No ABC broadcasting of India tests.

Apologies if this has been posted but a more than cursory glance didn't throw it up.

Interesting that India has stymied the broadcaster's hopes of having a reporter there. Apparently also the BCCI is asking a lot of money for them to broadcast the tests back home according to a radio report tonight.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-12/statement-on-abc-cricket-coverage/4514890?section=sport

Just when you thought you couldn't hate the BCCI any more.

Just call it from a TV feed like England did... not only was it a moral victory, it provided more excitement because they didn't know if a man was in the deep.

The more people get focked off, the more likely it is that they'll relinquish some of their power through the form of deep hatred.

I couldn't hate them any more.

No, but the more people they piss off, the more people that aren't on their side, regardless of the cash.

Furthermore, there'll be reciprocity in the return tours. It all leads to division.

BCCI owns the production rights, hence they've increased it. Even ESS had to pay extra for their Hindi telecast.

I doubt the ECB or CA own production rights for home matches.

Red wrote:Apologies if this has been posted but a more than cursory glance didn't throw it up.

Interesting that India has stymied the broadcaster's hopes of having a reporter there. Apparently also the BCCI is asking a lot of money for them to broadcast the tests back home according to a radio report tonight.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-12/statement-on-abc-cricket-coverage/4514890?section=sport

What utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter bastards the BCCI are.

TFF Foxy.

Brass Monkey wrote:Just call it from a TV feed like England did... not only was it a moral victory, it provided more excitement because they didn't know if a man was in the deep.

They had Mike Atherton out there. In the car park. Or in a car park. Not sure he was ever within 200 feet of any of the venues. That was TV gold: bloke in a car park telling us what was going on - in the car park.

the aussies can do an atherton as well. if they want access to the ground they really should be willing to pay for the rights

I'll call it, give me a microphone and equipment.

I see t'Indians on t'thread are all 'fair and square'. Fact is, this isn't just the second series that extra space has been needed - it's happened throughout time. It's just until October last year, the costs have always been waived. It's a bollocks precedent to set.

But it's fair dues. I missed little with the broadcast from the Sky studio - apart from a contrary opinion and a bit of it was 'hacky'.

BCCI in all about the money shock.

Brass Monkey wrote:I see t'Indians on t'thread are all 'fair and square'. Fact is, this isn't just the second series that extra space has been needed - it's happened throughout time. It's just until October last year, the costs have always been waived. It's a bollocks precedent to set.

But it's fair dues. I missed little with the broadcast from the Sky studio - apart from a contrary opinion and a bit of it was 'hacky'.

Apologies if NSR. Tisn't really true.

Before Nimbus had the telecast rights, the airing of home matches was a shambles (went to a govt channel for peanuts, BCCI peanuts, if they have nuts). Nimbus bought the telecast rights and the production rights which the BCCI wanted and only last year did they hack Nimbus off the list and award only telecast rights to ESS and not production rights.

So a company like Sky used to buy pictures from Nimbus (or Prasar Bharati) only earlier as in all countries, and now they have to deal with both BCCI and ESS.

But when has anyone ever denied the money grabbing quntitude of the BCCI, be it now or before?

No you're right, it is fair and square.

Think it's summed up pretty well by this article:

At the risk of sounding totally absurd, I'm asking you to use your imagination to picture this. It's the fourth and final Test of the series against Australia at home in 2013. Sachin Tendulkar, having smacked the winning runs through cover point, has taken India to a near-impossible win with yet another epic knock in Chennai. Moments after being hoisted on the shoulders of his teammates as they celebrate this memorable victory, Tendulkar, still overcome with the emotion of a tense encounter, walks into the post-match press conference.

Tendulkar looks straight into a camera and announces his retirement, reading from a prepared speech where he thanks all those who contributed to his career and his incredible journey. He tears up as he bids his beloved fans farewell. Then he walks away, escorted by a couple of obsequious BCCI officials.

There are no journalists to ask questions during the press conference. No reporters milling around Tendulkar as he walks one final time towards the dressing room. There is no posse of television cameras transmitting the press conference live. No flashbulbs going off as Tendulkar talks about life after cricket. No photographers from international news agencies to capture close-ups as his moist eyes glisten. No interviews on news bulletins, or photos that go out to newspapers across the world as the greatest cricketer of his generation says goodbye. The only media present in the room on that momentous occasion: a solitary television camera manned by a BCCI-appointed cameraperson.

