Sky coverage

[Andy]

Not sure where you are coming from now Andy.

In one post you are saying that the ECB has got it wrong in concentrating on the public schools - now you are saying we shouldn't get "down with the kids". Which is not what anyone is saying, anyway. It's about looking at ways to get the younger generation attending, and participating in, cricket.

At the moment it would appear that this demographic have not much interest in the game - whether we like it or not. I don't agree with you about terrestrial TV - there is coverage now on Channel5 so it's not like it's not available at all. And it's packaged highlights at what would seem a reasonable hour. I can't say I have come across many younger folk who watch it. With the ability to watch telly in different rooms,  on tablets etc as well as being online I can't see a sudden influx of families sitting down together to watch cricket if it miraculously appeared on terrestrial TV.

And are we really talking about "thrashing around with the county game" (love your emotive language) - nope - we are looking at taking one competition and changing it to see if it will produce some benefits - while still retaining the major part of cricket as we know it
You talk about J K Rowling and who'd have thought it. Who'd have thought it a number of years back that we would be playing Twenty/20 cricket under lights with rock music blaring out between balls and overs.

Neil, perfectly simple. The franchise nonsense is a prime example of marketing bull showing little understanding both of the traditional supporter or 'the kids'.

There isn't much coverage on channel 5, it's minimal and poorly timed. Always admired Sunset and Vines approach to the televising of live or highlights.

What you describe about T20 isn't that surprising if you consider Packer was doing all that in 1977. Point is that we can't be sure that the wheel won't come full circle and the kids will suddenly discover the longer game - despite the apparent attempts by Vaughan et al to destroy the 4 day game.

P.S. Hope the back situation improves.

[neil]

Not sure where you are coming from now Andy.

In one post you are saying that the ECB has got it wrong in concentrating on the public schools - now you are saying we shouldn't get "down with the kids". Which is not what anyone is saying, anyway. It's about looking at ways to get the younger generation attending, and participating in, cricket.

At the moment it would appear that this demographic have not much interest in the game - whether we like it or not. I don't agree with you about terrestrial TV - there is coverage now on Channel5 so it's not like it's not available at all. And it's packaged highlights at what would seem a reasonable hour. I can't say I have come across many younger folk who watch it. With the ability to watch telly in different rooms,  on tablets etc as well as being online I can't see a sudden influx of families sitting down together to watch cricket if it miraculously appeared on terrestrial TV.

And are we really talking about "thrashing around with the county game" (love your emotive language) - nope - we are looking at taking one competition and changing it to see if it will produce some benefits - while still retaining the major part of cricket as we know it
You talk about J K Rowling and who'd have thought it. Who'd have thought it a number of years back that we would be playing Twenty/20 cricket under lights with rock music blaring out between balls and overs.

Neil, perfectly simple. The franchise nonsense is a prime example of marketing bull showing little understanding both of the traditional supporter or 'the kids'.

There isn't much coverage on channel 5, it's minimal and poorly timed. Always admired Sunset and Vines approach to the televising of live or highlights.

What you describe about T20 isn't that surprising if you consider Packer was doing all that in 1977. Point is that we can't be sure that the wheel won't come full circle and the kids will suddenly discover the longer game - despite the apparent attempts by Vaughan et al to destroy the 4 day game.

P.S. Hope the back situation improves.

Hi Andy.

Back still sore thank you. More annoyingly it was my own stupid fault! 
 
Well I think if you are waiting for the wheel to turn full circle you may be waiting a long time. As Linda and Steve indicated in their eminently sensible post times have changed.

The franchise system may - or may not - be nonsense but I reckon it's worth a try. After all we have other forms of the game for the "traditionalists" and it's there if the youngsters want to go back to it at some time. So experiment with the Twenty/20 -I'm not sure there is much to lose is there? If it turns out to be a dumb idea and fails then back to where we were before - if it works then all good.

[alji]

There's 14 years of popular t20 tradition at Chelmsford already, so I am opposed to anything that will do damage to that, and city t20 will. It's the thin end of the wedge, whatever the liars say there won't be room in the calendar for traditional t20 as well. Once that goes, the end is nigh for the non-test ground counties. We will see flats built on the County Ground, a lot more than the failed redevelopment planned.

[neil]

There's 14 years of popular t20 tradition at Chelmsford already, so I am opposed to anything that will do damage to that, and city t20 will. It's the thin end of the wedge, whatever the liars say there won't be room in the calendar for traditional t20 as well. Once that goes, the end is nigh for the non-test ground counties. We will see flats built on the County Ground, a lot more than the failed redevelopment planned.

Or the city Twenty/20 will be a success - gets in money that goes to the counties and Chelmsford will be safe for ever....

Who knows. But one thing that comes out in this thread that no-one seems to have a good alternative.

[nat]

I have a good idea ...
...
keep T20 as it is. You want T20 city coverage? You got it.

Yorkshire (Leeds)
Lancs (Manchester)
Birmigham (War)
London (Middx and Surrey who regularly sell out)
Bristol (Glo)
Cardiff ....etc etc.

plus many other counties sell out their grounds.

Leave it alone.

