.jpg)
Today marks the second phase of the process to sell The Hundred's teams. As news has trickled out of the recent days and weeks, I have started to ask myself the question: If I was a billionaire investor and was offered the opportunity to buy one of the eight Hundred teams, how much would I be willing to pay?
We have been given a unique view into what investors have seen behind the scenes, thanks to an extraordinary leak of confidential ECB projections by IPL founder Lalit Modi. It includes the ECB's estimates for both revenue and costs up to the year 2032, as well as (perhaps more importantly for us) the actual figures from 2024.
2024
The leaked ECB projections over the course of the next eight years become so positive that even their media partner the BBC has labelled them "overly optimistic". However, the 2024 figures are presumably fairly accurate and so these are the first things I would look at.
Team | Central Revenue Distribution (£m) | Total Revenue (£m) | Total Costs (£m) | Total Profit (£m) |
Birmingham Phoenix | 4.5 | 5.9 | 5.0 | 0.9 |
London Spirit | 4.5 | 6.8 | 5.8 | 1.0 |
Manchester Originals | 4.5 | 6.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 |
Northern Superchargers | 4.5 | 5.8 | 4.5 | 1.3 |
Oval Invincibles | 4.5 | 7.7 | 5.5 | 2.2 |
Southern Brave | 4.5 | 6.1 | 5.6 | 0.5 |
Trent Rockets | 4.5 | 6.2 | 4.7 | 1.5 |
Welsh Fire | 4.5 | 5.4 | 4.9 | 0.5 |
There are two things which leap out at me here, regarding the two London teams. Oval Invincibles appears to have twice as much profit as almost all of the others, whilst London Spirit is only the fourth most profitable franchise due to having the highest level of costs.
So, in the hypothetical scenario in which I have enough money to buy these teams, how much would I pay for these teams if I expected to make a profit based purely on these figures? That would depend on how confident I was about the long-term viability of The Hundred. It's like the difference between renting out a house or investing in cryptocurrency. People are happy to accept lower rates of return on houses because they can be fairly confident that the asset will still be around in twenty or thirty years time. The same is not true of cryptocurrency and NFTs, so investors want to make as much money as they can as quickly as possible.
For the sake of argument, I will use 8% and 15% gross profits (ie before taxes and other costs) as the two benchmarks. At 8%, I would expect to have earned my stake back within thirteen years. At 15%, that falls to seven years.
Team | Total 2024 Profit (£m) | 15% Valuation (£m) | 8% Valuation (£m) |
Birmingham Phoenix | 0.9 | 6.0 | 11.3 |
London Spirit | 1.0 | 6.7 | 12.5 |
Manchester Originals | 1.0 | 6.7 | 12.5 |
Northern Superchargers | 1.3 | 8.7 | 16.3 |
Oval Invincibles | 2.2 | 14.7 | 27.5 |
Southern Brave | 1.0 | 6.7 | 12.5 |
Trent Rockets | 1.5 | 10.0 | 18.8 |
Welsh Fire | 0.5 | 3.3 | 6.3 |
Bear in mind that these valuations are for 100% of the teams, and not just the 49% minority stakes which the ECB is currently attempting to sell. The ECB reportedly believe that the teams are collectively worth around £1bn, including the 51% stakes being gifted to the hosts, but the sum of 8% values here is just £117.5m.
2025
Of course, the 2024 season has already been and gone. If I were to buy a team, the first opportunity I would get to actually do anything would be in 2025. This is important because most of the contracts agreed from the beginning of The Hundred expired in 2024; The Sky and BBC TV deals, the KP Snacks sponsorship, the hosting agreements, and the County Partnership Agreement which governs how much professional cricketers are paid in England to name a few. The ECB slides leaked by Lalit Modi gives hints to how some of these are going to change.
The entry regarding domestic TV revenue is interesting. It shows an increase from £37.8m in 2024 to £54.3m between 2025 and 2028. This is in spite of a decline of 35-55% in terms of viewers on Sky from the first season in 2021 to 2024, which most people would expect to cause a drop in any TV deal's value.
There are two possible rationales for how both can be true. One is that Sky and the ECB signed the contract covering these years in 2022, before the second edition of The Hundred, under the assumption that audiences would increase year-on-year. They have in fact fallen in each successive season, but the perceived value to Sky in 2022 might have been higher than it would be now. The other possible reason is simply that Sky pays for everything in a single block payment, and it is the ECB which arbitrarily assigns values to each individual asset. I have written before about how they appear to intentionally and systematically undervalue women's cricket in these calculations, for example. The ECB are trying to sell The Hundred teams to investors, and so they stand to make more money from this if the TV value of the competition is higher.
Despite the growth in central revenue thanks to the domestic TV rights, the ECB's projections show decreased profits for each team by over 40% in 2025 due to increased costs. Hosting fees more than double for each team, whilst team wages increase by over 80%. Both of these costs appear to be written in stone and non-negotiable (presumably already agreed with the host grounds and players' union), which means that any new owner cannot avoid taking this hit.
Team | 2024 Profit (£m) | 2025 Profit (£m) |
Birmingham Phoenix | 0.9 | 0.4 |
London Spirit | 1.0 | 0.6 |
Manchester Originals | 1.0 | 0.4 |
Northern Superchargers | 1.3 | 0.7 |
Oval Invincibles | 2.2 | 1.7 |
Southern Brave | 1.0 | 0.4 |
Trent Rockets | 1.5 | 0.8 |
Welsh Fire | 0.5 | 0.4 |
Total | 9.4 | 5.4 |
These figures look terrible, but if I was an investor then the one thing which would leap out at me is that teams in The Hundred are currently making a loss in terms of live attendance. The total projected ticket revenue for the group stages in 2025 is £10.9m, but the total costs (excluding hosting fees, because teams need a TV-capable cricket ground even with no fans) are £14.3m. That is the sum of Ticketing (a small and unavoidable cost), Event Delivery (fireworks, live music, and other non-cricket entertainment) and Marketing. If you cut the last two by 90%, which would align both budgets with typical costs in the T20 Blast, then that frees up roughly £12m across the eight teams.
If each team did this, resulting in higher profits than the ECB's 2024 figures, then the projected team values almost double as a result.
Team | Total Profit (£m) | 15% Valuation (£m) | 8% Valuation (£m) |
Birmingham Phoenix | 1.9 | 12.9 | 24.1 |
London Spirit | 2.4 | 16.0 | 30.0 |
Manchester Originals | 1.9 | 12.9 | 24.1 |
Northern Superchargers | 1.9 | 12.5 | 23.4 |
Oval Invincibles | 3.3 | 22.1 | 41.5 |
Southern Brave | 1.9 | 12.9 | 24.1 |
Trent Rockets | 2.2 | 14.3 | 26.9 |
Welsh Fire | 1.8 | 12.3 | 23.0 |
From a total team value of £117.5m based on the 2024 figures and an 8% annual return, this increases to £217.1m if owners cut costs for the 2025 season. It is still a long way short of the ECB's stated £1bn valuation for the eight team franchises, but at least demonstrates a potential upward trajectory.
On a related note, a few teams might see an opportunity to increase ticket prices in order to make even more money. This isn't viable for everyone (Welsh Fire had half the ticket revenue of any other team in 2024, for example), but Oval Invincibles could arguably gain a few hundred thousand pounds every year.
