T20 Big Bash League (from 2011/12)

[Jeffles]

If the subsidy for the T20 is no different to past years they'll be fine. This is because domestic T20's relatively cheaper for CA to subsidise compared to other forms AND private ownership will be expetced to plug some gaps.

In other news, KFC have been "announced" as major sponsors of the T20BBL. They replace, er, KFC who sponsored the T20 Big Bash last year. It's a ll a bit weird, really. CA trumpets this new era and in that you've got the sme major sponsors and most clubs have the same backroom staff as their state counterparts. I'm sure the squads will line up bloody similar too.

[Rob]

I', a bit more optimistic. I think crowds for this will be comparable to how they were for T20 last year, which means all that change would have been a waste of money.

Does CA have the cash reserves to continue running the comp for longer than the inaugural season if crowds stay the same as last summer and your guesstimate that it will be a waste of money (WOFTAM) is correct? It does smell suspiciously like the ARC at least to me, but I don't think I'm the only one.

They probably don't need cash reserves, they've got private owners to cover it.

I saw they've also limited each team to a maximum of 2 overseas players - WTF? Surely the idea would be to get the best players in the world here to appeal to an overseas audience (i.e India). If they could get some interest over there they wouldn't need crowds to pay for anything. TV rights would do it for them.

It's hard to think of one thing they've done right with this comp. 100 monkeys with 100 typewriters would have come up with something better.

[Simmo79]

quick survey: how much interest are we sensing in the BBL from the other fora we frequent?

[Simmo79]

I', a bit more optimistic. I think crowds for this will be comparable to how they were for T20 last year, which means all that change would have been a waste of money.

Does CA have the cash reserves to continue running the comp for longer than the inaugural season if crowds stay the same as last summer and your guesstimate that it will be a waste of money (WOFTAM) is correct? It does smell suspiciously like the ARC at least to me, but I don't think I'm the only one.

They probably don't need cash reserves, they've got private owners to cover it.

I saw they've also limited each team to a maximum of 2 overseas players - WTF? Surely the idea would be to get the best players in the world here to appeal to an overseas audience (i.e India). If they could get some interest over there they wouldn't need crowds to pay for anything. TV rights would do it for them.

It's hard to think of one thing they've done right with this comp. 100 monkeys with 100 typewriters would have come up with something better.

I'm not sure that CA's been able to find much, if any, private investment over the last 4 months. They'll be wearing most of the costs for this tournament. Just like the ARU did for the ARC.

And for India angle it looks like the only international stars tht have been recruited are Brendan McCullum, Daniel Vettori, Abdul Razzaq, Shahid Afridi, Herschelle Gibbs, Paul Collingwood and Chris Gayle. Good, but not great.

[Boba Fett]

Does Scrawnie count as an "international star" these days? Surprised he could tear himself away from Hurley long enough to commit for the season...

Hardly building credibility for the tournament.

[Rob]

Does Scrawnie count as an "international star" these days? Surprised he could tear himself away from Hurley long enough to commit for the season...

Hardly building credibility for the tournament.

I'm not sure they wanted credibility. That's why the called it the 'big bash league'. They're probably running with 'pay $30 and get pissed on midstrength' as the catchphrase to get fans in.

[Simmo79]

From today's Crikey

The majority -- if not all -- of the Big Bash League teams have been unable to secure sponsors for Cricket Australia’s hyped Twenty20 competition beginning next month.

While many teams did not return calls, or refused to comment, Cricket Australia and Perth BBL team the Scorchers told Crikey that teams had yet to secure sponsors. "The individual teams have not advised [Cricket Australia] of any sponsors," said Peter Young, general manager of public affairs at Cricket Australia.

But Amy Mitchelson, sponsorship executive at the Western Australian Cricket Association, was more direct: "We don’t have any sponsors and to my understanding neither does anyone else in the league."

Cricket Australia refutes that a lack of sponsorship dollars is representative of public interest in the revised game and that the season will continue. Although sponsorship revenue is important, it is not a key driver for the competition, Young said.

Like other competitions, Cricket Australia said it will use its accumulated revenue to fund the league, including payment of player wages. However, the Big Bash League information pack says Cricket Australia may cover base-level player payments for the first two seasons.

Without sufficient sponsorship it remains to be seen what kind of financial contribution the BBL will have on Cricket Australia. Cricket Australia said sponsors were always wary of investing in new competitions, especially in an unstable financial marketplace.

Significant financial investment would be needed if Cricket Australia was to compete with its Indian counterpart, the Indian Premier League. Last year the Indian Times reported that IPL players were the second highest paid with an average of $3.84 million per player. The large amount of wages could easily be attributed to the IPL's ability to attract high-profile players.

High-profile players are also privileged to personal contracts with their own sponsors. These sponsors often play a role in attracting players to leagues and clubs, and without sponsor interest, some of Australia’s more popular players could be seen playing abroad rather than in the BBL.

But the lack of a free-to-air broadcaster is also hurting, according to marketing academic Andrew Hughes. With limited pay TV audiences in Australia (the competition will be broadcast on Fox Sports) corporates could sit out the first season to see how popular the game is.

"Sponsors are now looking for free-to-air coverage," said Hughes, from the School of Management, Marketing and International Business at Australian National University. "They want to see the format settle down for a bit. You don’t want to sponsor a team that in three years from now will go under."

With just a month before the season starts Cricket Australia remains hopeful that teams will still be able to secure sponsors. Peter Young says Twenty20 has a strong Gen X and Gen Y following. Hughes agrees the competition needs to be targeting these audiences.

"Twenty20 … attracts that market because it’s more casual, more relaxed and more fun and [it] needs a brand that wants to connect with that marketplace," Hughes said.