[neil]

I have a good idea ...
...
keep T20 as it is. You want T20 city coverage? You got it.

Yorkshire (Leeds)
Lancs (Manchester)
Birmigham (War)
London (Middx and Surrey who regularly sell out)
Bristol (Glo)
Cardiff ....etc etc.

plus many other counties sell out their grounds.

Leave it alone.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2016/07/27/t20-revolution-provides-radical-change-needed-to-get-everyone-ta/

Don't necessarily agree with all that Michael Vaughan says but the ticket sale figures at the bottom of the article are illuminating

[alji]

There's 14 years of popular t20 tradition at Chelmsford already, so I am opposed to anything that will do damage to that, and city t20 will. It's the thin end of the wedge, whatever the liars say there won't be room in the calendar for traditional t20 as well. Once that goes, the end is nigh for the non-test ground counties. We will see flats built on the County Ground, a lot more than the failed redevelopment planned.

Or the city Twenty/20 will be a success - gets in money that goes to the counties and Chelmsford will be safe for ever....

Who knows. But one thing that comes out in this thread that no-one seems to have a good alternative.

If it works City T20 will increase Essex's income from the ECB while reducing the income that Essex generate from their own games (Our T20 will be seen by players, the media, sponsors, spectators as second rate). Same for all the other outsiders. Increasing their financial dependence on the ECB cannot be good, and at some stage some bright spark in the ECB will ask why they are paying tens of millions of pounds a year between them to these counties in whom very few people are interested and maybe each produce an England player once a decade if that? Couldn't this money be put to better use elsewhere? Don't most of these counties occupy prime land ripe for residential development? We're doomed!

[nat]

Yep this initiative is part of a strategy by the ECB to exert total control of all professional cricket in England. It must be resisted.

[alji]

I have a good idea ...
...
keep T20 as it is. You want T20 city coverage? You got it.

Yorkshire (Leeds)
Lancs (Manchester)
Birmigham (War)
London (Middx and Surrey who regularly sell out)
Bristol (Glo)
Cardiff ....etc etc.

plus many other counties sell out their grounds.

Leave it alone.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2016/07/27/t20-revolution-provides-radical-change-needed-to-get-everyone-ta/

Don't necessarily agree with all that Michael Vaughan says but the ticket sale figures at the bottom of the article are illuminating

Comparing countries is pointless, different geography, different grounds, different competing sports and other attractions) The county figures illustrate the failure of most of the big city grounds to sell tickets to their locals, even the one that has changed it's name. And the non big city clubs are getting the blame. It is fanciful to suggest that will change and generate the sort of sums that are being promised to counties.

[nat]

It doesn't matter if the promised income fails to materialise. The ECB has enormous reserves and will use them to pay the promised money to the counties. Make no mistake this is a battle for county survival... not not in the way that struggling counties see it.

[neil]

I have a good idea ...
...
keep T20 as it is. You want T20 city coverage? You got it.

Yorkshire (Leeds)
Lancs (Manchester)
Birmigham (War)
London (Middx and Surrey who regularly sell out)
Bristol (Glo)
Cardiff ....etc etc.

plus many other counties sell out their grounds.

Leave it alone.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2016/07/27/t20-revolution-provides-radical-change-needed-to-get-everyone-ta/

Don't necessarily agree with all that Michael Vaughan says but the ticket sale figures at the bottom of the article are illuminating

Comparing countries is pointless, different geography, different grounds, different competing sports and other attractions) The county figures illustrate the failure of most of the big city grounds to sell tickets to their locals, even the one that has changed it's name. And the non big city clubs are getting the blame. It is fanciful to suggest that will change and generate the sort of sums that are being promised to counties.

I didn't post it as a comparison. I put it out there in response to nat's comments about many other counties selling out their grounds

[neil]

It doesn't matter if the promised income fails to materialise. The ECB has enormous reserves and will use them to pay the promised money to the counties. Make no mistake this is a battle for county survival... not not in the way that struggling counties see it.

Disagree. It's about changing one of the competitions.

[alji]

What happens to the outsider counties if Cityt20 happens may be open to debate but one thing is certain, that they will be even more dependent on ECB funding than ever. And it is not just changing one competition, it is introducing a new competition with a detrimental effect on existing competitions.

[neil]

What happens to the outsider counties if Cityt20 happens may be open to debate but one thing is certain, that they will be even more dependent on ECB funding than ever. And it is not just changing one competition, it is introducing a new competition with a detrimental effect on existing competitions.

To be honest none of us know if that is the case do we? I admit to punting on this a bit but I don't really see T20 affecting the CC or the other non T20 competitions.

I just don't think standing still is an option. As I have said on a number of occasions I reckon there are too many T20 games. I like the two division option, as it happens, but can also see a short, sharp fewer teams competition being attractive

As a TV viewer I very much enjoyed the IPL and the Big Bash. They may not be comparable but the fact that they are over a discreet period enhanced them IMHO. It focussed attention for a start.

[Valentines Park]

In my last informal conversation with Nigel Hilliard he said that was what he wanted cricket to become

Always thought he was an idiot.

Thanks for the confirmation.