A very nice article, I thought!

Top Contributors
Re: A very niice article, I thought!

Yeah I agree with pretty much most of that article. The BCCI take any chance to make some more money, this is test cricket and to see a player walking around like a billboard just frustrates me. The ICC have already taken steps by limiting the number of logo's on the players pads, gloves etc. Time to step up to the plate ICC and take some control over the cricket.
 
Re: A very niice article, I thought!

Eeesh. This is a tough one. How does one draw sponsors (ie: money) without turning the players into walking billboards. One the one hand we complain that the players and feds are whoring themselves to sponsors, and then we complain when lack of money affects the growth and exposure of the game. Lets face it, many times one hears/ says the phrase "I don't want the players looking like NASCAR racers", but NASCAR has grown in popularity by leaps and bounds in the States, and it is not hurting from a lack money or exposure. In some cases, it's the sponsors in bidding wars for certain rights (to a race, or certain racer). How would you like to open up CricInfo and read that Coca Cola and Pepsi are in a bidding war for rights for a certain Cricket event? Would you think its a "bad" thing? How much 'space' is there to advertise during a Test match? TV can work around this, with breaks, they can super impose images on the field, they can even use an ad "frame". But to do so at the event becomes tricky. I am torn between both sides of this argument. But in the end I have to be realistic and admit that it will be hard to draw sponsors if you limit their options.
And Guru, when you say Time to step up to the plate ICC and take some control over the cricket. I just had to laugh. I said: what is it, April Fools Day? Oh yeah, wait a minute..... ;)
 
Re: A very niice article, I thought!

NFL, NBA, MLB do not, have not, and probably never will, have
sponsorship logos on uniforms, stadia signs, or anything else. And they're
rolling in dough. Why? They know how to whip up excitement and demand
for their sport. NFL had Pete Rozelle. ICC's got Speedo.
 
Re: A very niice article, I thought!

The main point is that, aside from grotesque sponsor logos is the Test whites; it's a trademark image as well as look of the sport that is Cricket. Even I will admit that the SA whites with green collars and striped-trousers do look out of place on a test pitch.

As for Timmy, there is no need for shirt sponsors as they are all made by Majestic. There's no need for brand advertising if you have the monopoly on official gear.

Next, as for no sponsors on anything in baseball, have a look at Yankee Stadium—the Mecca of baseball.

stadium.jpg
 
Re: A very niice article, I thought!

timmyj51;150173 said:
NFL, NBA, MLB do not, have not, and probably never will, have
sponsorship logos on uniforms, stadia signs, or anything else.
Click to expand...

Seriously mate, if you're going to keep insulting the ICC at least get your facts straight. There ARE signs in all stadia and arenas. Lots of them. If you have not seen them, I have no idea where you are looking. Also, uniforms all have very conspicuous manufacturer's logos on them so you know exactly who made them.
 
Re: A very nice article, I thought!

Well lets just take Timmy's statement and admit that those leagues are rolling in the dough. Note that it does not mean the teams are doing well financially. Those leagues have done well because of the WAY those leagues are set up. They are franchises. Just like Mc Donalds, Burger King, etc. They pay a fee to the league to "draw from the well". While each league is different, there is a way for small teams in small markets to benefit (to a degree) from the larger market teams. While each team is responsible for their own marketing and promotion, the league does its part to promote said league. I didn't mean explicitly that the only option was to put ads on the Test whites. I simply raised the point/ question : How can the ICC, which is ultimately responsible to promote the game, raise 1) interest in the game, 2) revenue without resorting to advertising on the uniforms, which, however reprehensible some may find it, is a possible solution? I concur with those opposed, it is something I'd rather not see, but what are the possible results if it comes to that? If it results in exposure and increased revenue, which in turn can be distributed among ICC members, and goes to development of the game, I would think twice before discounting it. My apprehension to "revenue sharing that may result from 'increased advertising' would be exactly how the money would be distributed, and what mechanisms would be in place to prevent 'sticky fingers' from sticking their hands in the till.
 
Re: A very nice article, I thought!

" admit that those leagues are rolling in the dough.'



Last year MLB paid out $77.3 million to the 231 employees in its central office.
Yeah, I'd say they're doin' pretty well.
 
Re: A very nice article, I thought!

timmyj51;150654 said:
" admit that those leagues are rolling in the dough.'



Last year MLB paid out $77.3 million to the 231 employees in its central office.
Yeah, I'd say they're doin' pretty well.
Click to expand...

Did I say the leagues were not doing well. In fact I said to accept your statement. I then went on to explain some of the hows and whys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top