A Volatile Future
As with almost any prediction, the ECB's projections become less and less reliable the further into the future they go. The general consensus, not just from people with obvious motives to talk down the value of the competition like Modi, is that ECB's long-term expectations in terms of overseas TV and sponsorship revenues appear virtually unattainable. Given the lack of Indian men's cricketers and the unfavourable time difference between the UK and India, there is a natural cap on how much widespread interest The Hundred can attract in the Indian public. There will be some, and is already, but a large portion of that will be based around gambling rather than any actual affinity for the competition. This can be seen in some county Youtube feeds, where the comments are often overrun by Indian bettors
The financial foundation of The Hundred is the domestic TV revenue from Sky and a Freeview partner (I say "a Freeview partner" because the BBC has yet to indicate whether they will be broadcasting any English cricket on television next year). The ECB predict this will be worth £85.0m in 2029, which equates to 64% of the ECB's income which is distributed to the teams even with a projected 1050% increase in overseas TV revenue and 390% increase in sponsorship revenue from 2024 which many people consider unrealistic.
Is £85m a year an attainable sum? Possibly. UK sports broadcasting deals are amongst the most valuable in the world, which is one reason why American sports leagues like the NFL court UK broadcasters with games in London and contemplate hosting teams here. It isn't a wholly ludicrous amount, if The Hundred can gather some momentum in the next few years.
Aside from increasing the number of viewers, there are a few other factors which could boost the value of any UK TV deal. Competition is a big one. The TV rights for English cricket from 2020-2024 experienced a big increase thanks to a bidding war between Sky Sports and BT Sport. In 2022, when the next contract was signed, BT Sport was about to be taken over and not interested and so Sky were able to get the rights with no increase at all. If the ECB were able to have TNT Sport or streamers such as Amazon become serious contenders then it would almost certainly increase how much money they would expect to get.
There is also the most obvious path to securing more TV money: Play more matches. If The Hundred lasted 6 weeks then it would clearly be worth more to a broadcaster. It would be unpalatable to the counties and probably make the existence of an English international window untenable, but if the ECB was desperate to finance The Hundred then it would be an option.
All of this assumes that Sky will want to bid for The Hundred in 2029 at all. The number of viewers has fallen in every successive season of The Hundred. If this continues then at some point it will fall below the threshold of profitability for Sky. It is an expensive competition to produce daily coverage for, relative to the T20 Blast for example, and a lot more expensive per game than the Blast (or other T20 leagues) in terms of the rights.
One question which might ring alarm bells for potential investors is whether the ECB's projections include all of The Hundred's costs. A review of the ECB's accounts by Fanos Hira in 2023 suggested that there was an additional £14.5m per year of expenses which the ECB didn't include in their internal project budgets. This might include the use of the ECB's offices, central ECB staff spending time working on the competition, the promotional materials attached to the All Stars and Dynamos programmes, amongst many other things. If The Hundred is spun off as an autonomous entity, one in which the majority of counties no longer have a financial stake in its success, then there is little reason to suppose this extra support will continue.
With this level of uncertainty about The Hundred's main source of revenue and the dubious nature of the ECB's other projections, the level of risk goes up for potential investors and therefore the value of the teams goes down. In order to counteract this, I suspect that the ECB will have to give specific guarantees to buyers about both the central financial payments and maintaining the broader ecosystem of support around the competition.
Put simply: If I was buying a team, I would insist on a contract where the ECB guaranteed to pay me £5.3m per year from 2029 to 2032 (as the ECB's projections state), regardless of whether The Hundred's TV deals and sponsorships were sufficient to cover this amount or not. If that has to be subsidised from the ECB's Test revenue, so be it. In fact, I'd probably push for a contract lasting at least a decade and possibly more.
Don't Forget The Women
Most articles about the sale of The Hundred teams, and the sale itself, seems to completely forget about the women's competition. This is a mistake, for a number of reasons.
The Hundred has a claim to be the premier domestic women's cricket competition in the world. It has the greatest attendance of any women's cricket competition, including ICC World Cups. It has a very high standard of play, which only stands to increase next year as every single player will be a full-time professional. Only the WPL, with its vast TV audience, overshadows it in terms of financial performance.
The gap in UK TV viewership between the men's and women's Hundred has fallen by roughly 60% between 2021 and 2024, suggesting that the women's competition is gaining in terms of popularity (or at least declining less quickly). In fact, if this pattern continues then the women's Hundred could overtake the men's as the most valuable aspect of the TV package within the next decade. I am not joking.
So, despite the fact that a lot of people consider women's cricket to have zero commercial value and the proceeds of selling eight women's teams won't send an extra penny towards women's cricket in England and Wales, a speculative investor might well look at the women's competition and see an opportunity to get in on the ground floor before its true value is realised.
It's Not Just About Money
The whole of this post has assumed that the reasons for someone buying a team in The Hundred are purely financial. There are a few other considerations which may push the value up for some investors.
If someone already owns a number of T20 team franchises, then an English team offers a chance to scout and hire English players for their overseas teams. It also promotes their team's brand in what is a lucrative sports market, even if this particular competition isn't the most successful.
It has been suggested that some overseas investors are attracted by the idea of owning a bit of English cricket. The after-effects of being part of the British Empire, followed by the dominance of England and Australia within global cricket until the 21st Century, means that a number of Indian billionaires see this as an opportunity to 'stick it to the man'. To impress on the ECB that it is India and Indians who hold reins of power now.
There is also the possibility of buying political influence. Anyone who buys a team becomes, at the very least, a business parter with the ECB. If you consider how obsequious the ECB is towards Sky, then it certainly appears to be the case that the ECB will bend over backwards to support the interests of companies they work with. If you're a billionaire who can afford to lose the money, why not spend £50m on a sports team which coincidentally increases your chances of getting measures you support through ICC meetings?
But even with all of the intangible benefits, the potential of the women's teams and the cost-cutting I've listed above, I cannot fathom why anyone would think the total value of the teams could be worth more than £400m or so. Even that figure feels highly generous. If the ECB and counties are expecting a billion pounds payday, I expect they will be disappointed.
Richard Gould has said that he won't sell the teams for less than he thinks they're worth, but the pressure from nearly-bankrupt counties like Yorkshire for extra cash will be too much to withstand for long. The Hundred's teams will be sold, soon, for whatever amount the investors offer. If cricket wasn't something I loved watching, I'd be eating some popcorn whilst watching the slow motion car crash of what used to be the most popular sport in the country self-destructing through its own hubris and incompetence.
As it is, at this point I'm just hoping English cricket survives a little longer than I do.
The process to secure private investment in the Hundred has formally begun as the ECB hopes to raise £500million in the most radical shake-up of English cricket for a generation.
Despite a letter of objection from Essex to selling off 49 per cent of each of the eight teams, the ECB has launched the bidding process.
There were about 200 initial expressions of interest but many of those were only tentative inquiries — akin to people viewing a house they may not be able to afford — and that has been whittled down to 60 to 70 serious bidders, who have all signed a non-disclosure agreement that allows them to receive the sale prospectus and bidding paperwork.
That prospectus sets out full details of the competition, what exactly is for sale and a guide to each of the eight teams. It was written in conjunction with the eight host venues — Headingley, Emirates Old Trafford, Trent Bridge, Edgbaston, Lord’s, the Kia Oval, Sophia Gardens and the Utilita Bowl in Southampton — and each team has been given a broad value, which was decided by the accountancy firm Deloitte.
Lord’s and the Oval received the highest values, while Sophia Gardens in Cardiff had the lowest. There has been some speculation that stakes in the two London teams could sell for more than £200million each.
Interested bidders will have six weeks to complete their initial bid paperwork, including which team — or teams — they are interested in bidding for, what their initial monetary bid is and detailed answers to a range of questions which include:
• Their vision for the team
• What type of partner they want to be (commercial, silent or involved in cricket operations)
• How they will develop women’s cricket
• How they will maximise revenue and commercial opportunities
• How they will develop the stadium experience for spectators
• How they can benefit English cricket as a whole
• What specific skills or opportunities they can bring to the Hundred
Those bid forms will be returned to the ECB and the Raine Group, the bank which is overseeing the sale alongside Deloitte, by the end of October. On behalf of the host venues the ECB will then start a process it has described as much like “speed dating” — matching up bidders to venues and facilitating initial discussions. It is likely this will whittle down the number of potential bidders for each venue to about six.