Andrew McShea, marketing manager of Brisbane team the Heat, says sponsors will be announced in the coming weeks. The Adelaide Scorchers responded with a similar line. "We are currently in negotiations and expect to make an announcement in the next two weeks," said project manager Nick Takos.

General manager of the Hobart Hurricanes Michael Roberts told Crikey they have attained a secondary sponsor but like other teams are yet to acquire a major sponsor. A representative of the Sydney Thunder would not comment on sponsorship negotiations.

The remaining teams -- Melbourne Stars, Melbourne Renegades, and the Sydney 6ers -- did not return emails or calls for comment.

Hughes says the Big Bash League must attract high-profile players to survive and that Cricket Australia should publicly declare how long it will prop up the league to secure sponsor confidence.
Young told Crikey the Big Bash League is self-sustainable, but Roberts said it was unclear to them how long Cricket Australia would prop up the league without major team sponsors.

With next year being an Olympic year, it means sponsorship money will be even harder to come by as sponsors heavily invest in television rights and access to athletes, rather than two-month competitions such as the BBL, said Hughes.

Shane Warne signed with the Melbourne Stars yesterday, while the Sydney 6ers team includes fast bowler Brett Lee.

[Boba Fett]

Geez, not one team with a major sponsor?!?

I don't agree with the "marketing academic" about the lack of FTA coverage. If this was true, then how come all the Super Rugby teams and most of the A league teams have major sponsors? I suspect the last minute organisation of the competition has more to do with it - it really has been thrown together at the last minute.

[Rob]

Depends how much they're asking I guess. If they expect a million bucks for a few weeks of limited exposure then they're kidding themselves. The fact no team has a major sponsor tends to indicate that they've simply set the bar too high. Lower the price enough and it's pretty easy to get a major sponsor. Even the local junior footy team has one.
It's also a new thing for cricket generally. The One day comp and former BBL teams all carry the competition sponsor on the uniform. Cricket's relationship with the corporate sector has always been at the international level.

[Jeffles]

This might be sopmething where companies are seeing how it is received before committing dollars. Rob's right in that CA have probably overvalued the competition. It clashes with the Test series. And other sponsors are probably feeling ripped off. When you sponsored a state you got all three forms of cricket covered AND signage at the internationals held in that state. BBL offers little by comparison

This is the problem with the competition. CA think it will bring tribalism. They want people to follow BBL teams like the follow footy teams - week in, week out for weeks. You won't get that with a five minute season. IMO the best way to get "tribalism" is to have the team you want to follow play over a longer period of time rather than be a travelling roadshow sensation. To my mind, the best way to do this is to have the same domestic teams all summer - the states.

CA thought that people had lost interest in domestic cricket. In some ways they had. Being off FTA TV and the expansion of the international calendar put domestic cricket on the periphery. So did scheduling Sheffield Shield that start on a Sunday, Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday - what f***ing crowds do they expect when it's on during the week?

Another thing CA wanted to do is make cricket a more financially attractive proposition for some of those athletes in their teens who can have a go at more than one sport. IMO the best way of doing this is to increase the number of contracts available by introducing a 7th side like ACT in all forms of the game. I was previously against it but with the amount of expat players in Tasmania, SA etc, I think there are enough cricketers out there for this to happen. I also think CA is cashed up enough to afford it.

Simmo, on other fora I visit, interest is not higher than it was last year for domestic cricket.

[yob]

quick survey: how much interest are we sensing in the BBL from the other fora we frequent?

I'm seeing no interest on the Trek BBS.

[Adelaide_United_Red]

quick survey: how much interest are we sensing in the BBL from the other fora we frequent?

Open disdain to surefire predictions of doom. Mind you, I'm talking about the Roar, where most folk are concerned with debating the current A-League season or Des Hasler's Many v Canterbury thing, the few cricket articles are about the Test team at the moment.

[Jeffles]

OK. Round One is over.

Crowds: Am I correct in saying there is generally no improvement and they are on par with what the state sides were getting last year? Is this a bad thing for CA given how much extra $$$ was spent on promotion? Fairfax says CA were hoping for 20k at the SCG and 40k at the MCG. Big fail if that's true.

TV: Peter Young of CA is tweeting that the TV audiences are massive and have broken records for domestic cricket. This is the shining light from the competition. It is only week one. Like TV premieres etc, you often get a big start up audience. Keeping them is the issue. Of course given all the hype and $$$ you'd expect the audience to be bigger than the usual Wednesdasy night, under-promoted, 50 over figures.

Cricket: It's T20. I don't hate it and certainly think there is a place for it. The games have been good but I do question the use of older blokes. CA wants to attract ten year olds and they also want to make cricket a lucrative profession for up and coming athletes who have a choice between playing it and footy or soemthing else. Filling sides with Hyaden, Hogg, Macgill etc fails both of these goals.

Any thoughts?

[Boba Fett]

CA was insane to be throwing around those crowd expectations for Sydney and Melbourne. They were clearly not based on any reality. Even if they did get those figures (which would have been astonishing), there wouldn't have been much congratulations for it because it simply would have "met expectations". But now they are seen to be underperforming according to CA's own statements. It really was a lose-lose statement.

I actually thought the crowd figures around the country were quite acceptable (maybe a touch down in Sydney). For a brand new competition with teams that have been created out of thin air it was a solid start.

My only beef with the BBL is the timing - it really should be played in Feb-Mar after the Tests and limited over internationals have been played. The players can then move from the BBL into the IPL, which starts in April.

[Jeffles]

I think Feb-Mar bugs CA because it gets lost in the start of footy but there is merit in that.

You're right about the crowds. Back page of the DT on Saturday was how much of a disappointment the crowd was. They should've been more conservative.