Re: CC Stats - Week 3

In article <x39jBiJj9ccEFwu7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Robert Henderson <philip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So counties had to make a commercial judgement on whether
the one-day competitions brought in more money than the extra cost.
I'd guess they thought they would, and, given the crowds, and the
TV exposure, I'd further guess that they were right.
Tosh.

So are you claiming that the 1-d comps were *expected* to
lose money? Or that *in fact* they did? Or are you just being
disagreeable?

It was the usual wave of sheeplike behaviour beloved of county
committees, who collectively understand nothing,

Possibly. Though in those days they were at least cricket
lovers and former players, not bean counters.

and will do whatever is
advocated to show they are doing "something". RH

Well, it had to get through the membership as well. I
don't recall anyone at the Notts AGMs of that period saying "We
don't want Sobers to come and play at Notts" or "Notts should
withdraw from the Gillette Cup" or similar [the B&H was a slightly
different matter].

You are still not addressing the basic problem. By the
late 50s, Notts [not the poorest of counties] were losing money
hand-over-fist, and bailed out only by the Test handout [which
was over half their income in decent years]. Their basic income
from cricket did not cover the wage bill for just one professional
team, let alone a 2nd XI, ground staff, stewards, office staff,
the cost of maintaining the ground, heating, lighting, equipment,
food, hotel/travelling expenses, .... There was a serious threat
of bankruptcy; a couple of bad years on the trot or the loss of
Test status [a genuine worry at the time as ground maintenance
was stripped to the bone] would have tipped them over the brink.
The final resort -- discussed at the highest levels -- would have
been to sell the ground; this would have solved the immediate
"balance" problems but not the "cash flow", and you can imagine
how it would have gone down with the Trent Bridge regulars. A
handful of counties were much better off; many were not, and must
have been in very similar straits [but without "Test status" to
provide a comfort blanket].

You can bleat as much as you like about how excellent
English cricket was in the early-mid '50s, and how you wish we
could get back to those days. But it became increasingly clear
to anyone hard-headed enough to look at the accounts rather than
the rosy glow of the Test results from 1953 to 1960 [apart from
the disaster of '58-9] that cricket had to change. Whether the
changes were the right ones is open to question -- but those
making them can at least point to the fact that county cricket,
in pretty much its ancient form, has survived. No county has
gone bankrupt; new counties and stadiums are in use; more
people are watching cricket -- OK, partly/mostly on the back of
the best Ashes series ever.

[...] You really cannot be in
the least surprised that counties tried desperately in the '60s to
find other sources of income. They had just lost 55% of their gate
receipts
Does not follow. Receipts and members' fees may have risen
disproportioantely. Rh

They could have but they didn't. Membership didn't decline
as badly as pay-at-the-gate, but it did decline. Subscriptions
rose only slowly until the years of rapid inflation. Also worth
remembering that many members were life members, meaning they had
paid #30 or whatever in [say] 1935, but were bringing no gate
money of any sort into the counties in 1960. Guess why life
memberships were [mostly? all?] scrapped in the '70s.

Cricket is no more a contact sport than tennis or golf.
Obvious nonsense. Balls are bowled at batsmen and hit at fielders. RH

If they are [deliberately], then the umpires should be
intervening. By your "definition", any ball game is a contact
sport -- normally taken to mean "significant physical contact
between the athletes involved" [Wiki]. The more important point
is that accidents happen, so that batsmen and fielders get hit
by a hard ball travelling at 90+ mph. Given that, the question
is not how to satisfy your sense of aesthetics, but how to make
the game safer. And if there are ways of making it safer that
employers [or law-makers] deny their employees, they deserve to
be sued if/when anything goes wrong.

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
anw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CC Stats - Week 3
    ... the one-day competitions brought in more money than the extra cost. ... A good example of the business "expertise" of cricket committees of the time was given by Brian Johnston. ... Receipts and members' fees may have risen ... It is only judged intimidatory if the bowler is pitching short and even then it has to be judged a deliberate attempt to hit the batsman rather than a ploy to get him out. ...
    (uk.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Money man in charge of the ECB - watch out
    ... He is a money man and has gained his position by promising more money to ... satellite and cable and the counties will use the money to fund more ... Cricket is not fist and foremost a business, it is a game which should ...
    (uk.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Money man in charge of the ECB - watch out
    ... He is a money man and has gained his position by promising more money to ... satellite and cable and the counties will use the money to fund more ... Cricket is not fist and foremost a business, it is a game which should ...
    (uk.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Money man in charge of the ECB - watch out
    ... He is a money man and has gained his position by promising more money to ... satellite and cable and the counties will use the money to fund more ... Cricket is not fist and foremost a business, it is a game which should ...
    (uk.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Money man in charge of the ECB - watch out
    ... He is a money man and has gained his position by promising more money to ... satellite and cable and the counties will use the money to fund more ... Cricket is not fist and foremost a business, it is a game which should ...
    (uk.sport.cricket)
Loading