Packed calendar, or taking audiences and spectators for granted?

Are cricket administrators taking TV audiences and ground spectators for granted?

The Champions League Twenty20 final is on a Friday.

The 2008 2009 Champions Trophy final was on a Monday.

The Ind-SL-NZ tri-series final was on a Monday.

How do you explain 'grand' finals being held on week-days? It perhaps makes sense to have the final on a Saturday, with the Sunday being the spare day in case it rains on the parade.

But Mondays? Is it because TV channels don't want to have too many sporting events over the weekend, thereby risking advertisement revenue? But this is cricket, and when India is involved, the advertisers flock! No?

Is this because the schedule has become so jam-packed that there's absolutely no other option?

Hauritz, Lee and Bollinger could play the first of the 7 ODIs against India 2 days after playing the final of the CL T20. There were a lot more players who had perhaps a break of 3-4 days between the Champions Trophy final and their first CL T20 games.

Labels: champions league, clt20, scheduling, television, tv rights

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:16 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

BCCI & TEN Sports, ICC "Hall of fame" and Michael Vaughan retires

Sometime last week, the BCCI announced that India would play a tri-series in Sri Lanka, with New Zealand being the third team. The announcement came a few days after India were thrashed at the Super Eight stage of the Twenty20 World Cup leading a lot of folks, including the coach Gary Kirsten, to proclaim that fatigue was one of the main reasons for the pathetic showing.

Maybe the BCCI was making a point - "You chaps can keep bleating about burnout. Until you actually collectively start pulling out of series, we'll keep milking you for what it's worth". So doesn't this previously unscheduled 4-match ODI series present a wonderful opportunity for players like the skipper Dhoni, Ishant, Gambhir and Yuvraj to excuse themselves from this tour?

Maybe there's a commercial angle that doesn't seem so obvious here. This would be the 3rd consecutive unscheduled series (or hastily arranged series) that is being played in a country where TEN Sports has the telecast rights for the Indian TV audience. The first was the ODI series in Sri Lanka and the second is the on-going 4-match ODI series in West Indies.

It does seem too much of a coincidence. But perhaps not when you realize that TEN Sports was in fact launched in India by none other than Lalit Modi and his MEN distributed the channel for a few years.

TEN Sports is partly owned by Zee, and the BCCI has basically not been on talking terms with Zee (Subhash Chandra) ever since he took the BCCI to court over the BCCI's allotment of TV rights 4-5 years ago when Zee Sports first won the rights only for the BCCI to move the goalposts when ESPN-Star bleated.

Now, after the BCCI announced an amnesty scheme for those affiliated with the ICL, maybe the BCCI and Zee Sports are becoming friends again. Maybe, like I predicted a year ago, the ICL would be wound-up and the quid pro-quo would involve TV rights, IPL team ownership, etc.

So maybe the new-found bonhomie explains why the BCCI is scheduling matches in these countries/regions. After all, surely the BCCI would have earned more revenue (gate proceeds, in-stadia advertising, etc.) if the games had been played in India.

Now, moving on to the ICC. At the start of the year, the ICC announced that it was creating a "Hall of fame" and the first list would have 55 players.

That '55' number sounds so arbitrary. Why wasn't it 50, surely a more 'round' number? Or did the ICC think they'd create 5 teams of 11 players each from the first batch of inductees? Given that the only wicket-keepers they've picked are Knott, Marsh and Walcott (who only kept wickets in 15 out of the 44 tests he played in), there's no way they could have got 5 playing XIs.

Ok, so that 55 is just a number picked out of the someone's nose. What was the criteria for picking these players? Test records? ODI records? Contribution to the advancement of cricket [especially applicable for those who played in the first 2-3 decades of test cricket perhaps]? Domestic cricket records? Gut-feel? Only those who'd retired before a specific date? There're a few players who really make me wonder about the criteria.

Barry Richards is universally considered to be among the best batsmen who never got to showcase his wares long enough in test cricket (4 tests at a batting average of 72 against a bowling 'attack' of Garth McKenzie, Ashley Mallett and John Gleeson). Watching this video of him batting convinces me that the perception about him isn't wrong. Yet, the hard facts are that he only played 7 innings.

