Ashes to go back to terrestrial TV

[stevegrant]

Looks like the Ashes are going to be added to the list of "protected" events, which means they have to be broadcast on terrestrial TV.

 

I think this decision is going to be disastrous for the game in this country.

 

Firstly, they're doing it for the benefit of those who couldn't give a toss about cricket unless the Ashes are on, so it's not going to make any difference in terms of getting people through the gates to watch county games, and the international games generally sell out anyway.

 

Secondly, it's going to have a massive knock-on effect to the ECB's development programmes. As Sky won't have exclusivity for the headline Test series, the value of the rights package will fall, which means that the ECB will have to cut the funding to the programmes that are aimed at bringing more people into the game.

[Hatch]

What Steve said.

 

plus, Who makes these decisions, and on what authority?

[Scummer]

If you look at it the other way:

1 ) Kids who have no interest in cricket watch the Ashes on the BBC during their school holidays.

2 ) Kids get into cricket.

3 ) The ECB development programme gets a lot of it's work done for it.

[bungle]

What Steve said.

 

plus, Who makes these decisions, and on what authority?

 

I believe it is Parliament that decides the "protected events" list, but can't remember if they all have to vote it through or whether it is the job of a committee.

[chrisobee]

I agree about the financial implications but having the Ashes on terrestial TV does make it much easier to watch. I remember in 2005 dashing back and forth from my desk at work to the canteen especially on the final day and but for it being on CH4 I would not have been able to watch the final overs live. Of course if you have sky player and can watch at work then there isn't a problem, a lot of people can't do that.

I'm not sure what would be a reasonable solution though in terms of who decides I believe under current law (Part 4 of the Broadcasting Act 1996) the Secretary of State can draw up and publish a list of protected events. Before doing so he must first take into account the views of broadcasters, sports rights holders and regulators though there is no vote as far as I'm aware.

[RedAndWhite91]

The Ashes series in 2005 was broadcast on Channel 4 and almost everyone I know, even if they didn't have an interest in cricket beforehand watched it at some point throughout the series and got involved in supporting England. After that series membership at my cricket club seemed to grow and more and more people got into cricket. We spent what seemed like almost every day of that summer playing cricket.

 

But, the series that was on Sky, despite us winning it again and it being another great series, didn't seem to have the same sort of impact.

 

My Dad, who is well into cricket couldn't afford Sky and so missed out on watching most of the 2009 series as it was on Sky. I'm sure there are many others like this.

 

And so ladies and gentlemen, that's why I think the move back to terrestrial is a good move.

[RedAndWhite91]

Sorry, accidentally posted the same post twice.

Edited 12 November, 2009 by RedAndWhite91
Posted it twice.

[krissyboy31]

The Ashes series in 2005 was broadcast on Channel 4 and almost everyone I know, even if they didn't have an interest in cricket beforehand watched it at some point throughout the series and got involved in supporting England. After that series membership at my cricket club seemed to grow and more and more people got into cricket. We spent what seemed like almost every day of that summer playing cricket.

 

But, the series that was on Sky, despite us winning it again and it being another great series, didn't seem to have the same sort of impact.

 

My Dad, who is well into cricket couldn't afford Sky and so missed out on watching most of the 2009 series as it was on Sky. I'm sure there are many others like this.

 

And so ladies and gentlemen, that's why I think the move back to terrestrial is a good move.

Although I have Sky and love their cricket coverage, I have to agree with this post. Not all Cricket fans or fans of the future, has or can afford Sky and I think the Ashes, being a sporting institution should be available to all.

[OldNick]

the problem is like listenijg to Test Match Special and you get to a crucial stage and they leave for the shipping forecast or Rev Sarah Patronise do a sermon.

If the BBC say they will show every minute then fine, but if they dont let Sky keep it.

[stevegrant]

Also, how likely is it that the BBC or Channel 4 (the two most likely bidders, I'd have thought) will be able to dedicate 25 full days worth of programming to it without shunting bits of it across to other channels?

 

In 2005, we constantly missed bits when C4 cut away to show horse-racing, and they even had a day's play on Film4 if I remember rightly.

 

BBC's content would end up on BBC3, and Five's signal is so weak that fewer people would be able to watch it there than on Sky!

 

But, the series that was on Sky, despite us winning it again and it being another great series, didn't seem to have the same sort of impact.