Throughout November and December the ECB will begin a process of inviting bidders to give presentations to its commercial team and officials from the host venues.
In parallel to the sell-off process the ECB will begin the transfer of ownership of 51 per cent of the teams to the host county — or in the case of Lord’s, Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC). At present the eight teams are fully owned by the ECB, with management boards that include officials from all of the 18 counties. From 2025 it will be only the eight host counties who are involved in managing and running the teams in the Hundred.
After having those shares transferred to them, the counties can then decide whether they retain that controlling stake and run the team in conjunction with the external investor, or sell off some or all of their 51 per cent. Some counties, such as Surrey, have already said they want to retain control and will run the operations of the team. MCC may decide to sell some of its shares.
At the end of the “speed dating” process, bidders will then be asked to put in their “best and final” bid. The ECB hopes that a final decision on the eight successful bidders will be made by the end of the year.
The timescale is very tight to have everything in place for the 2025 competition, as there will inevitably be long contract negotiations through the beginning of next year. There is, therefore, an acceptance within the ECB that 2025 may have to be a transition year. As such, the next edition of the Hundred may look very similar to previous seasons, with the same team names, branding and player salaries.
It is very likely, though, that the new owners will want to make a raft of future changes to their teams. The ECB also recognises that to attract the best global stars, the value of player contracts will need to increase substantially, which will be possible once it has received the influx of cash from the sell-off.
The interested bidders are from a wide range of organisations including Indian Premier League (IPL) teams, American and Indian venture capitalists, and tech giants such as Microsoft and Adobe. Other familiar names are Avram Glazer, the co-owner of Manchester United, and Ryan Reynolds, the Hollywood actor and co-owner of Wrexham FC.
The owners of the IPL’s Delhi Capitals have already made an offer of £120million to buy Hampshire — and, in doing so, 51 per cent of Southern Brave — and their proposal is being scrutinised by the ECB’s due diligence team. Sunrisers Hyderabad have expressed an interest in purchasing Yorkshire and thereby 51 per cent of Northern Superchargers, although that bid cannot go ahead until Yorkshire have agreement from their members.
There is significant interest from the owners of Mumbai Indians in buying the Lord’s franchise and Rajasthan Royals are also understood to be considering the purchase of one of the teams. The ECB is understood to be reluctant to sell all eight Hundred teams to IPL franchises and has said that the successful bidders will not necessarily be just the largest monetary bids.
This sell-off is the first time that private investment is being brought into the ownership of teams. The perilous state of the finances in county cricket is one of the driving factors in the ECB’s belief that this move is needed, but the body also believes that it will miss the boat without external capital amid stiff competition from other global franchise competitions, particularly the new Major League Cricket tournament in the United States.
Olympics push Hundred TV viewing figures down by more than a quarter.
Nick Hoult.
London Daily Telegraph.
Wednesday, 21 August 2024.
PTG 4598-22172.
17/08
10/08
On a Charge
Lancashire County Cricket Club and Manchester Originals have been charged with breaches of Regulation 4.6 of the ECB Regulations Governing the Qualification and Registration of Cricketers for Competitive County Cricket. These breaches relate to the release of a player from Manchester Originals to Lancashire County Cricket Club to participate in the Metro Bank One Day Cup without meeting the relevant requirements. The player involved has also been charged with an offence relating to this matter.
There is always someone with bigger pockets than you.
Mike Atherton.
London Times.
Thursday, 1 August 2024.
PTG 4579-22084.
01/08
FEAR OF MISSING OUT
We can see that both Notts and Lancashire have been set a timeframe [by the ECB]
The context as spelt out by Lancashire is interesting:
As we have stressed at each stage of this project, it is vital to understand the broader context and rationale behind the decision-making process. Global interest in commercialised short form cricket has exploded in recent times, with many of the world’s leading tournaments being owned by national governing bodies (such as the ECB) and their teams by private investors. While the IPL started in India in 2008 and is the most successful of these tournaments, others such as SA20 in South Africa, ILT20 in the UAE and Major League Cricket in the USA have begun much more recently. These leagues present both opportunities and threats to English domestic cricket, and it is in this context that ECB has decided to commercialise The Hundred by seeking private investors for the eight teams. The strength of international player rosters in these competing competitions potentially limits the ability of English cricket to attract the World’s best players to our tournaments. There is also a risk that our young homegrown talent is tempted to play overseas rather than in this country.
Over recent months, a strong consensus has emerged across the counties and MCC that a sale of stakes in the eight teams is an attractive proposition, both in order to enable English cricket to have its own World-leading domestic tournament and to ensure that our cricket remains on a strong, financially sustainable footing. While there are, as yet, no binding agreements in place and there is much work still to do, there is a clear commitment across the game to support the proposals.
To me it reads like the process is being driven by fear:
- ECB fear losing revenue from sponsorship for their competition
- Counties fear losing players to other global competitions during the [northern hemisphere] summer
- County CEOs and Chairs have FOMO
Hi Everyone,
Firstly, apologies for the radio silence. However, You’re going to get quite a few emails in the next month or so as key decisions get made by the ECB and potentially the counites individually and collectively.
Notts have set up an email address for supporters to send in questions about the Hundred/Franchising. Below is a set of 10 I have sent in. Feel free to use this as a template or think up your own. Notts have a committee meeting on Thursday so it would be good to get plenty in to them before that.
The email address to send things to is: thehundred@trentbridge.co.uk
My email is below:
Here are some questions about the ECB’s direction of travel for the Hundred franchises.
1. What specifically are the game's priorities and measurable objectives that the counties have agreed to which aren’t affordable without selling stakes in the Hundred franchises, given that ECB income has risen by over £200m per annum in little more than 5 years?
2. What specifically is money from the sales going to be spent on, with what specific goals and over what period?
3. What is the true profit and loss account for the Hundred, allowing fully for all ECB central costs, including marketing and salaries, and commitments to stakeholders along with the business plan for the reforms/private investment to improve this and the risk assessment of failure (e.g. as seen with private ownership in other sports such as football and Rugby Union)?
4. What controls do you have to manage the conflicts of interest where ECB or county officials, some of whom sit on the Hundred Franchise boards at present, are involved in the deals with private owners before moving across to work for the Hundred franchises or their new shareholders?
5. Will you bring in & enforce a “fit and proper person” regime for Hundred franchise owners/investors/key management, or will it be like football where totalitarian states and criminals are allowed to own ‘clubs’?
6. What does a sustainable future look like across the first-class counties and national counties in terms of cricket being played and how it is financed?
7. What does the stated commitment to 18 counties actually mean for the 11 counties who lose out on around £100m of value as 7 counties are given a bigger stake in the Hundred Franchises at their expense?
8. What is the intended balance of powers in terms of future decision making with the Hundred (and its consequences for the county system) between the ECB, first class counties and new private owners?
9. In what circumstances could these control levers change e.g. the Hundred window will increase to 6 weeks if Broadcaster will pay £Xm more or will increase if investors don't achieve the target rate of return on their original investment?
10. Which cricketing decisions will be given to private owners that have implications for the wider game, for example could control and limits for county games be allowed to be placed on drafted players (either explicitly or implicitly) by Hundred teams?
I will be at Neath and Guildford in the next few days if you want to chat.
Cheers,
Nick Evans
Will Macpherson.
London Daily Telegraph.