Was David Gower such a good player? Obviously he was a very attractive batsman to watch, and was good enough to make bowlers look ridiculous. But he didn't do it often enough, and most certainly not when the bowling was of decent quality (averaging 33 against West Indies, for example).

Javed Miandad retired from international cricket multiple times, the last occasion being after Pakistan were knocked out of the 1996 World Cup. Martin Crowe played his last international cricket game 3-4 months before Miandad retired. So clearly 1995 doesn't seem to be the cut-off year. Perhaps it is 1996. Why 1996?

Surely, if David Gower finds a place on the basis of him being lovely to watch, Crowe must be a shoo-in, especially considering he averaged 45 against West Indies, 50 against Pakistan and 48 against Australia!

As noted in multiple tweets, Michael Vaughan retired from all forms of professional cricket yesterday, 11 months after he quit as captain. Exactly 3 years ago, I wrote about how he was only 32 and nearly retired because of his wonky knee.

Vaughan was a very pleasing batsman to watch, especially in 2002 and early 2003 when he was consistently dismantling India's and Australia's bowlers. However, the runs pretty much dried up after that series, and the most he averaged in a year after 2002 was 47.6 in 2007. It certainly wasn't for lack of opportunity, since between 2003 and 2008, he played at least 9 tests every year, including against West Indies, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

The reality is that Vaughan under-achieved as a batsman. On that front, I'd rank him alongside Stephen Fleming, VVS Laxman, Sourav Ganguly and Damien Martyn (until 2-3 years ago, Mahela Jayawardene would have also been included in this list). TV commentary, newspaper columns, reality TV adjudication, etc. beckon and I hope he does well in his new roles.

Labels: ashes, ashes 2009, bcci, book cricket, england, hall of fame, icc, lalit modi, retire, ten sports, tv rights, vaughan

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:23 pm | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

IPL facing far too many questions

Before India's general election dates were announced, there was little doubt over the 2009 edition of the Indian Premier League being held. The primary concerns were over what all it would be blamed for, the impact of the attack in Lahore and whether anyone would actually care if Andrew Symonds or Ricky Ponting were missing.

However, it soon became apparent that the Indian government was not quite thrilled with the schedule drawn up for the IPL because the priority in terms of deployment security personnel would (obviously) be for the conduct of elections. After some initial attempts at playing down the issue, the IPL administrators then got into overdrive to accomodate the concerns of the various agencies involved in providing security for the games - the central government, the state police, the state government, etc.

Now, the situation is still in limbo. Revised schedules are being drawn up and I guess things will clear up in the next 2-3 days. I'm sure the IPL administrators will accommodate the government's concerns (as if they had any other choice! It's actually fun to see Lalit Modi actually acknowledging the power of some other authority!). I do believe that the IPL will find in its favour that the government would not want a situation where a sporting event was cancelled for security reasons.

This though doesn't really mean everything else is hunky-dory. Even if the revised schedule is arrived at and announced, there's no guarantee that audiences can actually watch the games. The IPL administration and Sony Entertainment Television (who has the broadcast rights for the Indian sub-continent) are at loggerheads after the BCCI suddenly attempted to remove SET as the broadcaster. That issue is now in the courts.

I do hope that the court also accepts public interest litigations on the actual quality of TV telecasts. I don't think I'm too far away from a stage where I won't bother following a game "live" on TV. Coverage on TV is so irritating to follow, because even as the ball is up in the air and a fielder is getting under it, we're transported to an ad break. The logical next step is that when a bowler loses his run-up, we go for an ad break.

Then of course, there's the whole question of the on-field happenings. I think right now, even 50-over games are forcing bowlers into considering retirement. For evidence, consider the recent India-New Zealand ODI series. It produced the highest ever runrate for a series of 3 games or more and the 2nd highest for a tournament of any length excluding games involving minnow sides (a definition that does include Bangladesh & Zimbabwe but excludes England).

Yes, the grounds were smaller than Ashish Nehra's brain, and the pitches were flatter than Cameron White's legbreaks. But the fact remains that bowlers, by and large, are being made so irrelevant that they might as well not bother turning up. Do I love watching batsmen smacking bowlers around? Sure, at most once or twice a series. Would followers of the IPL T20 games love seeing nothing but sixes and fours? Chances are the answer is no.

