NZ Cricket Going Broke
-
Unless there is change, of course.
Could this be the end of the longer domestic format of the game? I imagine that it is a big loss maker given crowds are next to nothing and it lasts up to four days per match.
-
@Hooroo said in NZ Cricket Going Broke:
Unless there is change, of course.
Could this be the end of the longer domestic format of the game? I imagine that it is a big loss maker given crowds are next to nothing and it lasts up to four days per match.
More players than spectators is never good in any sport.
-
It's a bloody tragedy. Domestic cricket hasn't been financially viable for ages... this just confirms it. Indian Cricket used to fund it completely; really not sure now what that looks like with the new funding model.
Also, looks like we're getting played by the ICC. Changing cost distribution forecasts is the sort of thing that happens in dodgy contracts -- 'we'll pay you next week' ... 'the cheques in the mail' ...
-
-
@Number-10 said in NZ Cricket Going Broke:
I guess the first thing that will be cut will be the Plunket Shield, again.
It was reduced from ten to eight games last season, so probably down to just five?
One round would probably do the trick wouldn't it?
-
@booboo maybe the more distilled it gets the better our test team goes!!
Is long-form cricket at domestic level profitable in any country? I wonder if it is in England as their county cricket is high profile, but I'd have no idea about crowd numbers. Is it even televised? almost 100% sure their ODI and 20/20 comps are.
ICC politics aye. stink.
-
No way any domestic cricket anywhere, that isn't a T20 comp, is a money spinner.
I'm not surprised we have no money to be honest. Crowds for internationals are a bit shit, especially tests, while we are not a big draw internationally. We are in all realities a plucky minnow.
-
@mariner4life said in NZ Cricket Going Broke:
No way any domestic cricket anywhere, that isn't a T20 comp, is a money spinner.
I'm not surprised we have no money to be honest. Crowds for internationals are a bit shit, especially tests, while we are not a big draw internationally. We are in all realities a plucky minnow.
We've always punched in the limited overs format but this is our best test team ever at the moment. What a shit situation for the best format of the game.....
-
@MN5 i think those who love cricket agree. But watching on TV i can absolutely see why NZC book 47 ODI and T20s a summer, and 3 tests.
People love test cricket, people in NZ don't love going to test cricket.
-
@mariner4life said in NZ Cricket Going Broke:
@MN5 i think those who love cricket agree. But watching on TV i can absolutely see why NZC book 47 ODI and T20s a summer, and 3 tests.
People love test cricket, people in NZ don't love going to test cricket.
Completely. One of my favourite things to do on Boxing Day and the day after is have a couple of beers with the old man and flick between the cricket that is on......the sparse emptiness of the NZ gounds ( whichever it is that year ) compared to the MCG is sad.
-
Yea, well, that's another issue. Sharing a season with Australia, and India, and to a lessor extent South Africa really hurts us.
-
@mariner4life said in NZ Cricket Going Broke:
Yea, well, that's another issue. Sharing a season with Australia, and India, and to a lessor extent South Africa really hurts us.
So does playing Sri Lanka and Bangladesh EVERY FUCKEN SEASON !
-
@booboo said in NZ Cricket Going Broke:
@Number-10 said in NZ Cricket Going Broke:
I guess the first thing that will be cut will be the Plunket Shield, again.
It was reduced from ten to eight games last season, so probably down to just five?
One round would probably do the trick wouldn't it?
I would be apprehensive from the viewpoint that right now our Test match cricket is just about to increase by being part of the new World Championship.
And reducing the number of games of Plunket Shield in which new players supposedly learn to prepare for Test cricket by batting time and bowling more than 10 overs in a day is then a superb irony.
Was the last time we had a five-match first-class programme season 1974-1975 - before it got expanded with the sponsorship of Shell?
-
@Number-10 said in NZ Cricket Going Broke:
Was the last time we had a five-match first-class programme season 1974-1975 - before it got expanded with the sponsorship of Shell?
That's quite a scrary date.
Prior to the Plunket Shield being expanded, NZ's test match winning record was 8 test wins in 116 matches. (6.89% winning record)
Since expanding the Plunket Shield NZ's test match winning record is 89 wins in 317 matches (28.07% winning record)
Causation/correlation .... Prior to 1973 we were rubbish. 1973 tour to England and then the 73/74 series v Australia is where I would place the moment NZ stopped being a bit of a joke.
Probably an element of correlation then? or the FC experience gained in the long 73 tour is expanded on by the 'permanent' expansion in FC cricket which started a year later.
-
Dylan Cleaver has wriiten on the same subject behind the Herald paywall, which I haven't read. Does it make more sense? I find this Reason article at the top of this thread to be all over the place.
An older Stuff article which better explains the ICC funding hockey stick graph, also included the gate takings quote:
White said NZC faced a "challenging couple of years" but explained the loss was largely due to the International Cricket Council's new financial model. In the eight years till 2023, NZC's slice of ICC funding would increase from US$90m to US$128m but it was a case of less now, more later.
gate takings, which typically make up 10 per cent of NZC's revenue
-
Basically. From the ICC funding POV. NZC have more money. However it is structured i n a way that is is weighted to the backend of the contract period whihc is only 4 ears away - they have a windfall about 2 to 3 years way.
But they can't budget well enough, or hold their nerve, for a few years of losses, and are prepared to taker the sword to domestic cricket costs.
When the windfall arrives in 2 years time, will the 60 domestic players have retired early to get real jobs because they were about to be made semi-pro for 2 years come back?
Or will Plunket Shield have had a generation ripped out of them? Similar to how the disastrous Cricekt Academey ripped a generation of domestic pace bowlers out of Plunket Shield for a decade (the 2000s) due to bio-dynamics/re-modelling breaking them permanently?
The other major funding source; broadcasting. Is referred to as ""As a rights holder it's not a bad market to be in,"
So this whole thing is over the structure of the ICC payments.