Friday, 7 June 2024.
PTG 4525-21877.
TEN QUESTIONS FOR ECB REFORMS & SALE OF THE 100
1. What specifically are the game's priorities and measurable objectives that the counties have agreed to which aren’t affordable without selling stakes in the Hundred teams, given that ECB income has risen by over £200m per annum in little more than 5 years?
2. What specifically is money from the sales going to be spent on, with what specific goals and over what period?
3. What is the true profit and loss account for the Hundred, allowing fully for all ECB central costs and commitments to stakeholders along with the business plan for the reforms/private investment to improve this and the risk assessment of failure (e.g. as seen with private ownership in club Rugby)?
4. What controls do you have to manage the conflicts of interest where ECB or county officials, some of whom sit on the Hundred boards at present, are involved in the deals with private owners before moving across to work for the Hundred teams or their new shareholders?
5. Will you bring in & enforce a “fit and proper person” regime for Hundred team owners/investors/key management?
6. What does a sustainable future look like across the first class counties and national counties in terms of cricket being played and how it is financed?
7. What does the stated commitment to 18 counties actually mean for the 11 counties who lose out on around £100m of value as 7 counties are given a bigger stake in the Hundred at their expense?
8. What is the intended balance of powers in terms of future decision making with the Hundred (and its consequences for the county system) between the ECB, first class counties and new private owners?
9. In what circumstances could these control levers change e.g. Hundred window will increase to 6 weeks if Broadcaster will pay £Xm more or will increase if Investors don't achieve the target rate of return on their original investment?
10. What cricketing decisions will be given to private owners that have implications for the wider game, for example could control and limits for county games be allowed to be placed on drafted players (either explicitly or implicitly) by Hundred teams?
HUNDRED SALE & REVISED SHARES
There is a complex formula agreed in principle, subject to certain conditions as yet unknown,between the ECB and the 18 First Class Counties and the MCC to distribute the Hundred on a sale to private franchise owners.
To illustrate how this works, we assume that the ECB sells its 49% of the Hundred teams for £400m in total and this is broken down by the 8 Hundred teams as follows:
London Spirit hosted by MCC: £120m
Oval Invincibles hosted by Surrey: £80m
Manchester Originals hosted by Lancashire: £40m
Birmingham Phoenix hosted by Warwickshire:£40m
Northern Superchargers hosted by Yorkshire:£35m
Trent Rockets hosted by Nottinghamshire:£30m
Southern Brave hosted by Hampshire: £30m
Welsh Fire hosted by Glamorgan: £25m
[These are all total guesses by the way, but some clubs are clearly worth more than others]
Each host club will receive a controlling stake of 51%. We further assume that this is worth a 25% premium because it gives control of the team.
That values the 8 Hundred teams at £900m (400m + 400m +100m).
We have seen reports that the sale is for a ten year franchise but it isn’t clear that this could support the values quoted so we have assumed the sale of the franchise is permanent.
If the franchise was for a fixed term of 10 years or whatever then there is a residual value which is ignored here. In a growth scenario the residual value of a franchise team after 10 years could be 2 or 3 times the value put on a 10 year franchise.
The ECB retains ownership of the Hundred competition and for this is paid 20% of the revenues from the competition with the 8 teams sharing 80% between them. It is not clear whether the teams share the broadcast rights money 8 ways i.e. 10% each or whether it is skewed for whatever reason.
If the 8 teams are worth £900m then the ECB ownership of the competition is worth 20/80 x 900 = 225m plus a premium for control of the whole thing so say £300m.
Thus on this basis the Hundred might be worth £1.2bn. All these figures are pure speculation based on what has been reported. They are worth what someone is willing to pay for them.
Currently, the Hundred is 100% owned by the ECB with a framework agreement with the Recreational game, 18 first class counties and MCC splitting the value of the competition: 10% for the recreational game and 1/19th for each of the FCC and MCC.
Under the current framework, the recreational game has a stake worth around £120m and the 19 have a stake worth around £57m.
That framework agreement however expires at the end of the year. It's not clear what happens in the event a new agreement isn't reached. Some host counties have said they would be free to reach collective agreements themselves with private franchise owners however that would require ECB consent.
Assume after the sale, the ECB will still own the competition worth say £300m whose value is still split according to the current framework, i.e. £30m for the Recreational game and about £14m for each county/MCC.
The £400m from the sale of the ECB will be split as follows: £40m for the recreational game, the next £275m split 19 ways equally and the balance split amongst the 11 non-hosts.
So the hosts get £14m each and the non-hosts get around £22m in total. The ECB is not necessarily going to pay all this money out in one go nor are they going to just hand it over without there being some obligations on the counties for how they are to spend the money. We have heard reports that all counties will get a figure in the 5 to 10m region and that the 1.3m annual payments might be supplemented with an extra 0.7m annual “dividend”. Quite where the money is coming from to pay all this is unclear, after all we are told that the game can't afford to support the counties. Some clarity here is needed.
If we look at the before and after then the value of the Hundred looks like this in summary, ignoring the residual value.
Who Before After
Rec Game £120m £70m
MCC £57m £179m
Surrey £57m £129m
Lancs/Warks £57m £79m
Yorks £57m £72m
Notts/Hampshire £57m £66m
Glamorgan £57m £60m
Other 11 counties £57m £36m
Total £1200m £1200m
It is a massive transfer of value. To mitigate against a host county simply selling its gifted 51% off then there is a further distribution to be made on the sale of any of the host's 51% share.
10% goes to the recreational game and 10% is shared amongst the other 18 clubs, leaving 80% for the host.
So if the MCC simply sold their 51% which, for the purposes of this note we have valued at £150m, then the MCC would get £120m and the recreational game £15m and the 18 counties around £800,000 each.
Mike Atherton.
London Times.
Friday, 24 May 2024.
PTG 4517-21845.
Elizabeth Ammon.
London Times.
Friday, 24 May 2024.
PTG 4517-21846.
I have never seen a more engaged playing group than we have right now,” says Rob Lynch, the outgoing chief executive of the Professional Cricketers’ Association. “They want to understand the value of broadcast deals, crowd figures and viewerships. They get the economics and they get their value. That’s the real difference these days.”
After four and a half years at the players’ union, the 41-year-old Lynch is about to move on, a role as director of cricket operations at Marylebone Cricket Club too enticing to turn down. It is also a return of sorts, the former New Zealand Under-19s batter having been part of the young cricketers scheme at Lord’s back in the day when their first choice, a certain Brendon McCullum, was still in two minds about pursuing a rugby career.
Over a coffee, Lynch admits the timing of his move is suboptimal given 2024 features six big negotiations between the PCA and the England and Wales Cricket Board that will shape the next five years of the sport. Still, his insight into how the modern player thinks underlines how the rise of Twenty20 franchise leagues has altered the traditional career path of simply county cricket and, if good enough, England.
“It’s now a global employment landscape,” says Lynch. “The modern cricketer has more opportunities than ever before. The massive growth area that is not accepted as much as it should be is those players who are just below the England team and the life they can now live through playing cricket in private competitions. I have seen uncapped players jump from five-figure wages to six pretty rapidly in my time.
“If we as a game don’t get this next phase of the sport right I believe we will have English-developed players who will look at their calendar and see July and August as the time to lie on a beach in Spain because, right now, the Hundred and the Blast are some of the lower-earning opportunities. We had 79 male players playing overseas last winter and the question is: how do we maintain their interest in English cricket?”
It is a question that is becoming increasingly acute, with the PCA seeking a “small” reduction in the volume of county cricket, and the Hundred on the verge of private investment. The Pakistan Super League is also set to coincide with the Indian Premier League from next year – and thus the first two months of the County Championship – potentially further pulling away talent.