Labels: economics, india, indian premier league, ipl 2009, security, tv rights, twenty20

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:40 pm | Sledge/Read 8 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The long tail of cricket webcasts

I was quite surprised to see a post on cricket on Chris Anderson's blog on The Long Tail. He referred to Reliance Entertainment's purchase of a 70% stake in Willow.TV. I don't know about you, but I see references to Reliance Global & BigFlix all over the place on the Willow.TV website already!

Labels: economics, long tail, tv rights, webcast

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:40 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The business of cricket

Last year, Forbes Global magazine had an analysis of the BCCI's $612 million deal with Nimbus.

Now, "Knowledge@Wharton", the online business journal of The Wharton School (Univ. of Pennsylvania), analyzes the business model of cricket, especially in India, especially in the wake of India's splendid show at the World Cup.

These troubles, aggravated by a nationwide sense of disappointment over the World Cup defeat, have caused many in cricket-obsessed India to ask whether the business model for the game is flawed -- and if so, how it might be fixed. According to faculty from Wharton, the Indian Institute of Management and other experts interviewed by India Knowledge@Wharton, India needs to rethink the business model for cricket. The current model needs improvement in areas such as governance as well as in the way incentives for players are structured.

It touches upon Tendulkar's $40 million deal, what players earn through endorsements, Greg Chappell's not willing to continue as coach, the structure of Indian domestic cricket, etc.

Labels: 2007 world cup, business, business model, india, television, tv rights, wharton, world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:26 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Shock and horror and a format for the 2011 World Cup

It was with total amazement, shock and horror that I read the last line of this report in the BBC about the impact of India's first round exit from the World Cup.

Sony's Kunal Dasgupta now says the format of the tournament is flawed.

"In a 48-day tournament, if teams like India and Pakistan are out for playing bad cricket in two matches, there is something really wrong. We were against this format and even told the International Cricket Council to reconsider it," he said.

It's been pretty obvious for a while that television runs most things in cricket, including scheduling. It is perhaps time to congratulate the ICC for sticking to their schedule instead of kowtowing to the demands of sponsors, rights owners, etc.

There is nothing wrong with the fact that the first round has only 3 games per team. India and Pakistan are out because their opponents played better. Apparently the ICC had framed up this schedule after getting feedback from players and boards that the previous World Cup, which had two groups of six teams each, had the potential to have too many games involving minnow teams.

I'm of the opinion that weaker teams should play in the World Cup, but they should also get enough games against stronger opposition in the year leading up to the World Cup. At the same time, we ought to ensure that the World Cup isn't a tournament where around 50% of the teams have absolutely no chance of getting anywhere near the knock-out stage.

My solution, for the 2011 World Cup in the Indian sub-continent is to merge the schedule of the 2003 World Cup (Super Six stage), the 2006 ICC Champions Trophy (having a qualification round) and the current one (a round-robin in the second stage).

The top 8 from the 11 ODI playing nations don't have to go through a qualification round. The qualifiers from the ICC Trophy (only the finalists) play against the 3 ODI playing nations who didn't make it to the main draw. So that means 5 teams in the qualifier round. Play a round-robin (10 games) and the top two teams make it to the main draw.

The main draw would have a total of 10 teams, split into 2 groups of 5 teams each. They play a round-robin and the format becomes similar to the 2003 World Cup Super Six stage (six teams qualify - now 3 from each group, teams carrying over points against the other team which qualified, play against the other 4 teams which qualified etc.). Then the top 4 get to the semis and the winners of the semis play in the final. This'd mean a total of 32 games (20 in the first round, 9 in the second, 2 semi finals and 1 final). Even if we include the 10 qualifier round games, that's a total of 42 games. Compare this to the current tournament - 51 games in all, 24 of them in the first round and an equal number in the second round.

In terms of number of days the tournament would run, that'd obviously reduce too. The 2007 World Cup goes on for around 45 days. This could be significantly reduced to around a month (two first round games per day - 10 days of playing time, 9 days for the second round, 3 for the knock out games). Add in reserve days for all games and two rest days per team and we'd be looking at around 30-odd days. I don't have those details worked out though.

