Adelaide Oval decision day

Well, at least for SACA members, only about half of whom, according to Adelaide Now/ The Advertiser , are expected to vote either by proxy or at this evening's Special General Meeting which will, we are told, determine the future of the Adelaide Oval.

The issue has been widely canvassed in the local media, including the online Indaily and
the News Ltd outlets: Adelaide Now has just posted , complete with misidentification of the speaker ("Ian Ravenscrost" should be "Ravenscroft"), a last minute plea for a Yes vote.
I have some serious misgivings, notably

• whether the cost (which will certainly be greater than the already revised amount) can be justified

• whether the market for AFL (especially in the light of the recent TV rights deal and the decline of Port Power) and cricket (the recent upgrade accommodated everyone - including those with free tickets - who wished to attend the Ashes Test) will justify the upgrade, and

• whether cricket which, for all its relatively small local support, gives Adelaide Oval (and thus Adelaide) global recognition and ambience (eg this), will be sidelined over time: the suggestion that Sheffield Shield matches will be moved 12km to Glenelg when SACA has previously indicated that a refurbished Adelaide Oval No2 would be used concerns me.

To judge from the amount of heat (and light) the issue has generated in the local media it will be difficult to get the 75% of the votes cast in favour of the special resolution required for SACA to join the AFL interests in a Stadium Management Authority.

What is more likely is that there'll be a majority of less than the required 75%. This will presumably launch Plan B, or C...or Z.

So I'll go to the meeting, listen to what is said, and cast my vote. At the moment I'm leaning, despite my misgivings above, by voting in favour.

Australian cap controversy no small beer

What is an Australian cricket cap?

Peter Lalor in today's Australian reports

Test cap or Australian cap?

Cricket Australia claims that respect for the baggy green, rather than a lack of it, led to the controversial decision by the national team to wear a cap with a beer logo on it during a tour match in the West Indies.

The game's governing body claims that an evolution in the tradition of the baggy green has meant that it is now regarded almost exclusively as a Test cap.

The team has been accused of "selling out" by past players over the incident.

In the past, the cap was given to anybody who represented Australia, regardless of whether it was a tour, one-day or Test match.

Adam Gilchrist was awarded a baggy green for his one-day debut in England, but was given another, which he values more, on his Test debut.

Cricket Australia said yesterday the touring side decided not to wear the baggy green as wicket-keeper Brad Haddin had not been awarded one, so his teammates opted to wear the training cap with a sponsor's logo instead out of solidarity and "respect for the baggy green".

"It is believed that since 2001, and due to the evolution of the importance of the baggy green within Australian cricket circles, no non-Test player has been awarded a baggy green until they've been selected to play Test cricket for Australia," a spokesman for Cricket Australia said.

"Having reviewed various public and media comments, Cricket Australia has accepted that in the future a 'fitted green' cap may need to be developed so that players who have not yet represented Australia in Test cricket may wear an appropriate green felt cap, which is different from the baggy green, in Australia tour matches."

Cricket Australia's website now claims

Cricket Australia has clarified the circumstances surrounding the caps worn by players during the opening game of the West Indies Tour.

Brad Haddin, who has not yet been selected to play Test cricket for Australia, was ineligible to wear the baggy green cap, which is only presented to players on the morning of their Test debut. In these circumstances it was decided that in the interests of team uniformity (and out of respect for the baggy green) all players would wear the same cap, the blue Cricket Australia training cap, which bears the sponsors mark. It is believed that since 2001, and due to the evolution of the importance of the baggy green within Australian cricket circles, no non-Test player has been awarded a baggy green until they've been selected to play Test cricket for Australia.

Therefore, during the first day's play in the opening tour match of the West Indies tour all fielders took the field either wearing their blue cricket Australia training cap or a Cricket Australia 'white floppy' brimmed hat.

Having reviewed various public and media comment Cricket Australia has accepted that in the future a 'fitted green' cap may need to be developed so that players who have not yet represented Australia in Test cricket may wear an appropriate green felt cap, that is different from the baggy green, in Australia tour matches. (In the past few years some Australia 'A' teams have been awarded 'fitted greens').

