retractable roofs

[marc71178]

The cost of the roof would be far in excess of £10m though - A few columns and a beam would not work at all. It would take a whole stadium rebuild and the roof would also need to be a lot higher than most cricket stadia in the UK.

The money actually lost isn't as much as that IIRC - there's insurance in place for refunds which is the main "cost"

 

[swede]

The cost of the roof would be far in excess of £10m though - A few columns and a beam would not work at all. It would take a whole stadium rebuild and the roof would also need to be a lot higher than most cricket stadia in the UK.

The money actually lost isn't as much as that IIRC - there's insurance in place for refunds which is the main "cost"

Yes it would likely cost more than 10 million especially because it also needs to be a lot bigger. I was just giving an example of how far you can come for just 10 million which is peanuts in this context.

I would think a lost test like Edgbaston is probably even more than 10 million if all is included. Insurance doesnt mean the money isnt lost, it just means that cricket in general share the loss by paying for so much insurance. Other indirect losses are things such as reduced TV-contracts etc. The value of tv-rights to english cricket is growing rapidly and is now around £ 100 million per year. It seems a modest estimate to put a test at at least 5% of that and thats the first 5 million lost. ( obviously this will not have to be paid back but risk of rain is factored into the tv-deals as reduced pay-out)

Overseas tv-rights are to be re-newed next years with counties hoping for a massive increase. This summer is likely to reduce this considerably.

 

[Jager]

I think in the longer format, being in control of climatic conditions would completely ruin the charm of the game.

 

[marc71178]

Yes it would likely cost more than 10 million especially because it also needs to be a lot bigger. I was just giving an example of how far you can come for just 10 million which is peanuts in this context.

How far you can come from a completely different starting point, thus rendering the example completely and utterly pointless.

 

[swede]

I think in the longer format, being in control of climatic conditions would completely ruin the charm of the game.

possibly true but you would only "control" it when the roof was on, which most of the time it would not be. Not even in england. you could make a rule that the indoor climate system should be used to mirror outside conditions regarding humidity etc. so you would still live with the weather. Overs available could be deducted ( just not too many) when the roof is used to avoid uniformity.

 

[watson]

I think that from an aesthetic point of view a stadium with a retractable roof is the only alternative. After all, who really wants to sit in a box for 7 hours? I don't.

I go to the cricket to sit 'outdoors' and possibly enjoy looking at the Sydney Skyline at dusk when the flood-lights come on. I don't want to feel trapped. However, I'm willing to feel trapped for a while if it means that I'm not stuck watching boring futile Pitch Inspections by the Umpires.

So no, roofs on cricket ovals are (in general) no good because retractable roofs are completely financially unviable - except if you're building a brand new custom made stadium in a rainy area with an enmormous cricket-loving demographic. And there aren't too many of those.

As for climatic conditions - I've always assumed indoor stadiums to be more humid as all the hot wet air gets trapped. Hence, climatic conditions may vary more in an enclosed environment, which is kind of counter-intuitive I know.