Yes PCB can set an initial price (minimum) to start the bidding process but question still remains "Is any channel ready to even pay the base price to get the rights?" Answer is No this is why 3 channels are broadcasting PSL matches. Here what PCB did they get the desired price by giving rights to 3 channels. As mentioned before they have nothing to do with PTV profit/losses both are separate bodies
In recent history PTV did not bid alone for sole rights. .Only time PCB bids for right as sole channel was in 90s when their production was top notch This is why I write in my previous post they bid with Tensports as Joint Venture
Can not repeat my self again here. PCB earned more by giving rights to 3 channels. There was no channel for example BT Sports or SKy Sports or Sony TV ready in UK to broadcast PSL matches. Only party who was interested in getting rights was Geo TV UK.
Here I am agreeing with you there is a threat of conflict of address and it needs to addressed. In fact there are many loop holes in PCB corporate governance structure. For example Mr Sethi is active board member and he is also heading remuneration committee.
Here my argument is PCB did right thing to sell TV rights to 3 channels to maximize its profit. Its up to PTV how they can maximize its profit/viewership by getting TV advertisement etc
There are other issues in PCB, one I have mentioned above on basis of which you can criticize Mr Sethi not on this one brother
Thanks for your interest in the issue and taking time to respond to my thread and concerns. You have given relatively reasonable justifications for your stance. I appreciate that.
However, you are misinterpreting my explanations. Part of it is my fault. I conduct audits on conflict of interest situations and sometimes when explaining things to people on the matter of conflict , I become oblivious of the fact that I might be engaging in a discourse with someone who might not have the same background as mine. Some explanations need more depth than others.
I should have explained to you that the state run organizations like PTV (referred to as crown corporations in common wealth countries) contain assets, which are a property of state/people. In countries which are less infested with corruption, there are no political appointments (rewarding favorite people with perks-rich-executive-jobs, who don't have the background to run a corporation) for the heads of such organizations. Hence when you bring up the question that why PTV sports "management" did not pursue a specific direction and I should direct my questions to them, you are omitting the big issue of
collusion in this whole scenario.
The PSL head is appointed by the PMLN government. The PTV head is also appointed by the PMLN government. PMLN gets political-media support from the GEO group (the PM of the country actually thanked the GEO group on the floor of the National Assembly. Gone are the days when the bribes were given in a form of cash in a dark brief case at a seedy restaurant. Now, all this business collusion and financial rewards are exchanged in forms of contracts.
When I say that the PTV lost money, I am implying that the PTV as a corporation is being devalued not only by the PMLN cronies like Sethis but also by the PTV management, whose head is appointed by the government (PMLN in this particular case). There are corporate governance issues within PTV.
You cannot have an effective bidding process when the parties involved are not interacting at arm's-length. PTV and GEO super can't operate at arm's length with the PCB. They are effectively related parties. One example which substantiates my claim is that the PSL head, who is also a de facto head of the PCB matters (because he is the head of PCB Executive Committee), answers PCB related question exclusively on a GEO group's show. A show in which, only his GEO associate can ask him questions.
The price of the TV rights within Pakistan were brought down because of the collusion mentioned above just to bring the cost down for the GEO Super. This can be taken to any court of law and the plaintiff would have a very strong case. However, no one with deep pockets will do that because all of them are benefiting from the scenario. For example, the ARY channel won't do it because it has a stake in a PSL team and it provides a live coverage of PSL games via a show, "har lamha pujosh." They show a live coverage of the game in a minimized screen. It shouldn't happen this way. Cricket websites, like cricinfo, are not even allowed to put pictures of the IPL games on their website while the game is being played.
Why are you under the impression that PCB made more money by selling the rights to 3 different organizations? I mean you could be right if you have access to the figures. What is the possibility of PCB intentionally making the initial price set too high so that the price has to come down eventually - collusion to benefit the GEO group? What was the initial base price and what was sum of contracts with all the three parties at the end, for the Pakistan related rights?
Also, do you know all the details of bidding that took place in the UK? Are you sure that the PCB did not put conditions to SKY sports that it wants to sell the rights to GEO UK, simultaneously? To be honest, if memory serves me right - I was under the impression that some other channel was showing PSL in UK not the GEO group.
It should be noted that my thread started with a question. I don't have access to the figures but the collusion in this case is so blatant that the question is justified.
Governments in Pakistan abuse a lot of taxpayers' money for their political ads, to strengthen their relationship with the media. They buy opinions of the media houses. This appears to be a classic case of rewarding a media house at the cost of a state-run-corporation. There have been similar precedences. Karachi steel mill has been destroyed to help out the private steel mills. Same is happening with the PIA.