Labels: 2007 world cup, 2011 world cup, icc, scheduling, television, tv rights, world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:21 pm | Sledge/Read 5 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

War minus the shooting, but plus the brickbats

There've obviously been enough references to George Orwell in various comments/articles about the disproportionate response to India and Pakistan suffering shock defeats at the World Cup. So I feel compelled to offer a different take, in the title of this post, on what he wrote about sport in 'The Sporting Spirit'.

Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence: in other words it is war minus the shooting.

On my personal blog a couple of years ago, I wrote that there was far too much emphasis on sporting achievement. I still stand by that statement, despite being a fan of the game and running a blog devoted to cricket.

No-one asked those who vandalized property/burnt effigies etc. to follow the Indian team's cricketing fortunes. They did so of their own free will. That does not certainly give them the right to demolish property, public or private. The Indian team does not play well just because there're a billion-odd people hoping for a win. Those who go berserk at the team's wins or losses do so primarily because they wrongly believe it is their right to do so since they've invested so much energy/money etc. in supporting the team. In what way do they claim a right? A lot of them do so as a publicity seeking exercise. They may not even go to the stadiums, when there are opportunities to do so, to watch the games, preferring the confines of a living room.

The best way to register their protest would be to ignore/boycott watching the games on television, for that is pretty much the most important factor for international cricket now. It would initially register a barely visible dent in terms of viewership for the companies which produce/own/telecast the content. Eventually though, TRP ratings will be impacted. Then these companies would wake up and stop having headlines reading 'World Cup dream dies' or 'World Cup campaign back on track'.

Labels: 2007 world cup, india, mobs, pakistan, television, tv rights, world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 9:39 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Why this could be the last World Cup in the Caribbean

I fear know that the Caribbean will not get to host any more World Cups. There is a one word reason - television. When the West Indies won the World Cup hosting rights in 1998, cricket was not the huge 'made-for-TV' spectacle that it is now. Fights for TV rights were unheard of and Kerry Packer happened two decades earlier.

It was perhaps only around the late 90s, when India began to have a consumerism boom that media magnates felt that the best way to make money out of cricket was to ensure that they had the TV rights for internationals (preferably only ODI cricket, if that was possible). The next bunch of people who realized that there was money to make from cricket telecast in India were manufacturers of consumer goods (bikes, soaps, televisions, soft drinks, etc.). The enormous power that they wielded, as a result of sinking in a lot of moolah into cricket telecasts and advertising, meant that the game transformed from being a spectator sport to being an audience sport and the emphasis firmly shifted from test cricket to one-day cricket.

As a result, games were scheduled based on ideal slots for television, rather than on the basis of what the best time to play the game was. In Australia, viewers frequently complain (or used to) that Channel 9 switched to the news or some other TV show if the day's play got extended for some reason or the other. So, Cricket Australia advanced the starting time by half an hour. I think this year's Ashes series was the first time this happened. During the 2003 World Cup, most games, including the final, were day games. Day games started at 8 am GMT while day-night games started at 1230 pm GMT. The primary reason was that day-night games would only start around 6 pm IST and end around 2 am IST the next day.

Such a schedule was clearly unacceptable to the primary sponsors of the tournament (LG, Pepsi, Hero Honda etc.) whose aim was to ensure that the huge TV audience in India (Bangladesh, Pakistan & Sri Lanka were never going to be talked of in the same breath) got to see the games during their daytime when they could pummel the audience with two ads after every over/wicket and several others during other breaks of play.

I'm sure there are several other instances of television/production houses dictating cricket schedules. The Indian cricket team does have a few chaps who can bat and bowl and play some attractive cricket. That is just one part of the reason why they play in Ireland, Holland, Malaysia and Abu Dhabi. That is also why other boards queue up to have India play on their shores more often than others.

Given that TV rights and advertising revenue accounts for a major portion of the revenues that cricket boards get from cricket, it is fairly obvious that they will do just about what is required to ensure that the major TV audience watches games at a convenient time.

This World Cup's games start at 8 pm IST and go on until around 4 am IST. This is as inconvenient a time as you can get, for Indian audiences. It is for this reason that I'm fairly sure that this will be the last World Cup that the West Indies gets to host.