Tendulkar has just made the most significant announcement of his career to an empty room. Reason? Television crews, photographers and cricket journalists, across all media and publications, have boycotted the Test due to the oppressive restrictions imposed by the BCCI on their coverage of the series. Yes, I'm grossly exaggerating a make-believe scenario to make my point. But the events of the past few months warrant this hyperbole at the BCCI's perfunctory arm-twisting of the media, not just in India but also around the world.

Consider the latest developments. First, Sky Sports was refused access to the grounds for the ongoing India-England series unless they agreed to cough up an obscene amount of over Rs 4 crore as 'production fees' to the BCCI. Then, the BCCI banned Getty Images and a couple of other photo agencies from covering the Tests as they must not profit from providing photos unless these are exclusively for editorial use. Instead, the BCCI took to emailing in-house photos to the media. And most recently, it has been busy sending out threatening emails to visiting journalists for various breaches of accreditation guidelines.

In response, Sky Sports decided against sending its team to India, with the exception of Michael Atherton who does his bit from the parking lot of the match venue. International news agencies – including AFP, AP and Reuters – refused to cover the Ahmedabad Test in a show of solidarity with Getty. And newspapers in England have protested the ban on the photo agencies by using interesting alternatives for pictures to showcase the action. Similar bans on news and photo agencies were enforced by Cricket Australia in 2007 and the IPL in 2008 but quickly revoked when faced with a boycott. The BCCI, however, is unmoved.

To elaborate on the BCCI's threat to journalists, a cricket writer from England was slapped with a prompt warning during the Ahmedabad Test for a five-minute spot he did for a media outlet back home that in no way contravened the rights of the official broadcasters. Why the board is poking its nose into affairs when none of its stakeholders is directly affected is anybody's guess. But what is abundantly clear is the arbitrary approach with which the BCCI operates when it comes to flexing its muscle with the media.

The board has set a very dangerous precedent in attaching a hefty price for allowing journalists and commentators access to the stadium. By all means, monetise various properties as the BCCI has with its 38 billion-rupee deal with Rupert Murdoch's Star network. But there is great disservice being done to a cricket-loving public when the freedom of the press is impinged upon to this degree.

The problem with BCCI-appointed commentators and in-house photography is the complete lack of objectivity. If an incident like Monkeygate or an ugly confrontation were to take place between a player and the crowd, would the BCCI email those photos to the media? How often have we heard critical comments during the cricket telecast about the IPL or the packed cricket calendar, or the BCCI's refusal to adopt the Decision Review System? These are stories only a free and fair media can tell.

It's an unfortunate time to be a cricket journalist in India, particularly if you're a television reporter. For the past two years, television reporters have not entered stadiums in India, a development that is seriously affecting the quality of reportage on news television. The BCCI has strict guidelines regarding the timing and content of what networks can carry on their sports shows and news bulletins. The bone of contention deals with the quantity of footage being broadcast, and the delay news channels must enforce in showing any match footage.

The diktats were deemed unacceptable resulting in a total boycott of all cricket series in India. Except that the threat of competition and limited unity even under the umbrella of the News Broadcasters Association in the country means the boycott is hardly a boycott. The only difference is there are no reporters at the stadium to cover the matches, practice sessions and press conferences. Cricket still dominates the sports shows of all news networks. And the BCCI, never one to miss a trick, has seen through the bluff. It is this acute awareness of market forces and an inherent arrogance that dictates their policy in all media interactions: you need Indian cricket more than Indian cricket needs you.

The point is none of these news networks, cricket websites or photo agencies are threatening the host broadcaster's viewership or cutting into the BCCI's precious revenue in any way. If anything, they are most diligent in their efforts to promote the sport and cultivate a keen audience.

Why then is the BCCI so hell bent on alienating the media in India and around the world?

By far the biggest qunts to ever be involved in cricket and I'm including the MCC.

Brass Monkey wrote:No you're right, it is fair and square.