Due to these special circumstances, during the second innings of the current tour game the Australian players are wearing baggy green caps, if they are eligible to wear them, or a Cricket Australia floppy white hat, rather than the blue training cap. Brad Haddin may wear his Australia one-day cap while keeping wicket.

You'd think that CA could have foreseen something like this arising and headed the matter off at the pass, especially as one of its directors, Peter Warner, according to his profile on its website has "worked in the sports footwear/apparel industry for 25 years involving various major brands". Does he have a conflict of interest in this matter, I wonder?

I'm disappointed, though not surprised, that CA has been so toothless on this matter, at least until now, when external pressure seems to have prompted a change.

It seems willing to bend the truth wherever there's a buck to be made. Another example is the Foxtel ad on its website claiming "Catch every ball of the VB Tour of the West Indies live on Fox Sports." This is false as Fox Sports has not telecast any of the game in which the players wore the unofficial caps promoting the series sponsor. Nor has CA apparently been able to state whether the three day match (click on link to see scorecard etc) has been given first class status.

Was it really this good?

Official reports have confirmed what most cricket followers suspected, namely that last season's Ashes tour was an economic windfall (well, perhaps a bit more predictable than a windfall) for Australian cricket and the Australian economy. Whether it was quite so beneficial as Cricket Australia and SACA 's media releases suggest , is, IMO, another matter.

An extract from the SACA media release:

A major economic study shows the international cricket program, including the Ashes Test match, created $58.5 million in economic impact, as well as 132 extra jobs and brought more than 11,500 visitors to the state.

The URS Economic Impact Study (EIS), commissioned by Cricket Australia, highlights the enormous financial impact of the cricket season. It shows the average international tourist stayed in Adelaide and regional South Australia for an average of more than 10 days – the highest of any State during the Ashes series – and spent an average of $6,489 per person.

An estimated 4,500 international visitors and 7,000 interstate visitors attended the Adelaide Test match over the 5 days, with the official Test match attendance of 136,761.

The consolidated direct economic impact on South Australia of the Ashes Test match was $53.52m, of this $48m was the result of international visitors, and $5.52m was the result of interstate visitors.

The estimated impact on Gross State Product or State Value Added of the Ashes Test was $8m, which is estimated to have created an additional 132 full-time jobs.

SACA Chief Executive Michael Deare said the study revealed how important international cricket was to the South Australian economy, and supported the SACA’s decision to continually improve the Oval’s corporate and sporting facilities.

“The direct economic impact of international cricket during the 2006-07 summer of $58.5m means cricket is in excellent shape, when compared to the $30m contribution from this year’s Clipsal 500, about $16m from the 2007 Tour Down Under and around $8m through the Rugby World Cup in 2003,” Mr Deare said.

“The statistics validate our long term plans for the Oval, and certainly reinforce the recent decisions of both the State and Federal governments in providing funding for the SACA’s ongoing redevelopment program.”

The One Day International cricket matches in January contributed an additional $5m in direct economic impact.

Nationally, the 2006-07 3 mobile Ashes Test Series and Commonwealth Bank One-Day International Series generated $317 million for the Australian economy and created 793 jobs, according to the report, which was released today by Tourism Minister Fran Bailey and Cricket Australia.

“Cricket is simply marvelous for jobs and tourism. Our boys not only did a fabulous job in winning back the Ashes, but helped to create hundreds of new jobs and attract thousands of tourists to our shores," Ms Bailey said.

Many of these stats appear to my untutored (in economics) eye to be very elastic, if not downright rubbery. What, for example, has happened to the 132 full time jobs created by the Adelaide Test? Were they full time just for the five days of the test (if that long) or have they continued beyond then? How many of them still exist?

I could go on, but much as I dislike what appears to be blatant gilding of the lily, I agree that the Ashes series has tremendous popular appeal. I therefore can't understand why, in an age when we hear so much about the importance of market forces, the authorities don't schedule Ashes series more frequently. A century ago England toured Australia about every two years. Yes, there were fewer test playing nations then, but nowadays it seems that the authorities dance to the tune of Indian media interests instead of looking out of their corporate box windows and asking themselves why, if a particular contest (the Ashes) trumps the game (cricket), the contest can't be held more frequently.