Labels: 2007 world cup, india, television, tv rights, west indies, world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 8:19 pm | Sledge/Read 9 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

No more bidding for broadcast rights in Indian cricket

I've written about this far too often. The decision by the Indian government to force owners of broadcast rights into sharing their live feed, sans advertising, with Prasar Bharati, is ridiculous, at a minimum. The extra reach that Doordarshan provides should have been motivation enough for them to bid for the rights. That they haven't won a single time (assuming they've placed bids when the tender process was initiated) indicates that the reach is meaningless when they cannot come up with a competitive bid. The government's decision thus rewards the lethargy of the executives at Prasar Bharati.

I don't think a cricket series is an event of national importance. In fact, I think we over-emphasize sporting achievement. Hypothetically, a win by an Indian golfer at a golf major (which I'd never watch anyway) or an Indian chess player at the World Championship or a tennis Grand Slam tournament win by an Indian rate much higher in my list than a one-day series between teams ranked 5 and 6 in a form of the game where realistically speaking, there're only 9 teams ranging from excellent to 'sort of ok'.

If I was one of those who wanted to bid for the TV rights in 2010, when they're up for grabs again and if I was going to be forced into sharing the feed, I wouldn't bother to. If the Indian government was so interested in an altruistic goal of allowing every Indian to see cricket on TV, they wouldn't be talking about a feed sans advertisements and a 75-25 revenue sharing (in favour of the original rights owner, thankfully!). Doordarshan has no business selling advertising slots during the games and making money.

I hope someone (Nimbus, who've paid USD 612 million for four years of rights) takes the judicial route and challenges the government's ordinance, and wins. I don't mind not being able to watch if the government loses. This isn't about watching the series. It is about protesting against ridiculous policies which stifle private enterprise, discourage competition and entrepreneurship. It's about preventing the nationalisation of cricket, like Nitin writes. It's perhaps also about making money out of what you don't own, like Harsha Bhogle writes.

Previous posts on this issue:

• TEN Sports accused of harming Indo-Pak relations after refusing to share feed with DD.
  
• Is an India-Pakistan cricket match an event of national interest?
  
• Government contemplating feed sharing legislation.
  
• BCCI suddenly wakes up, realizes that TV rights shared with DD are expiring and asks for fresh bids.
  
• TEN sports gets rights for India-Australia series.
  
• TV rights cock-up hits BCCI in the account books.
  
• TV rights issue impacts Pakistan tour of India.
  
• TWI gets TV rights for Pakistan tour of India.
  
• High Court blasts BCCI over TV rights issue.
  
• BCCI dumps TV channel idea.

Labels: bcci, government, india, tv rights

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:10 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

BCCI gives up on TV channel, Wright gives up on the BCCI

Last month, there were reports of a proposal from some BCCI administrators to launch a TV channel in order to ensure that the board did not face an embarassing situation, as it did last year, related to the telecast rights for matches played in India.

One month later, the idea has apparently been shot down, with the BCCI treasurer ruling out the idea, saying that there is no move in that direction, for now at least.

Is this perhaps related to the fact that Lalit Modi, who had made the original proposal for a TV channel along with IS Bindra, is in serious trouble within the BCCI for apparently failing to reveal or respond to allegations that he had been convicted in the US for posession of drugs and assault in 1985? I think the BCCI is entirely justified in requiring that its administrators reveal if they've been crooks or not. Once you reveal you are, they're perfectly ok to adopt you as one of their own, isn't it? The other interesting bit about Lalit Modi is that he heads up Modi Entertainment Network, a TV channel in India. No wonder he was so enthusiastic about the BCCI starting up its own channel. Obviously he'd be the only administrator with a semblance of an idea of how to run one. He could then convert it into his personal fiefdom.

They really ought to re-register the board as the BCCCI: Board of Crooks Controlling Cricket in India.

John Wright, who had complained about the BCCI's selection procedure after he quit as India's coach, speaks passionately about his coaching stint, what he liked about it, what he didnt like, his evaluation of various key players etc. in an interview with Wisden Asia Cricket.

Labels: bcci, tv rights

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:28 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

BCCI takes its own sweet time as usual

Does it shock you that the BCCI hasn't even setup the panel to interview the candidates who want to coach the Indian team? Why should it? It is ever intransigent from its "Take it easy, Oorvasi attitude".

