• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

'Test cricket won't be around in time' - Brendon McCullum

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
:(

See so why don't you want the NZCB to just do a better job. Do you think they're run as optimally as can be expected? Do you think that Tests cannot survive in NZ even if the best decisions were made, and that the only hope is ICC bailout?

If so that's pretty bleak, and if true then yea you do kinda need the ICC/BCCI to save tests in NZ.
Tough to say on this. The NZC said that they lose a lot of money on low-key test matches like the WI series earlier this year (I think they said $500k per game or something). I imagine it's a very different story for tests against the big 3 - but they don't come touring very often, so test match cricket is definitely a losing proposition from a financial perspective and I don't really see what the NZC can do to reverse that. It doesn't help that the increasing balkanisation of cricketing techniques has made traditionally competitive teams like SRL and Pakistan into cannon fodder in recent years.
 
Last edited:

Mike5181

International Captain
Yeah, most test matches in NZ run at a loss unless it's England, Australia or India. Not sure what the answer is.
 

cnerd123

likes this
Yea I guess when you're at that stage where there isn't much that can be done from an operational standpoint, then it is up to the ICC/BCCI to step in and save Tests.

SLCB, WICB, ZCB, PCB and BCB all need to get their **** together tho.
 

Mike5181

International Captain
Can we just support cricket in NZ by attending games + some Netflix-esque subscription where you pay 10 bucks a month or something. Can't help that the only way people get to watch it is through the dying SKY TV.
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
Yea I guess when you're at that stage where there isn't much that can be done from an operational standpoint, then it is up to the ICC/BCCI to step in and save Tests.

SLCB, WICB, ZCB, PCB and BCB all need to get their **** together tho.
I'm not saying that those boards don't need to get their **** together, but they should also be receiving assistance as well. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Nor do the BCCI particularly have their **** together.
 

cnerd123

likes this
The BCCI is being pressured by the Supreme Court right now to get their **** together too, so there is that atleast.

Yea they aren't mutually exclusive, but assistance without getting their **** together first is like pouring water into a leaky bucket. I guess it's necessary sometime, but I'm not a fan of that being the de-facto solution. Feels more sustainable, in the long run, to force people to get their **** together first, then provide assistance.
 

Mr Miyagi

Banned
I think from a corporate POV that Test cricket just isn't ever going to be the way NZC turns a profit. I have issues with NZC but not with regards to how they're balancing the books. ODI and T20 cricket is just a far more profitable venture overall.

Check out something like this
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...lands-schedule-a-harbinger-of-what-is-to-come

The NZ chairman also mentions that we probably outright lose $50k on hosting a West Indies Test.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/crick...ship-but-fourday-tests-remain-in-the-distance

So a Test costs any country roughly $500k USD to host, when the West Indies tour, after accounting for tickets, advertising and TV money walk away less $50k NZD. And you'd almost certainly call NZC a fantastic example of a "well run" cricket board for the Test nations with massive issues like SL/WI/Zim.


I very very much doubt this. NZ block sells all its cricket in bundled blocks to broadcasters for years at a time. The main sales are not done match by match. They just buy it all for years. Some stream sites and smaller broadcasters may be series by series. But the big revenue is multi year blocks. Without cricket to be broadcast those bundles are obviously worth less. So this is the profit/loss not including Sky, Fox, Willow Sony India/Star money. This is boundary advertising, licensing for food and drink vendors, merchandise, ticket sales minus cost of DRS, match fees, security, stadium rental, umpires, individual tour and game promotion. These cricket execs when doing their accounting treat the tv money as in the bank, and then just look at their operating costs and revenue of a single game ignoring the tv money they've already banked. It is all very misleading.

All this demonstrates is that it is far more profitable to host ODI and T20 games, not that tests are losing money. But as we all know, international cricket pays the bills for domestic cricket. And that's where the cycle begins.
 
Last edited:

cnerd123

likes this
So the articles say NZC loses 50K a test, not 500K. It's a lot of money, clearly, but the question is does NZC earn enough to offset the loss? That part we don't really know. A BCCI or ECB probably loses money on certain Tests too, but to them that's a cost they can afford to cover. Maybe not so much for NZCB.
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
I very very much doubt this. NZ block sells all its cricket in bundled blocks to broadcasters for years at a time. Without cricket to be broadcast those bundles are obviously worth less. So this is the profit/loss not including Sky, Fox, Willow Sony India/Star money. This is boundary advertising, licensing for food and drink vendors, merchandise, ticket sales - cost of DRS, match fees, security, stadium rental.

All this demonstrates is that it is far more profitable to host ODI and T20 games, not that tests are losing money. But as we all know, international cricket pays the bills for domestic cricket. And that's where the cycle begins.
Yes, but NZC don’t just apply the TV money as the one off income, it’s applied across the schedule.
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
So the articles say NZC loses 50K a test, not 500K. It's a lot of money, clearly, but the question is does NZC earn enough to offset the loss? That part we don't really know. A BCCI or ECB probably loses money on certain Tests too, but to them that's a cost they can afford to cover. Maybe not so much for NZCB.
A match costs $500k USD, a match vs. WI brings in the money to not offset that expense and still lose $50k.

