``Gut wrenching,'' was how Philip Bernie, the editor of BBC Cricket, described the ECB's decision. There was a general feeling they were slowly, but surely, being stripped naked. The future of Grandstand, their flagship programme, which last week celebrated 40 years on the air, was being thrown into serious doubt.
Yentob tried his best to rally the troops. He reassured them that the resources would be there to fight back. But it was too late. Without a bottomless well of money and with a legacy of arrogance still lingering in the corridors of White City, it was inevitable that more major events would follow FA Cup football, England rugby internationals and Formula One out of the back door.
Staff too. The Channel 4 switchboard is already hot with calls from various BBC cricket personnel. Bernie is philosophical. ``I've spoken to Richie Benaud and David Gower. They're both sympathetic but they've got their livelihoods to earn.''
Gower was to be the new ``face'' of BBC cricket, following Tony Lewis' retirement, and he fronted the Beeb's videotaped presentation to the ECB. This was hurriedly put together, following news of Channel 4's bid, but was applauded by the eight ECB representatives present, particularly the intention to launch a kids' magazine show. But it seems the ECB's mind was already made up. The BBC were given one opportunity - on the phone - to raise their offer from £42 million. They upped it to £46 million. They could have gone higher, but the next contact they had was to be told Channel 4 had won.
It was a bitter pill to swallow, one that had originated with the gradual deterioration of relations between the BBC and the ECB hierarchies. Cricketing chiefs disliked the rather taciturn ex-controller of sport, Jonathan Martin, and others of his ilk, who had become increasingly perceived as haughty and complacent.
Martin & Co, it was suggested by some of their staff, had come to assume the BBC would retain the key contracts because they always had in the past, and used no ingenuity to defend their position. You can't teach a dictator democratic rules. Partly because of this, someone wanted to kick them where it hurts most. ``This deal was payback time,'' a rival executive explained.
Bernie, 36, refuted the suggestion that BBC cricket coverage was old-fashioned and staid. ``I'm proud of our coverage over the last few years,'' he said. ``The myth that we didn't innovate has been exploded by the facts. We introduced new camera angles, increased the number of super slo-mo replays, made better use of hand-held cameras. The idea that the BBC were sitting back on their haunches is totally wrong. Terry Blake [ECB marketing director] even phoned us several times to compliment our coverage.''
The only criticisms those who have worked in the department might make are that such innovations as there were, tended to be reactive rather than proactive and were sometimes half-hearted.
On BBC Sport's shop floor there has always been enormous talent and commitment. Working there, for many, is a vocation. Being stripped of their major assets is tantamount to the bailiffs breaking and entering. Most privately blame The Management but are determined to soldier on.
The editor of Grandstand, Carl Hicks, a perky Liverpudlian, fumed privately but was diplomatic in public. ``I fervently hope,'' he said, ``that the senior management will back up the promises they've made to use the money from cricket for other sporting rights.'' Though what these were was not clear.
Hicks suggested the BBC will now give more airtime to events such as their remaining major racing fixtures, the French Open tennis and world athletics, sports which tended to be eclipsed by Test cricket. Others present at the depressing Yentob de-briefing declared they did not ever want to experience such an atmosphere again.
The most surprising, and, from the point of view of BBC staff and loyal viewers, disappointing aspect of the whole affair is its predictability. The role of Channel 4 as successful counter-bidder is unusual, but the BBC have by now lost in so many similar situations that they seem naive, if not worse, to have gone into this important battle with insufficient ammunition.
There is some dispute over the final figures, with Channel 4 claiming a £4-6 million difference between the final bids, and the BBC suggesting a gap of more like £10 million. But whatever the sums involved, it is difficult to picture Channel 4 in the villain's role traditionally occupied by Sky, who have acquired the rights to show all of England's one-day matches as well as a single Test. Difficult, too, to conjure up much sympathy for the corporation when they have so conspicuously spent money on unloved or unproven innovations such as the News 24 channel and their digital service.
``The idea that the BBC were beaten off by Channel 4 waving a huge chequebook is frankly ridiculous,'' according to a spokesman for the commercial channel, who in conjuction with Sky won the day with a joint figure of £103 million. ``The BBC bid £46 million, and we bid £50 million, which we later topped up with £2 million more from our marketing budget. The BBC have £2 billion of public money, and the Channel 4 programming budget is one sixth of that.''
Desmond Lynam was unwilling to comment on the latest calamity to befall the corporation he has served for so long. But in an interview with The Daily Telegraph earlier this year he recalled the atmosphere in the BBC Sports Department when the FA Cup final was lost to ITV.
``There was a kind of shock going on,'' he said. ``A horror that it was happening.'' His words were echoed by many of his colleagues over the last 48 hours. Those who have worked for many years on the BBC's cricket coverage feel, with some justification, that there was little wrong with the job they were doing, and that given the budget and resources to produce additional features and more frequent magazine progammes, they could have matched the Channel 4 bid for quality and quantity.
It is futile speculation now. The issue that BBC staff wish to see addressed is how this now-familiar scenario can be avoided in future. Much of the flak has been directed at Mike Miller, the BBC's newly-appointed controller of sport. Miller was previously in charge of sports programming at Channel 4, where earlier this year, he declined the opportunity to bid for the cricket rights.
Miller yesterday reiterated his belief that Channel 4 had paid over the odds for their rights, but then conceded that there was more to the deal than money. ``Sometimes, when you have a long relationship, the grass can seem greener on the other side,'' he observed. ``Part of this was that cricket felt the need for change.''
There seems little doubt that the cricket authorities were impressed almost as much by the style of the Channel 4 bid as by its financial content. Channel 4 held three meetings with the ECB, on Sept 23, Sept 28 and Oct 8, and at the last of those, according to an observer, ``everything clicked''.
The kind of words that Channel 4 have since used to describe their future coverage - ``fresher, younger, more multi-cultural'' are those that have marketing men slavering. And Lord MacLaurin is a consummate marketeer. But he may like to pause for a moment to consider the danger of losing his core audience in the headlong pursuit of a new one. Many cricket fans were happy with the BBC's coverage, and may not take kindly to innovation. And Channel 4 is a commercial station.
As soon as the possibility of a bid was mooted, Channel 4's advertising sales team whipped out their calculators and predicted that the new coverage should attract upwards of £10 million a year in advertising revenue, thus covering a large proportion of the cost of the bid over the four years of the contract. And as a corollary, 25 entire days' cricket removes from the schedules 25 entire days of other programmes.
The Channel 4 bid seems to make sense for the company, just as it provides the ECB with access to the kind of young, ethnically diverse audience that they crave. Diehard traditionalists can always take refuge in the old trick of watching the pictures while safely plugged in to the happily anachronistic sound of Test Match Special on Radio Four.
That is small consolation, though, to the demoralised troops of BBC Television Sport. Miller declared: ``This should be a wake-up call to the BBC. When major sports that are important to the BBC are up for grabs we have to go the extra mile to retain them. And we will.'' But will they get to the finishing line first?