In fact, they are, to quote the BCCI President, in the process of finalizing the process. They are obviously a process driven organization. Any management git will tell you that the BCCI is obviously aiming at operational efficiency.

There's some good news for the BCCI. A division bench of the Chennai High Court issued a ctrl-z command over a previous decision by the same court, albeit a single judge, that the cancellation of the TV rights tender process was improper.

Labels: bcci, tv rights

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:43 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

BCCI pondering about television channel

Last month, IS Bindra, head of the Punjab Cricket Association, revealed his wishlist for Indian cricket. It contained, curiously enough, a need for the BCCI to venture into starting its own television channel in order to ensure that the mess it got into on the TV rights issue is not repeated.

Last year, he had dared to ask for a little more professionalism in the BCCI and treat the fans who turn up in droves at stadiums in a much better manner.

One part of his wishlist seems to have been answered now with him teaming up with the head of the Rajasthan Cricket Association in coming up with a feasibility report of the BCCI floating its own tv channel. Rick has more details, including a link to the actual presentation.

Apparently, there're Rs. 16,000 crores up for grabs over a five year period. How many zeroes in that, anyone? There're zero zeroes in five, obviously. I was talking about the crores thingy! They're talking of Rs. 3200 crores in revenue per year.

I dont understand how they reached that number in the first place. Zee's bid, the highest for a three year contract, was for Rs. 1200 crores. This works out to Rs. 400 crores per year, on an average. If the BCCI's channel wins the rights to telecast all of India's tours, they would have need to now fork out more than the Rs. 672 crores ESPN-Star shelled out three years ago, at 2002 exchange rates, when it bought rights for five years of international cricket in Australia, England, New Zealand, South Africa and Zimbabwe. That'd make it an average of Rs. 130 crores per annum

Add in what TEN Sports bid for five years of cricket in Pakistan, Rs. 200 crores, which means Rs. 40 crores per year. Assuming they got the West Indies rights, paying Rs. 90 crores, for five years, that works out to at most Rs. 20 crores per year. The Sri Lankan rights were acquired for Rs. 225 crores for four years, working out to Rs. 60 crores per year.

SET got the rights for various ICC events, including World Cups and the Champions Trophy tournaments, for Rs. 1200 crores, the period of the contract being 6 years. Effectively, the expenses per year being Rs. 200 crores.

If we excluded the rights for the ICC organized events, then the absolute minimum the BCCI must spend per year in order to acquire the rights is Rs. 650 crores. Obviously the stakes are higher than they were two or three years ago, perhaps say 10% higher at least. This means Rs. 715 crores. I would seriously doubt if the BCCI could earn Rs. 3200 crores per annum on rights acquisition costs of Rs. 715 crores. Mind you, we have not included the actual content production & telecast costs. I dont want to guess what they might be. Even if they were equal to the cost of acquiring the rights, it means they're aiming at making a 100% profit. I seriously doubt that. Besides, in spite of the fact that they are not exactly a "company", the amount of money they'd be dealing in could attract the attention of regulatory authorities and force them to spin off the television channel as a separate company. Once they did that, and if they had telecast rights for quite a few countries, they could be considered a monopoly and suitable action could be taken against the channel.

Feel free to comment and correct if I've got my arithmetic wrong somewhere. For what its worth, I used an exchange rate of Rs. 48 to the US dollar for 2002 and 2003 and for figures related to 2004 and 2005, I used Rs. 45 to the dollar.

Labels: bcci, tv rights

Thus spake Jagadish @ 5:54 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Zee issues legal notice to BCCI over TV rights

Following the High Court's vehement criticism of the way the television rights were handled by the BCCI, Zee has now decided to take legal action against the board, claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 16,300 million through a legal notice sent to the board.

Labels: bcci, tv rights

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:43 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

High Court blasts BCCI over television rights issue

The BCCI only got temporary respite when a month ago, the High Court asked it to ensure that Prasar Bharati telecast the India-Pakistan series. The BCCI went one step further and issued online rights as well as rights for a variety of countries.

The High Court today pronounced that the decision of the BCCI to cancel the bidding process even though Zee had the highest bid was unjust and illegal. It also felt that transparency and ethics were lacking when the BCCI President, Mr. Dalmiya, made the decision.