Think it's summed up pretty well by this article:

At the risk of sounding totally absurd, I'm asking you to use your imagination to picture this. It's the fourth and final Test of the series against Australia at home in 2013. Sachin Tendulkar, having smacked the winning runs through cover point, has taken India to a near-impossible win with yet another epic knock in Chennai. Moments after being hoisted on the shoulders of his teammates as they celebrate this memorable victory, Tendulkar, still overcome with the emotion of a tense encounter, walks into the post-match press conference.

Tendulkar looks straight into a camera and announces his retirement, reading from a prepared speech where he thanks all those who contributed to his career and his incredible journey. He tears up as he bids his beloved fans farewell. Then he walks away, escorted by a couple of obsequious BCCI officials.

There are no journalists to ask questions during the press conference. No reporters milling around Tendulkar as he walks one final time towards the dressing room. There is no posse of television cameras transmitting the press conference live. No flashbulbs going off as Tendulkar talks about life after cricket. No photographers from international news agencies to capture close-ups as his moist eyes glisten. No interviews on news bulletins, or photos that go out to newspapers across the world as the greatest cricketer of his generation says goodbye. The only media present in the room on that momentous occasion: a solitary television camera manned by a BCCI-appointed cameraperson.

Tendulkar has just made the most significant announcement of his career to an empty room. Reason? Television crews, photographers and cricket journalists, across all media and publications, have boycotted the Test due to the oppressive restrictions imposed by the BCCI on their coverage of the series. Yes, I'm grossly exaggerating a make-believe scenario to make my point. But the events of the past few months warrant this hyperbole at the BCCI's perfunctory arm-twisting of the media, not just in India but also around the world.

Consider the latest developments. First, Sky Sports was refused access to the grounds for the ongoing India-England series unless they agreed to cough up an obscene amount of over Rs 4 crore as 'production fees' to the BCCI. Then, the BCCI banned Getty Images and a couple of other photo agencies from covering the Tests as they must not profit from providing photos unless these are exclusively for editorial use. Instead, the BCCI took to emailing in-house photos to the media. And most recently, it has been busy sending out threatening emails to visiting journalists for various breaches of accreditation guidelines.

In response, Sky Sports decided against sending its team to India, with the exception of Michael Atherton who does his bit from the parking lot of the match venue. International news agencies – including AFP, AP and Reuters – refused to cover the Ahmedabad Test in a show of solidarity with Getty. And newspapers in England have protested the ban on the photo agencies by using interesting alternatives for pictures to showcase the action. Similar bans on news and photo agencies were enforced by Cricket Australia in 2007 and the IPL in 2008 but quickly revoked when faced with a boycott. The BCCI, however, is unmoved.

To elaborate on the BCCI's threat to journalists, a cricket writer from England was slapped with a prompt warning during the Ahmedabad Test for a five-minute spot he did for a media outlet back home that in no way contravened the rights of the official broadcasters. Why the board is poking its nose into affairs when none of its stakeholders is directly affected is anybody's guess. But what is abundantly clear is the arbitrary approach with which the BCCI operates when it comes to flexing its muscle with the media.

The board has set a very dangerous precedent in attaching a hefty price for allowing journalists and commentators access to the stadium. By all means, monetise various properties as the BCCI has with its 38 billion-rupee deal with Rupert Murdoch's Star network. But there is great disservice being done to a cricket-loving public when the freedom of the press is impinged upon to this degree.

The problem with BCCI-appointed commentators and in-house photography is the complete lack of objectivity. If an incident like Monkeygate or an ugly confrontation were to take place between a player and the crowd, would the BCCI email those photos to the media? How often have we heard critical comments during the cricket telecast about the IPL or the packed cricket calendar, or the BCCI's refusal to adopt the Decision Review System? These are stories only a free and fair media can tell.

It's an unfortunate time to be a cricket journalist in India, particularly if you're a television reporter. For the past two years, television reporters have not entered stadiums in India, a development that is seriously affecting the quality of reportage on news television. The BCCI has strict guidelines regarding the timing and content of what networks can carry on their sports shows and news bulletins. The bone of contention deals with the quantity of footage being broadcast, and the delay news channels must enforce in showing any match footage.

