Australian Off Season 2017

[Shri]

Does Australia need a gloom and doom thread more than NZ?

 

[Tangles]

What do we think the average career length of the rookie who plays a few state games but doesn't make it is? 3 years?

 

[howardj]

That's the point though - ACA are prepared to discuss what revenue streams are included and what are not.

CA just want it out.

Good then that's a way forward...come down from the current 26% to something like 24% or a touch lower.

For me, the really important points to address/fund are:

- keeping registration fees as low as possible for children. This is such a hot-button issue for parents whose kids play sport
- making cricket a viable career path financially and competitive with average AFL / NRL wages even if you don't play for Australia (which most guys won't). The current offer of $235 000 in my view achieves this
- giving local clubs a bit of a leg up in terms of their facilities/pitches etc.
- making going to the cricket affordable...most people on this forum got hooked on cricket by actually attending a game as a kid
- EDIT....and keeping cricket on free to air TV

 

[howardj]

Yeah the actual pay level is IMO a complete non-issue. Because under the ACA model the players get paid based on how well the sport performs. Under the CA model the players get paid based on what the board thinks they can get away with paying.

The first model encourages the players to outreach to the community and grow the sport. The second model offers no such encouragement.

Again though, as I said yesterday, what are the players currently doing as 'partners' to grow the game? The Australian players are some of the most inaccessible sportsmen in the country. The only way you get near them is at one of their book signings. Granted, Shield players visit schools.; However that's a condition of their employment contract. They don't do it voluntarily because they want to grow the game as partners.

Both sides are being ideological in this debate and for good reason. CA wants to decouple their player payments from their revenue because they expect revenue from TV rights (particularly from the Big Bash) to go up dramatically over the next five years. The ACA wants to keep the revenue sharing model because they feel the players are entitled to that future revenue too.

It's the opposite at least with international cricket. Channel Nine have been urged by financial analysts to not pay any more dollars than what they currently are for cricket.Channel Nine urged by financial analysts UBS to drop loss-making cricket broadcast coverage - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

And, with Channel 10 in receivership, there are doubts that there will be a bidding war for the Big Bash rights. CA are very uncertain about future revenue, at least TV revenue. I think this is one of their motivations behind wanting to fix player wages rather than having them open-ended.

In any case this current pay dispute is damaging the game and is sadly distracting the public from the WWC which is running right now.

Absolutely. Even the talk of strikes or threats to the Ashes is damaging.

 

[social]

The TV market is an issue but there is no way rights are decreasing as:

a. The Big Bash was sold for a relatively paltry sum first time around and has been a massive rating success;

b. Part of the reason why Ten was placed into administration was so that shareholders might renegotiate financial covenants and licence fees (plus Packer wanted out). There are a number of suitors lined up (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...holders-signal-intention-to-take-over-network) and it's odds on that they will go hard for the BBL at least

c. Nine needs cricket is its schedule as it has little else for the summer

d. TV rights in the UK have just doubled - obviously a different market but it is somewhat of an indicator of the market for live sport

It may well be that Foxtel and/or Optus also get the opportunity for part of the package (heaven forbid) and that will also put a floor under the price

 

[howardj]

Is the timing all wrong?

Should the TV rights be done first, and then the MoU?

That's the way the NRL and AFL do it

 

[social]

Is the timing all wrong?

Should the TV rights be done first, and then the MoU?

That's the way the NRL and AFL do it

Get that common sense approach outta here

This is cricket administration not real life

 

[Red]

How many kids are actually good enough at both cricket and AFL/rugby to actually make it at elite level in either?

I know there's been a few (Mitch Marsh recently and back in the day Craig Bradley and Keith Miller etc) but I don't think it's like every kid who is elite in one is actually even remotely good enough at the other in order to be able to choose based on financial considerations.

 

[Burgey]

That's true, but I suppose the point is if they're taken down a pathway which concentrates their future into one sport, then no one would ever know for sure.

 

[social]

Virtually impossible to play 2 sports at any real level these days as the seasons overlap so one sport generally has to be sacrificed

As an example, NRL pre-season matches start in February so I assume that training must commence before Christmas

 

[morgieb]

How many kids are actually good enough at both cricket and AFL/rugby to actually make it at elite level in either?

I know there's been a few (Mitch Marsh recently and back in the day Craig Bradley and Keith Miller etc) but I don't think it's like every kid who is elite in one is actually even remotely good enough at the other in order to be able to choose based on financial considerations.

There's a few prospects this year that are good at both. Will Sutherland perhaps the biggest name.

And I remember seeing a Victorian U-17 cricket team with two future #1 AFL picks in them.

It's not particularly common, but not unheard of either.

Less common with the rugby codes though oddly. Perhaps that's why NSW has such strong cricketing development.

 

[mr_mister]

Wasn't Shane Warne tipped to be the next big thing in AFL

 

[Red]

I think Warne actually played a few 2s games for St Kilda FC.

I guess it might come back to the choice when a kid is 14 or 15 and the financial aspect might be a consideration in that choice. Still think most kids will do what they love though.

 

[Red]

Correction, U19s for the Saints. Can see he's a naturally talented AFL player. Probably could've made a career at the Saints in the early 90s as a forward pocket or flanker.

 

[TheJediBrah]

How many kids are actually good enough at both cricket and AFL/rugby to actually make it at elite level in either?

I know there's been a few (Mitch Marsh recently and back in the day Craig Bradley and Keith Miller etc) but I don't think it's like every kid who is elite in one is actually even remotely good enough at the other in order to be able to choose based on financial considerations.

These days, not many, because the standards are too high to maintain it for 2 sports.

But the relevant question to ask isn't how may are good enough to do both, but how many have the potential to do both. Which would be quite a few (more the younger they are)

 

[Justo]

Channel Nine urged by financial analysts UBS to drop loss-making cricket broadcast coverage - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)[/url]

And, with Channel 10 in receivership, there are doubts that there will be a bidding war for the Big Bash rights. CA are very uncertain about future revenue, at least TV revenue. I think this is one of their motivations behind wanting to fix player wages rather than having them open-ended.

If this were true and CA were expecting their TV rights revenue to go down (I don't believe it) then sticking to the current revenue sharing model would be far better than offering players contracts which offer more than what they are currently receive (CA would end up getting locked in at these higher wages while earning less income).

To me CA simply want a larger piece of the pie and probably also want to have greater control over the players, the game etc. If they were able to provide genuine reasons for needing/wanting to make these changes then maybe my opinion could be changed but everything they've shown so far mostly just seems to be generic statements with few details.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Marc Murphy
Brett Delidio
Luke Ball
James Bartel
Kane Tenace

Within five years all were picked in Victorian Under 17 cricket and were drafted in the Top 10. That's just around my age group.

 

[vic_orthdox]

How many kids are actually good enough at both cricket and AFL/rugby to actually make it at elite level in either?

I know there's been a few (Mitch Marsh recently and back in the day Craig Bradley and Keith Miller etc) but I don't think it's like every kid who is elite in one is actually even remotely good enough at the other in order to be able to choose based on financial considerations.

Shannon Hurn and Brett Delidio were offered rookie contracts with their state.

 

[Top_Cat]

Bartel has the sort of face whose cage you want to rattle but ends up hooking you around the park all day.

 

[Spikey]

I think Bartel even managed to get away with playing a bit of club cricket during his career