It was a good series, but certainly not a great series. In 2005, England were at the absolute peak of their game and Australia weren't far short. Both teams were considerably weaker this time around which meant the quality was in much shorter supply, and which is why we were able to win pretty much due to a handful of very good sessions despite overall dominance from the Aussies.

 

It didn't have the same sort of impact because we'd seen us win the Ashes in 2005. Back then it was a new experience for a hell of a lot of people.

[krissyboy31]

It didn't have the same sort of impact because we'd seen us win the Ashes in 2005. Back then it was a new experience for a hell of a lot of people.

 

I think it was more the fact that we weren't beating a great team this time. In 1995 we had to be at our very best to beat arguably the best team the world has ever seen and just about managed to get over the line. This year, for the vast majority of the series, we were outplayed by a pretty average side but managed to win more of the important sessions to win the series. If we had played like we did this year back in '95, that Aussie team would have wiped the floor with us.

[Atticus Finch of Maycomb]

Also, how likely is it that the BBC or Channel 4 (the two most likely bidders, I'd have thought) will be able to dedicate 25 full days worth of programming to it without shunting bits of it across to other channels?

 

In 2005, we constantly missed bits when C4 cut away to show horse-racing, and they even had a day's play on Film4 if I remember rightly.

 

BBC's content would end up on BBC3, and Five's signal is so weak that fewer people would be able to watch it there than on Sky!

 

 

It was a good series, but certainly not a great series. In 2005, England were at the absolute peak of their game and Australia weren't far short. Both teams were considerably weaker this time around which meant the quality was in much shorter supply, and which is why we were able to win pretty much due to a handful of very good sessions despite overall dominance from the Aussies.

 

It didn't have the same sort of impact because we'd seen us win the Ashes in 2005. Back then it was a new experience for a hell of a lot of people.

 

lots of good points in this post. stevegrant, you are so knowledgeable.

[The Cat]

I'd imagine BBC will transfer between BBC 1 and 2 depending on the time of day. If C4 win the rights then there's no problem as the viewing figures for the cricket will outstrip anything their normal daytime schedule will get, although at the moment there's no way they could afford to bid for it. As for Five, won't everyone be able to get it through digital tv by then?

 

Free to air Ashes is great for the game. More people see it, more people will play it. You'll probably also see a knock on to the county games (apart from the championship games that clash with the Ashes as everyone will be at home watching that!)

 

OK so the ECB will lose money but surely some of this can be recouped through the extra visibility team sponsorship will receive over an Ashes summer.

 

Also, anything that annoys Sky is fine by me.

[CB Fry]

Also, how likely is it that the BBC or Channel 4 (the two most likely bidders, I'd have thought) will be able to dedicate 25 full days worth of programming to it without shunting bits of it across to other channels?

 

In 2005, we constantly missed bits when C4 cut away to show horse-racing, and they even had a day's play on Film4 if I remember rightly.

 

BBC's content would end up on BBC3, and Five's signal is so weak that fewer people would be able to watch it there than on Sky!

 

 

It was a good series, but certainly not a great series. In 2005, England were at the absolute peak of their game and Australia weren't far short. Both teams were considerably weaker this time around which meant the quality was in much shorter supply, and which is why we were able to win pretty much due to a handful of very good sessions despite overall dominance from the Aussies.

 

It didn't have the same sort of impact because we'd seen us win the Ashes in 2005. Back then it was a new experience for a hell of a lot of people.

 

 

Pretty sure that come 2013 the digital switchover will be complete, or near as dammit, so there is no issue whatsoever with access to channels and the BBC or C4 could show it on one of their platforms, to everyone.

 

And, more importantly, Sky could show it, for free.

 

And I disagree with your last line - back in 2005 it was a new experience for a hell of a lot of people. In 2009 it was an experience for a handful of people who already liked cricket.

 

Most people didn't have the opportunity to say "I saw it all four years ago, I won't bother" - there was no option to watch it, so the casual fans just got on with their lives and left the 2009 Ashes to the ever diminishing pool of cricket fans.

 

Who needs new supporters taking an interest, eh?

Edited 13 November, 2009 by CB Fry

[JustMike]

Im all for this being put back on free to air, should never have moved in the first place imo. In 2005 cricket was everywhere, as a nation we were hooked, even those that had only tentatively watched it in the past tuned in. Yes granted that was partly down to the fact that England were putting up a fight against an awesome Aussie side but i wonder if it would have been so wide spread if it had just been on sky. As for which channel would get it, I heard (or read) somewhere that sky were considering to air it for free and what with the digital switch over all but done there should be no problem there.