“The PSL could fast-forward things,” Lynch says. “In 10 years’ time, the game will look very different. At the top end, I can see players becoming more like tennis pros or golfers, with their own physios, coaches and managers, servicing themselves to be self-sustainable. In terms of the schedule, let’s have a sensible conversation. Something has to give. We all agree it’s not working but no one seems willing to give anything away.
“Every year the PCA holds rookie camps and we ask players where they focus their skills. I was convinced initially it would be white-ball or both formats, but it’s still red-ball or both, to be honest. I’d urge the PCA to ask again down the line, because when the 18-year-old on a minimum contract starts to do well and can earn six figures playing around the world, they may well see things differently.”
Those negotiations reflect the start of a new broadcast deal from 2025 and cover memorandums of understanding for England’s men and women, the standard contract for county men and tier one women’s players, commercial rights and the continuing relationship between the ECB and PCA. While the Sky deal was renewed with only a small inflationary increase, it is clear the players want a greater slice of the pie.
“The starting point for this is: what is the value of the England men’s and women’s programme to English cricket?” explains Lynch. “We believe the current percentage is not reflective of the true value that those two teams bring to the game. We are openly saying we want to work with you [the ECB] to understand how you have come to this figure, because we need to get this right.”
It was notable that when England handed out multi-year central contracts last October, Ben Stokes signed on for only 12 months. Lynch stops short when asked if the Test captain will act as the union’s shop steward in these talks, but cites him as a prime example of the modern player who knows his value and sees the bigger picture.
“Ben is very, very engaged,” says Lynch. “And he has some strong views on it all. The same goes for [the England Women’s captain] Heather Knight – she is very switched on. Equally, the players also know their responsibility to the growth of the whole game; it’s a delicate balance. We love it, because there is nothing worse than not having that engagement. You’re stuffed without it. And as a union we have one card: the collective.”
Lynch is “in awe” of what Stokes and McCullum are doing to invigorate Test cricket through their attacking brand of play. “The future of Test cricket is a complex question to answer but also the question,” he says. “The ECB will tell you India and Australia are committed to it but broaden it out to the other boards, I’m not sure they’ll say the same, purely because of the economics. I don’t know if I’m excited or scared. In time the Ashes could become a standalone event, like the Ryder Cup.”
When Covid struck in 2020, it was Test cricket that the English game rushed to save first because the truth – sometimes wilfully ignored by a sport in thrall to T20 – is that the longest format still pays the bulk of the bills in this country. The pandemic also coincided with Lynch’s arrival at the PCA, first as commercial director before a jump to chief executive within months.
“The isolation and the hotel lockdowns were brutal,” he says. “Being away from families, the testing, the mental and emotional impact of it. I won’t name the commentator but one of them called me before a tour to ask if I could get them out of quarantine. I remember telling them: ‘Mate, I wouldn’t be able to get David Beckham out of it!’ It feels like a dream now. But I’m proud that the PCA didn’t make any redundancies and also the players saved the game £17.5m in pay cuts and by waiving prize money.”
Another source of pride was the return of England’s men to Pakistan after a 17-year hiatus, while Lynch’s time at the PCA has witnessed the increased professionalisation of the women’s game, with 17 contracted players when he joined compared with 107 now. A further 30 will follow from next year.
The union has itself become more diverse at both board and staff level, including the appointment of Donna Fraser as director of equality, diversity and inclusion in late 2022, plus the creation of new education programmes. Mental health support has also grown to meet rising demand.
Such services are delivered on behalf of the ECB but Lynch bristles when asked if that makes in turn the union weak in negotiation with the governing body. “That really gets me going,” he says. “At Durham, during a pre-season meeting in 2021, one player asked: ‘How can we trust you to represent our interests when the PCA is fully funded by the ECB?’ It was a fair question.
“But the word funding isn’t appropriate; the ECB provides money for the PCA to deliver services to players, be it mental health support, career development, legal support, helplines or insurance. We are the best body to facilitate that. We engage with the ECB from a position of respect but we are not afraid to have robust conversations.”
While Lynch now heads to Lord’s, the new role’s appeal in part due to MCC potentially becoming team owners in the Hundred, those robust conversations will only continue.
Alan Higham.
The Guardian.
Tuesday, 14 May 2024.
PTG 4510-21821.
BBC Sport.
Wednesday, 3 April 2024.
PTG 4477-21697.
SALE OF THE HUNDRED
Member forums at MCC, Surrey, Lancashire and Essex have explained some of the discussions the counties are having with the ECB about selling stakes in the Hundred teams. The Hundred competition is not for sale though offers have reportedly been made.
There aren’t yet firm proposals for the counties to vote on. To make changes 14 of the 18 counties need to agree.
Background
The Hundred is owned and run by the ECB on behalf of the sport. The first class counties and MCC through their ownership of the ECB have 1/19th each of 90% of the competition with the recreational game including the National Counties having 10%.
London teams are thought to be worth much more than the others. For this reason, a third London team is being considered if two more teams are created in five years.
Reports suggest the eight Hundred teams could be worth £400m in total, if so then each county’s share is worth £19m.
The teams are worth what someone is willing to pay, which in turn will depend on how much control new owners gain over crucial cricketing and commercial decisions.
Proposals
The proposals shared at member forums suggest something along the lines of:
ECB sells 30% stake in all teams, keeping 20%
Give 50% of the team to its host county/MCC .
Distribute some of the proceeds to the 18 counties, MCC and recreational game.
Spend some centrally to improve making cricket a game for everyone.
Host counties/MCC are free to decide whether to sell some of their 50% stake. ECB and Hundred host to collaborate on the choice of new owners.
What does this mean in practice?
Assume Manchester Originals is worth £50m and Oval Invincibles is worth £100m, then:
Lancashire CCC’s share of the Hundred becomes worth £35m from £19m.
Surrey’s share becomes worth around £60m from £19m.
Non-hosting 11 counties go from having a £19m share to £9m. They might get c. £5m of this in cash in the near future leaving them with just a small interest.
LCCC presented this to its members as a windfall to be grabbed. It is actually an asset strip of c.£10m from each of the 11 of the non-Hundred hosting counties. Challenged on the adverse impact for the wider game, LCCC said it is committed to an 18 county system but CEO Daniel Gidney compared some of the smaller counties to “heroin addicts” for their wasteful spending priorities neglecting their pathways.
One imagines that the non-Hundred hosting counties have noticed the £10m loss along with the superior attitude of certain major counties. It only needs 5 of the 11 to say ‘No’ and the whole thing is dead in the water.
Surrey confirmed that it will retain full operational & financial control of their team. LCCC avoided mentioning any specific goals but hinted at offsetting its risk by possibly selling some of its stake. If it sold 20% of MO for say £10m then that could pay off its most expensive debt.
Consequences for the wider game & county brands
The Hundred hosting counties are expected to take over running costs from the ECB and help turn the loss-making competition into a profitable one for the benefit of the wider game.
LCCC feel they can run MO more effectively but the main hope is that external investment will fund higher player salaries, which in turn improves the quality of the competition leading to higher broadcast revenues. Sporting TV rights are on a downward trend but if the IPL invested then that potentially opens up a lucrative new audience.
LCCC want any deal with new private owners to give it a significant say in how MO is run on the cricket side. Mark Chilton hopes he can attract and retain key players for LCCC by offering MO and LCCC contracts combined.
That might work, it might not. New owners could actually insist that players only played for the counties when it suits them just like the ECB with central contracts. More star names might be on the books but appear rarely on the field for the county.
