my wish list for you.
Firstly I hope you get a bad case of piles – quite likely given the amount of crap that you discharge from almost every orifice.
Secondly I think it’s important that the top man is visibly displayed at the top of the tree so I hope you will make your way there and stick the needles up your back side.
Thirdly I hope you will enjoy watching the Queen’s Speech as that it the closest you will get to to HM.
Finally I can confirm I do indeed know my place – it’s as far away from you as possible, watching County Championship Cricket.
Up yours
That was beautiful. You’ve brought tears to my eyes. Merry Christmas to you and baa humbug to the twats at the top.
I think the Dear Colin email covers most things !!! I presume the needles sticking into the delicate area may stop him talking out of it ? Sorry probable to late !!!
You have to hand it to Graves, the idea that anyone could be worse than Giles Clarke seemed fanciful. But he’s done it. Of course the ECB governance structure is not fit for purpose. But when the likes of Clarke and Graves exercise almost untrammelled power ? Cricket, we have a problem.
I believe the counties have too much power but oddly that is working to their disadvantage. They were bribed to accept The Hundred. If there had been a proper and open partnership between the Board and the counties I believe building on the Blast would have been possible. There are plenty of ways to create an IPL/Blast hybrid that would have attracted overseas stars whilst keeping county loyalties. I have membership rights at four Test grounds where The Hundred will be played. But the teams based at them mean nothing to me or anyone else. Nottinghamshire have not written to me about the Trent Bridge Tossers (or whatever they’re called). Why should they – it’s nothing to do with them they are just a venue.
If they write to you, I would suggest that they are in breach of Data Protection Law.
Which may be why. Or may not be.
But if I hear from Manchester Munchers (it must be something like that as they are all crisps) then I will be asking where they got my details from.
A trifle simplistic it seems to me. The reason Sky are willing to pay ‘over the odds’ for test cricket and show matches from all over the world which have no interest to most domestic viewers live is quite simple. They’ve a whole channel to fill showing nothing but cricket. No other programming suffers an iota and nothing has to be sacrificed to make room for it.
If test cricket were shown live on terrestrial TV things would have to be dropped to make room for it and there would be ructions, especially if the viewing figures were poor. We live in a knee jerk era where businessmen respond to prevailing trends so the cries of us diehard traditionalists mean nothing to them.
Santa is not going to bring the presents we want boys and girls, bah humbug indeed!
I also have a horrible feeling The Hundred will be successful enough next season, largely to do with the publicity it will receive as a novelty, to become a fixture for those ‘visionaries’ at the top, so they can continually remind themselves how much better the game has been since thy took the helm. By better of course they mean popular, due to its formulaic approach to entertainment. The character of the game that makes it different from other sports will be sacrificed on the alter of Mamon as the phillistines triumph.
Anyway, seasons greetings to our great game, it may be the last season we recognise it.
According to Graves (see the links) terrestrial TV doesn’t want test cricket because it’s too expensive to film. About a million per test. That’s an expensive way to fill air time. I guess this hinges on whether one believes him.
i guess we could get an approximation of cost by finding out how much a live footie game sets a TV company back and multiplying that by 20 to bring up around 30 hours of live coverage.
There is certainly an audience amongst the retired and unemployed, but outside of weekends not a mainstream one. Even then would households tolerate someone hogging the telly for 6 hours during the day. BBC 2 certainly is the best bet for this as their daytime programming is not high profile, but let’s face it the Beeb’s record in losing bidding wars for live sporting events doesn’t inspire confidence and I can’t believe any commercial channel would be interested as the demographic for advertising would be limited. I can’t see companies beating the door down to show their wares between overs. How do you compete with specialist channels, entirely geared to covering a particular sport.
When the olympics are on (and on other occasions too) the BBC use the Red Button.
If they really wanted to them they could do that for at least part of the day, whilst cancelling some of their less high profile, less timing relevant programming just to ensure that it appeared in the billings so that no one forgot. Or of course they could use the Red Button all day.
While channel-surfing recently I’ve caught a few overs of a Mickey Mouse Ten10 competition somewhere in Middle East (Qatar?) That’s been a roaring success; why sometimes the gate has been in double figures!
I’ve also tried to watch some of the SA league= at least there are a few English players involved – but over the weekend whenever it was lsted, the channel was actually showing American College Football. Anyone know why?
Very funny and clever, but slightly off target.
I continue to agree with you on the absurdity of the Hundred – but your analysis on FTA cricket is wide of the mark. Firstly, Sky’s business model on sports rights has been based on paying top dollar, but only for total exclusivity (or as near so as they’re allowed to) – if not, they’re generally not interested or pay much less. So if they were forced to give up, say 40% of cricket to FTA, they’d pay much less than 60% of what they’d pay for the entire package. Secondly, you’re comparing apples with oranges – a quote from 2010 (based on a previous deal) with the current deal which was signed many years later. All of this means that the ECB would receive much less than £1bn if they were forced to show anything more than a token amount of cricket on FTA.
If there’s a case for showing any cricket on FTA, the shorter versions of the game would make more sense – they’re less expensive, fit better into schedules and are more likely to interest the more casual viewer. I of course enjoy Test cricket too, but it is more of an acquired taste.
What do you mean by exclusive? Just England?
BT now have all Australian home Cricket. They have also taken the South African T20 so there is every chance that it will be their Tests next.
They don’t have any Indian Cricket despite announcing that they had agreed a further contract with the IPL.
Sky no longer seems to show WI home tests unless they are against England and whilst they have the CPL, BT are showing the WI 50 over competition which again suggests that they are plotting a takeover there too. Indeed as the CPL next year takes place at the same time as the 16.6 then I can see the CPL taking back stage too, and BT jumping in.
On a similar line, more and more darts is going to ITV4 (and BT) and yet I am sure that Sky will continue to pay well for the major competitions.
“Sky’s business model on sports rights has been based on paying top dollar, but only for total exclusivity (or as near so as they’re allowed to)”.
So, they paid peanuts for the Lions and other rugby because they couldn’t get the 6N…. or for the other tennis Opens because they couldn’t get Wimbledon…. or the other gold majors while others had the Masters/Open?
They were allowed total exclusivity in cricket partly because of governments of both parties – but the ECB lobbied furiously and expensively to get cricket removed from the crown jewels and keep it off.
BBC2 shows repeat programmes from 12 noon to 6 pm. So it would be ideal for them to show Test Cricket as no programmes would have to be changed.
Don’t worry Mr. Graves. The English game is owned by the ECB and not the government. All your pension money and handouts will be safe for the years to come.
Very well written; especially about the wretched 100. A real pity about the offensive vocabulary in the last paragraph.
Umm.. it doesn’t need to be on a main tv channel at all… anyone heard of streaming on demand?? Irrelevant then as people can watch it live or simply start from ball one at 2000 if they wish.
If you think that you still need to be on tv, and only watch every ball live or else watch condensed pointless highlights then you’re in the dark ages.
Free cricket could be every single game, on dedicated feeds and centrally located where you simply click for your choice .. advertising can be added in easily
It really isn’t rocket science but.. but.. the ECB etc don’t want to do it as it’ll cost them in the short term. On demand tv is the way forward, live tv and especially ‘channels’ is old skool .. that’s for the grannies and granddads who still live in the dark ages. There can be a dedicated channel / stream for everything an dit can all be on demand and able to be watched for years to come.. so if you wanted, you should be able to go to the cricket, ashes, 2005 ashes, and simply watch each and every ball of that series now…