Zee is considering suing the BCCI for damages since it was now obvious from the court's observations that there was a nexus between Mr. Dalmiya (and the BCCI) and ESPN-Star. You read about that here first!

Labels: bcci, tv rights

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:15 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Inderjit Singh Bindra's wishlist for Indian cricket

In the 1990s, IS Bindra, along with Jagmohan Dalmiya, masterminded the BCCI's progress from being a virtually broke and dead organization to the position it is in today when it can get away with anything. This included the very successful 1996 World Cup jointly hosted by India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. However, he fell out with Dalmiya once the issue of the ICC presidency came up for grabs and went on to head up the Punjab Cricket Association.

He reveals the seven things that he'd want to see happen in Indian cricket.

Labels: tv rights

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:41 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Telecast rights sorted out - for now !

With the India-Pakistan Test series starting tomorrow, BCCI have just managed to wipe out the mess and the TV and online rights have been announced. Can't get anything more late than this. Super planning, hats off to the BCCI!

Labels: bcci, tv rights

Thus spake Ganesh @ 9:30 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

BCCI on a sticky wicket yet again on TV rights

Barely a day passes without the BCCI screwing up. A day after it announced that TWI had secured the production rights for the India-Pakistan series, IS Bindra, the former BCCI chief and currently head of the Punjab Cricket Association, launched a diatribe against the powers-that-be in the BCCI claiming that there was no unanimity in the committee's decision to award TWI the rights.

It is very interesting that BCCI President, and Haryana MLA, Ranbir Singh Mahendra said "TWI's offer is $1.5 million which we are negotiating". I'd have thought that a decision to award a person/group a contract would be based on the price, among other factors. Instead we have a situation where negotiations are on after awarding the contract. Clearly this means there is corruption at work. Nimbus Sport, who had also bid for the rights, have protested against the decision, claiming that their quote was lower than TWIs.

Labels: bcci, tv rights

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:02 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

BCCI in deep excreta

The BCCI seems to be in major trouble after its chief revealed that if the TV rights issue is not resolved in time, Pakistan's tour of India will be a non-starter for the same reasons that Australia's tour of India seemed to be in jeapordy: TV coverage is essential for the third umpire at international matches. As it is, the BCCI suggested that it had incurred huge losses due to the imbroglio.

The BCCI is also in trouble with the Indian government after the Home ministry barred players from displaying the tri-colour on their equipment, sporting gear or person. This is obviously aimed at the BCCI since the players are very much in favour of displaying the tri-colour. The BCCI had, in September last year, claimed in an argument in the Supreme Court that the Indian team represented the BCCI and not India. This was in the context of whether the government was allowed to have any say in its functioning. The issue in court was its decision to cancel the TV rights issue in spite of Zee Telefilms having the highest bid.

Labels: bcci, tv rights

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:57 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

BCCI reveals huge losses on account of TV rights imbroglio

The BCCI revealed after its meeting yesterday that it has lost US$ 34 million so far following the controversy over the sale of television rights. A chronological history of what transpired:

First the BCCI decided, very late in the day just when Doordarshan's rights period was about to expire, to sell internet and mobile rights separately to make more money. Then fearing that a private broadcaster would get the rights, the government moved in with an attempt to legislate. Then the bids were invited, with strange clauses.

Zee won the bid with the highest quoted amount. Promptly, ESPN-Star went to court. The BCCI then realized that the Aussies were coming and so announced that it was going in for fresh bids. If the issue wasnt resolved, there was a danger of the series never taking off since no TV coverage would be available for the third umpire. Harsha Bhogle was obviously a worried man.

The BCCI then trumped everyone by giving the rights to TEN Sports as an interim solution.

I'd have thought the BCCI's primary mission is to promote cricket in India and take care of the cricketers! Not quite, it seems.

Labels: bcci, tv rights

Thus spake Jagadish @ 8:30 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

There is a saying in Tamil: Unakkum bebbe, unga appanukkum bebbe. That is exactly what the BCCI seems to have done to both ESPN-Star and Zee by awarding the rights to TEN Sports who will handle the production with Sony telecasting the India-Australia series. This is obviously a short-term solution, since the issue is of telecast rights for a period of 3-4 years.

Labels: tv rights

Thus spake Jagadish @ 8:16 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]