Surrey plan to re-name the Oval Invincibles to Surrey should they get control which went down well with members in the room. LCCC rejected any idea that it might change MO name to “Lancashire Originals”. The Manchester brand is staying: regardless of how many Lancastrians this alienates. Recently LCCC officials have started using “Red Rose” rather than “Lancashire” in meetings/interviews and marketing blurb. The entrance to the ground features Manchester Originals logos more prominently than Lancashire Cricket not just for the 4 home games in August but 365 days a year. Concerns that the Lancashire board were more interested in growing Manchester Originals than promoting LCCC were dismissed as a conspiracy theory.
Impact on schedule & first class cricket
No-one has been able to say what level of control on key decisions will be given to new owners. It is a vital detail that is more complex than simply having 51% ownership. Private owners could have just 30% ownership yet negotiate control over crucial commercial and cricket decisions.
Surrey and Lancashire both insist that the Hundred will be kept to a 3.5 week window. Media reports suggest an extension to 6 weeks is being discussed.
Surrey said to help the smaller counties, the Blast will be prioritised for weekends in the rest of the summer. The net result is likely to be hardly any first class county cricket in June, July or August. There is a 7 week summer break this season in July and August.
When pressed about the plans to preserve a vibrant first class system that generates players for Test cricket (which provides most of the money in the game), it turns out that the counties and ECB aren’t talking about it. The sole focus seems to be the cash from selling the Hundred teams. Discussions have just commenced on what will be played alongside the Hundred in future.
Surrey’s chairman promised in his election manifesto to protect the County Championship and play it throughout the summer.
Further discussions before decisions
Surrey expected things to move to a decision by the start of the new season but word from other counties suggest sufficient agreement isn’t that close. They would be guided on any decisions by its General Committee made up entirely of Surrey members elected by its members without any Nominations Committee barring members from standing.
LCCC promised more member forums as discussions advanced and more explanation of the financial analysis the Board has done but does not plan to give members any form of a vote. They begged members not to call a SGM because of the money they would then spend on trying to persuade members to vote in favour of their proposals.
Summary
The changes may benefit the big counties and the MCC financially but they seem to come at a cost to the wider county game especially first class cricket. Smaller counties dependent on ECB distributions via the County Partnership Agreement are in a difficult position.
No wonder the changes have been labelled as “Strauss by Stealth”!
The CCMG strongly feels that member-controlled counties should have full, open discussions to allow members’ views to be respected. Far from being Luddites, Fleas or Heroin Addicts, county members are not blind to the challenges facing the sport and are open to considering proposals for change. If the ideas are good enough, then the bosses shouldn’t shy away from scrutiny and accountability.
The hard-line stance taken by LCCC means a petition to hold a SGM at Lancashire already has well over the minimum number of signatories. The CCMG continues to lobby the LCCC board to agree to hold a members’ meeting with a vote.
‘Luddite members will kill county cricket unless they allow change’ – Durham chief executive
London Daily Telegraph.
Tuesday, 26 March 2024.
PTG 4471-21675.
Notts County Cricket Members Group
At the recent AGM, the Notts top table felt the discussions with the ECB were at too early a stage to be sure what the implications were but there is a commitment to keep members informed once firmer proposals emerge.
It was clear from details disclosed at member events at Surrey and Lancashire that the plans to sell the Hundred pose a medium term threat to county cricket. The idea is that the Hundred is kept within its 3.5 week window in August and the Blast is given more priority going forward. With 7 host counties being offered 50.1% of the Hundred team this is a major giveaway from the smaller counties to the bigger counties. The domination of 5 ball and 6 ball T20 cricket is going to have implications for the schedule. It is likely that very little first class cricket will be played in June, July and August. There is a 7 week break this year in July and August.
We want to be able to keep all members up to date with developments as they emerge as it is fair to say there are no firm proposals at the moment.
To manage the work involved, Nick Evans will be running the e mail updates for Notts members. I am doing the same at Lancashire and coordinating efforts nationally. We welcome any volunteers to help out when the time comes to spread the messages.
Nick Hoult.
London Daily Telegraph.
Saturday, 17 February 2024.
PTG 4434-21532.
The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) has turned down a proposal for the Hundred from Lalit Modi, the founder of the Indian Premier League (IPL), who values the competition at $US1 billion ($A1.53bn, £UK793.6m). Modi’s representatives met recently with Vikram Banerjee, the ECB’s director of operations, who is de facto head of the Hundred, and chief executive Richard Gould, to lay out a 10-year proposal to buy the Hundred and fund it through private investment.
However, it is understood the ECB will not be pursuing talks with Modi with a formal offer and figure yet to be put on the table. It is not interested in selling the competition as a whole because it fears losing control of the peak months of the season and worry dealing with Modi would jeopardise its relationship with the Board of Control for Cricket in India. Modi was banned for life by the BCCI in 2013 for “serious misconduct and indiscipline” related to bids for two new franchises in 2010 (PTG 1198-5767, 30 September 2013).
Modi said he has lined up investors willing to pump money into a 10-team tournament but told the ECB the Hundred format does not work and should be converted into a Twenty20 competition instead. He says his competition would include a team purse of up to $US10m ($A15.3m, £UK7.9m) every season, putting wages on a similar level to the IPL. He put the value of the Hundred at $US100m ($A153.1m, £UK79.4m) a year over 10 years and says the franchises should be English-owned and English-run with minimal input from India. In his view, the ECB should sell no more than two franchises to IPL teams in order for it to keep its English identity and not turn into another version of the IPL.
Modi has been working on his plan for English cricket for the past 18 months and believes its scale would make the competition second only to the IPL in terms of financial clout, and the windfall would guarantee the future of the counties for a generation. The ECB’s plan to sell equity, by its own estimate, will bring in a tenth of what Modi is confident he can deliver. However, the ECB wants to retain control of the competition and the high summer window.
Modi’s plan would be for the competition to run from July 1 to Aug 15. He said: “I would give them a guarantee of a billion dollars. A lot of people have been in touch with me interested in backing it and I made a proposal to the ECB but it had a lot of conditions. The Hundred format does not work and there should only be two franchises sold to Indian buyers. It will only work if it is an English competition and not Indo-centric”.
Modi set up the IPL in 2008 and latest estimates put its brand value at $US10.7bn ($A16.4bn, £UK8.5bn), a growth of more than 400 per cent since it started. Its media rights were sold in 2022 for more than $US6bn ($A9.2bn, £UK4.8bn). The ECB believes it can raise £UK100m ($A192.8m) from selling equity in the teams and consultation is ongoing with the counties to change the constitution to allow private ownership of the eight Hundred clubs (PTG 4429-21509, 11 February 2024).
Matt Roller.
Cricinfo.
Tuesday, 13 February 2024.
PTG 4432-21522.
ECB plans to auction off Hundred teams to raise £UK100m.
Elizabeth Ammon.
London Times.
Saturday, 10 February 2024.
PTG 4429-21509.
The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) hopes to raise £UK100 million ($A193.6m) by holding an auction to sell off a stake in each of the eight Hundred franchises. The money generated from private investment will be given back to the 18 first-class counties and the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) in a one-off windfall payment, which could be as much as £UK5m ($A9.7m) each, while a further sum of up to £UK10m ($A19.4m) will be directed to the grassroots game.
Consultations about changes to the Hundred are continuing with the counties and MCC, but it is hoped an agreement will be reached by the end of next month. Key to the competition’s future is changing the ownership model of the eight existing teams, with 51 per cent of the ownership to be transferred to the host venue and the remaining 49 per cent to stay under ECB control. The intention would be to sell some or all of the ECB stake to private investors via an auction, which could take place as early as September this year.