Good luck turning a profit and funding domestic cricket after managing to actually lose money for ten days of your sixty played in a summer.
 

cnerd123

likes this
A match costs $500k USD, a match vs. WI brings in the money to not offset that expense and still lose $50k.

Good luck turning a profit and funding domestic cricket after managing to actually lose money for ten days of your sixty played in a summer.
Yup, and then you think about the BCCI / ECB / CA - they probably can afford to absorb those costs and still fund all their programs due to their TV deals and share of the ICC revenue. Or maybe for them Tests actually turn a profit, in which case it's just the rich getting richer isn't it.
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
Yup, and then you think about the BCCI / ECB / CA - they probably can afford to absorb those costs and still fund all their programs due to their TV deals and share of the ICC revenue. Or maybe for them Tests actually turn a profit, in which case it's just the rich getting richer isn't it.
That’s the crux of it.
 

Mr Miyagi

Banned
Yes, but NZC don’t just apply the TV money as the one off income, it’s applied across the schedule.


Trust me, it is not taking into account the tv revenue. This isn't a profit loss for tax purposes. This is net profit or loss for having a single game without factoring in the tv money at all. Unfortunately for test cricket, limited overs rates better.

There is no way for NZC to marry what games are worth what when it sells 5 years of broadcasting rights as a big bundle for a big cheque unless the broadcaster has given them the price breakdown and pays accordingly. Which does not happen. NZC wouldn't be able to alter tours without the tv money changing. It isn't how its done.

This is solely operating costs excluding tv - I bet ya.
 
Last edited:

Athlai

Not Terrible
Well if so, how much is NZC losing not playing any games at all in April and May and June, and July.

Trust me, it is not taking into account the tv revenue. This isn't a profit loss for tax purposes. This is net profit or loss for having a single game.

There is no way for NZC to marry what games are worth what when it sells 5 years of broadcasting rights as a big bundle for a big cheque unless the broadcaster has given them the price breakdown and pays accordingly. Which does not happen. NZC wouldn't be able to alter tours without the tv money changing. It isn't how its done.
There is no way NZC doesn’t divide up the broadcasting rights into the operating revenue on a season by season basis. Which you find on any annual report. It’d be ridiculous expect the chairman of the board to pull out a $50k net game loss number that somehow magically includes advertising costs that are almost certainly also purchased in bulk lots but to ignore NZCs own number of what the WI game “earned” out of their agreement with Sky. He’s far more privy to the breakdown and attributement of cost than we are.
 

Mr Miyagi

Banned
There is no way NZC doesn’t divide up the broadcasting rights into the operating revenue on a season by season basis.
Agreed

Which you find on any annual report.
Well the money will be in there somewhere to meet the costs and defecits.

It’d be ridiculous expect the chairman of the board to pull out a $50k net game loss number that somehow magically includes advertising costs that are almost certainly also purchased in bulk lots but to ignore NZCs own number of what the WI game “earned” out of their agreement with Sky. He’s far more privy to the breakdown and attributement of cost than we are.
I bet you that he is, and yet you assume that he isn't looking at the operating costs of hosting a test match and how much it will lose, when he has a years worth of tv funds in operating revenue? Who decides arbitrarily what the WI test is worth from a 5 year bulk tv deal?

Believe what you want to believe. I believe he is looking at the operating cost - that is cash in and cash out for a particular game - and ignoring the TV bulk money.
 
Last edited:

Athlai

Not Terrible
I just can’t see a West Indian match here taking $450k at the gate and in board advertising revenue. 3500 people showing up over 4-5 days, and that’s not per day, that’s total. How much of the $30-$40 do NZC take? If we say 100% were looking at a best case scenario of $140k. $300k more in boundary advertising and vendor licensing?
 

Mr Miyagi

Banned
I just can’t see a West Indian match here taking $450k at the gate and in board advertising revenue. 3500 people showing up over 4-5 days, and that’s not per day, that’s total. How much of the $30-$40 do NZC take? If we say 100% were looking at a best case scenario of $140k. $300k more in boundary advertising and vendor licensing?
Given how much match sponsorship and advertising associated with NZC is in Hindi, Urdu, Bengali and even when in English for companies that I do not know of in NZ, or know are foreign like Digicel or UK betting sites, I am not going to speculate as to what all that is worth. But it seems to be more than NZ companies are prepared to secure the spots for. And I don't think all the oil and tyre and whatever companies even have their products or services available here.

I also know fans complain of high food and drink prices, and vendor licensors reply that the license fees (and/or percentages) are so dear.

People know how to milk a buck out of games these days. Reminds me of that Major League baseball film with Charlie Sheen. And I am glad NZC does it with the advertising and sponsorship.
 
Last edited:

Top