The diktats were deemed unacceptable resulting in a total boycott of all cricket series in India. Except that the threat of competition and limited unity even under the umbrella of the News Broadcasters Association in the country means the boycott is hardly a boycott. The only difference is there are no reporters at the stadium to cover the matches, practice sessions and press conferences. Cricket still dominates the sports shows of all news networks. And the BCCI, never one to miss a trick, has seen through the bluff. It is this acute awareness of market forces and an inherent arrogance that dictates their policy in all media interactions: you need Indian cricket more than Indian cricket needs you.

The point is none of these news networks, cricket websites or photo agencies are threatening the host broadcaster's viewership or cutting into the BCCI's precious revenue in any way. If anything, they are most diligent in their efforts to promote the sport and cultivate a keen audience.

Why then is the BCCI so hell bent on alienating the media in India and around the world?

By far the biggest qunts to ever be involved in cricket and I'm including the MCC.

(horrie) the gin soaked, upper class, twits at the MCC were far worse. I have the head wounds to prove it (horrie)

Brass Monkey wrote:No you're right, it is fair and square.

Think it's summed up pretty well by this article:
By far the biggest qunts to ever be involved in cricket and I'm including the MCC.

Meh, nobody can deny their quntishness, and I didn't even claim this fair or square.

Ban India.

tricycle wrote:
Meh, nobody can deny their quntishness, and I didn't even claim this fair or square.

What I'm trying to convey is that, in the past, Sky haven't asked Nine to front up space rental, or Star, in the same regard they haven't asked Sky - the precedent has been set by the BCCI (who I suppose have no professional peerage) - the point being, as usual, the BCCI are starting something so commercialistic it could turn nasty.

But we're both singing from about the same hymn sheet.

star has paid CA 1100 crores ($200 million) for the rights for 5 years of cricket for the asia region

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/marketing/article2698092.ece?homepage=true&ref=wl_home

and paid $200 million to the E&WCB for 7 years

http://www.rapidtvnews.com/index.php/2012060622291/espn-star-sports-wins-england-cricket-tv-rights.html

and the bcci is charging abc & sky $700,000 per test. the poor babies

*ahem* That's broadcasting rights, not production rights. Therein lies the difference. Until now, no-one has paid extra for production rights.

x amount or x plus y amount. its between 2 parties to negotiate. its not illegal, just something new. even the indian broadcasters have to deal with it. the bcci is obsessed with money, so not surprising

fox is covering the series isnt it? seems like abc does not want to stump too much for cricket anymore

No, it's not illegal. You seem to use similar lines to every BCCI argument. That's because you're a fervently nationalistic BCCI-apologist. Citing the fact that they're greedy in a blase way isn't an excuse. I find the whole thing very disagreeable, you don't, because it's your precious board. I'd feel the same if the ECB had initiated it... it's not about the money - I couldn't care less if Sky have to cough up extra cash, they have enough, it's about the greed superseding normal boundaries.

the ecb kicked out the national broadcaster for a private enterprise purely for the dosh years ago. cricket boards chasing money, nothing new. what is normal keeps on changing. from the 60s to packer to dalmiya to the ecb to now srinivasan

the indian broadcasters have to deal with the same. they paid extra. if you dont want to and if you dont think its worth it because you dont have enough viewers then its your perogative, but please dont cry about it. its business

most people here just see the word bcci and a red mist descends. no perspective left anymore

Years ago years ago. This is the problem - the Indian broadcasters paid extra, they shouldn't have to... They've bought the broadcasting rights, they shouldn't have to buy rights to produce their broadcast. The BCCI is a governing body yet they're acting entirely like a most unethical business. You don't give yourself much credence because your position is one and the same every time. This doesn't happen anywhere else. You're trying to tenuous occurrences of sort of similar things in the past as some sort of justification, which doesn't really work. Such media boycotts and hefty fines only happen when pretty amoral stuff is happening within an organisation.

The One wrote:the ecb kicked out the national broadcaster for a private enterprise purely for the dosh years ago. cricket boards chasing money, nothing new. what is normal keeps on changing. from the 60s to packer to dalmiya to the ecb to now srinivasan

the indian broadcasters have to deal with the same. they paid extra. if you dont want to and if you dont think its worth it because you dont have enough viewers then its your perogative, but please dont cry about it. its business

most people here just see the word bcci and a red mist descends. no perspective left anymore

Do you work for the BCCI?