A portion of the income generated from the auction, possibly 10 per cent, will be distributed to the recreational game and the remainder split between the 18 first-class counties and MCC. A suggested £UK5m ($A9.7m) windfall is almost as much as the total annual turnover of some of the smaller counties and could prove to be too enticing for them to reject, even if it restricts their opportunity to be part of the Hundred in the future.
It is unlikely that there will be any expansion beyond the eight teams until 2029 — after the broadcast deal runs out in 2028 — with the focus in the interim period being on getting external investment into the game, which in turn would allow for a large increase in the value of player contracts from 2025 onwards. Each of the eight host venues — Edgbaston, Old Trafford, Headingley, Lord’s, Sophia Gardens, the Rose Bowl (Hampshire), the Oval and Trent Bridge — will then be free to sell off some of their 51 per cent stake in the team to other private investors, although some have already stated they would not want to do that, preferring to retain complete control of their branding, name and marketing.
Under this proposed model, the host venues would take over responsibility for tickets, merchandise, marketing and branding, which is done by the ECB at present. However, it is not expected that it will result in a significant increase in the amount of annual revenue they get from the competition until a new broadcasting deal is secured, which, if the value of player contracts rises significantly and therefore the best global players are attracted, could rise.
As well as the £UK5m ($A9.7m) one-off cash injection from the autumn auction, the counties will continue to receive an annual dividend from the tournament, which is currently £UK1.3m ($A2.5m), although that will be dependent on the value of the next broadcast deal. After 2028, it is likely that the tournament will expand in size to ten teams, although it is still not out of the question that all 18 counties could be involved in a two-tier competition with some element of promotion and relegation. Such discussions can, though, be put on hold if the ECB get broad agreement next month to stick with the existing eight teams and sell off the equity stakes, letting that system bed in before any expansion takes place.
The injection of private capital into the competition will allow for a rise in the value of player contracts. This is deemed vital to the future success of the Hundred, which is in competition with other franchise tournaments that offer better pay, allowing it to attract the best international players and make further progress towards gender pay parity.
Read it here or Subscribe here to his newsletter
9/12
DO WE NEED TO WAKE UP?
Is Dave Gunn, now a committee member, on the case?
Where does the new Nottinghamshire General Committee Chair sit on this serious matter? Mr Hunt hasn't given the membership any assurances or consulted members in any open, democratic or public manner, yet he gets to vote on our behalf. Have the promises to the membership by former chair, Mr Moore, been conveniently forgotten. Ownership, as explained below, will impact future schedules so where are the updates from Nottinghamshire CCC to its owners / the members?
What The County Cricket members Group ask:
CONCERNS ABOUT PRIVATE INVESTMENT IN THE HUNDRED
The ECB have clearly stated their ambition to bring private investment into domestic cricket. Likely buyers are said to be IPL franchise owners, oil-states and hyper wealthy people looking to own their own franchise cricket team. How it is done is being discussed in private with county bosses with many different options.
At the moment the ECB is answerable to the 18 first class counties, MCC and the national counties. Changes impacting the domestic cricket structure or schedule needs 12 out of 18 counties to agree. Changes to the Hundred are thought to require 14 out of the 18 counties to agree (though some reports say that might only be 12). 15 of the 18 counties are controlled by their members as they have the power to appoint and remove the board.
Why seek private investment?
Funding more women’s cricket with better pay until such time it grows to be commercially viable on its own terms.
Improving access at grassroots to reach more disadvantaged communities
Paying higher wages to compete with global franchise leagues
Paying down debt
It is easy to forget that the ECB had £335m of revenues plus the revenues of the 18 counties and the MCC. There is a lot of money in our game. Just 5 years ago the ECB made only £125m so the money has increased a lot.
Is it about control?
Whatever the motive, the consequence is that control of cricket will pass over to the new owners alongside the ECB. It may take time and several steps but those putting huge sums in will want effective control of key aspects such as
When and for how long the Hundred is played
Who plays in it
Who runs it, decisions on TV rights etc
Is it cynical to think the main motive is actually to transfer control of cricket away from the counties and their members to the ECB and private owners?
He who pays the Piper Calls The Tune!
This summer, there’s no championship cricket from 4 July to 22 August. Last summer there was not a single first class cricket match in the whole of August.
It is easy to see that players contracted to the 100 on new higher pay will be restricted from playing for other teams. Instead of England releasing its players, permission will be needed to play for England. Will there be Test cricket in peak summer?
IPL ownership might bring higher TV revenues from India, Indian superstar players and other world class players. All this will come at a price. As ICC TV rights have increased in value, the Indian board has insisted that the lion share is retained by India because Indian cricket fans are the ones funding it all.
There is talk about expanding the Hundred so that in time there can be a team for every county (except Middlesex???). But TV rights are more valuable if the league is just 8 teams with all the best players. If there is a second division with promotion and relegation then the elite teams are less valuable to investors.
Do we want important decisions being made mainly for profit reasons?
Key questions to ask about these proposals
What do we need the money for?
Why sell for a lump sum now rather than banking all of the future profits?
Can we make better use of our current income?
What control will we lose as a result?
What is the impact for counties especially those who don’t host a Hundred team?
What happens to the £1.3m annual payments to counties
Can an 18 team Hundred exist alongside counties playing the Blast?
What stops further expansion until it consumes and controls all cricket?
Cricket fans deserve honest answers to all these questions before any decision is taken. Selling stakes in teams that are given all the best conditions to flourish must inevitably condemn the counties to a permanent second tier existence if indeed they continue to exist.
Football fans rejected the ESL because competition, history and integrity mattered more than money.
County governance
If the counties were to be bought instead of the Hundred teams then county members would have to vote 75% in favour with at least 50% of members voting amongst the 15 member owned counties.
Far easier to just move all the best parts into the new teams and lean on county chairs dependent on the national team’s money to vote for it.
County members are cricket’s independent guardians. They appoint the boards & chair who in turn oversee professional managers running the game. Before these fundamental & irreversible changes to who controls and benefits from cricket are made, county members must agree to them and not have them imposed against their will just like when the 100 was created.
The County Cricket Members Group is a voluntary group of concerned members who want our counties to grow, thrive and improve. We recognise the need to change as the world changes. We encourage cricket lovers to join their local county and become involved. We say this to our county chiefs.
Talk to your members openly and honestly about the pros and cons of these proposals. Listen to your members’ concerns and respect their wishes if they are not persuaded.
The cuckoo, in the county nest, grows bigger and bigger taking more and more space.
ReplyDeleteGuess who then gets smaller and smaller, and gets less space.
The process continues ...............
80 NOT OUT
ReplyDeleteLets hope we dont get “ sold down the River”
The game of cricket has to evolve to meet changing conditions but ordinary fans have to be properly consulted . Bean counters and greedy Club Executives have to be accountable for big decisions that are being made ( apparently) .
The economics of the game have changed - we all know that the 4 dayers lose money overall. But there has to be a balance between the traditional cricket fans and some “ new fans” of the game who only want to see massive sixes being struck twice an over .
Many of the T20 brigade think a well bowled maiden over is boring !
Please Essex members try to get to the AGM on Tuesday at 7pm. Three Board vacancies are up for grabs. Essex could be crucial in any vote to expand the 100. The members own the Club. Apathy is not an option
ReplyDeleteEnglish county cricket is going to end or more likely at best be 2nd class and played around the counties on smaller grounds. Iv sadly lost all interest and devote my watching time to the Notts prem League. Good honest cricket without the greed and dishonesty.
ReplyDeleteNobody on here is happy 😃 with the direction our game seems to be heading in that’s for sure
DeleteI’ve watched NPL down the years, more so when the Notts Academy were playing in it
The standard is fairly decent, a bit behind second eleven I would say and it’s got a good loyal following of cricket 🏏 supporters behind it
I’ve accepted greed and(sometimes) dishonesty is now in sport in general and try to just ignore it and just try to enjoy the game I’m watching but I do take your point
Good new article
ReplyDeleteBut don't agree blame does not lie with players
It lies squarely with them, they took, and continue to take, the dirty money that has destroyed pro cricket. Excuse it as you wish, it is the truth
Very true Rich - but would any of us turn it down in their position given the chance ? But, I’m certainly not happy one iota with the direction cricket 🏏 is going in that’s for sure
DeleteI see this as a complete failure of cricket governance and nothing to do with greed and "dirty money"
DeleteAre cricketers any greedier than tennis players, football players or golfers?? I don't think so. World tennis has organised itself into a schedule of tournaments with major events, WTA and ATP tours, and the more minor events. There are lots of competing interests at work, as in cricket, but they organise a calendar and the tennis tour programme works.
Why can't cricket get organised? Put some serious thought into windows for major events (i.e. Test series) and then schedule sensibly. Why not? Because the ICC can't get a grip on the game and national governing bodies like the ECB have no clue how to schedule even their domestic tournaments.
It is a failure of the cricket authorities. The players are going where the good money and the good games for them are. It isn't their fault.
A flawed comparison is some respects Crickety: how many professional sports are split into different, competing with eachother world governing bodies now? Those sports are largely individual and not even team sports: boxing, darts and golf for example. Money holds the power and all the money in cricket is in India. Without some strong worldwide leadership we will be lumbered with IPL franchises controlling competitions around the world not just India, South Africa, and UAE. Players will be contracted to a franchise and then represent that franchise around all of the global PL competitions (that would stop the switching and swapping by individuals though) - the nightmare scenario (for many, myself included) of a couple of years ago and it is nearer now than it was then. Would you support Trent or even Nottingham Superkings/Giants/Knightriders..?
Delete80 NOT OUT
ReplyDeletePoints on the latest posts are noted and have some merit .
But surely it cannot be right that many Franchise players can now get extra rewards through “ failure!”
Human nature ( greed perhaps in one or two cases?) may come into play in some tournaments? It seems a virtual free for all at the moment and the Franchise owners are calling the shots . It’s going to be difficult for many sides to build up a loyal fan base when the viewing punter is confronted each match by different players on a regular basis .
I do completely agree, there is no rhyme or reason to it. It is like a footballer deciding to play for one team in the premier league, another in the champions league, another in the UEFA league and another in the German league, and so on and so on.... Someone needs to bring this to order and surely it is the ICC who should be laying down the rules.
DeleteOne thing for sure, franchise garbage gets no blame for England Test woes. England are 8th in World Test Championship, having lost 5 of their last 9 Tests, and 3 series without winning a series. Yet the new approach of coach and captain is still worshipped by the media.
ReplyDelete80 NOT OUT
ReplyDeleteIt’s blindingly obvious that the 4 day game as we know it is doomed in its present format .
Enjoy it -while you can !?
Very true, thanks for update Alan and Nottsview.
ReplyDeleteA bit disturbing 7 "Hundread" counties offered this perk, when there are 8 of us. Who misses out and why ?
ReplyDeleteThe MCC owns Lord's so Middlesex lose out.
DeleteLooking wider a field for a mo. What would have caused ructions a few years ago in Australia, now raises hardly a murmur
ReplyDeleteCameron Green and Mitch to miss Sheffield Shield Final, to avoid missing their opening IPL matches.
Mitch Marsh
ReplyDeleteWe got to hope England 🏴 Australia 🇦🇺 and India 🇮🇳 remain committed to Test cricket 🏏 as if these lose interest, particularly India then I think we’re all kiboshed
ReplyDeleteSome of the other Countries seem to have lost some interest already - a situation that’s occurred with their respective players wanting to maximise their earning potential - I’m not criticising, just stating a fact as Rafa Benitez may have said
80 NOT OUT .
ReplyDeleteA cricket season without Test cricket ?
It’s like the end of the world .
Hope it never happens in my lifetime!
But then again I am over 80 !
Suspect it will happen in the next 50(?) years - no one knows let’s face it
DeleteGood times for the white ball sloggers with limited technique for the red ball game that will be making their pro careers in the future
Hard to believe now there were only 2 options when I was getting into the game as a child 👦- have a good lifestyle if you were good enough to be an England 🏴 player, or if not, become a decent County cricketer all your career with the realisation it was still a damn sight better than working for a living
Sadly then, no white ball franchise leagues around the globe 🌎 for brilliant one-day players like our very own Paul Johnson to cash 💵 in on.
Notts Pravda champion Hales again.Was left out of the final.How many match winning innings did he produce in the PSL.None as far as I can see ?
ReplyDeleteYer never fail if yer don't play, so yer always possess maximum potential.
Delete80 NOT OUT
ReplyDeleteVery interesting Luddite article . Its obvious massive change will affect the whole structure of cricket in the UK. It will be unstoppable because of financial demands bringing some Counties right to the brink of viability. Rising costs are threatening all sorts of events and organizations . Just to illustrate the point its been announced this month that two out of the top three Steam/ Traction Engine rallies ( Lincoln Showground and the massive Dorset) have been permanently cancelled . These events have been running for 40 years or more and attended by tens of thousands every year. But they have made losses due to huge rises in the cost of staging them .
We all see on a daily basis how everything is increasing in price . Cricket Clubs will be hit hard by rising wages , transport costs , insurance , maintenance , rates , fees etc etc . Something will have to give . The four day game simply has to be shortened in length . Fourteen 4 days a season will shortly become unviable . It probably already is for most Counties . Big change will come to domestic cricket . Deep down I think most forward thinking cricket fans know it . Its perhaps not what we want but its all down to pure economics in the end . Sad but true.
It is very difficult to see how we can sustain so many first class counties playing this number of four day cricket matches. And I say that as someone who only ever watches four day cricket at the domestic level.
DeleteIf all counties would operate within their budgets, lowering their expectations, then perhaps all 18 counties would be sustainable. If a "smaller county" doesn't have the budget for overseas and domestic stars, then perhaps they should develop their own younger players instead. It wouldn't take long before that "smaller county" attracted the country's best young prospects , because they were going to get more opportunities to play (the ECB would then give that county access to the best coaching to develop those young prospects to their full potential), and so reaped the benefits (of success) that way. Sadly, not all counties are going to be able to challenge for County ChampionshipTrophy every year anymore (with two divisions we've already lost that), but as far as the ECB is concerned, the primary objective of County cricket is to produce the best players for the national side. 18 counties gives a better chance and more opportunities to develop emerging players, in my opinion.
DeleteA big IF Dave! Who's going to admit that they're one of the 2nd best?
Delete80 NOT OUT
ReplyDeleteHighly paid players or not .
They all still have to travel , be fed , be accommodated , be treated when injured, be insured , the costs just keep coming . Imagine taking 14 players and 6 others down to Somerset or up to Durham for a four day game. The cost of finding a budget hotel would be very high over 3 or 4 nights . It just does not add up to viability whichever way you look at it !?
You don't suppose a certain budget hotel(s) near to each county HQ would offer a special deal for 20 rooms for 28 days (4 x 7 counties) over a season, makes good business sense IMHO, a guaranteed income, regardless of weather. To me, counties need to collaborate and reciprocate off the field, and not to try to be flash, out doing each other.
Delete80 NOT OUT
ReplyDeleteDave - so called budget hotels are no longer budget . Many are full to the brim with so called refugees . Try and book one and get a cheap deal ! No chance .
But say you could somehow get Dinner Bed and Breakfast for £125 a night . Multiply that by 20 and it’s well over £2000. So for three or four nights the maths don’t add up when you think of gate receipts for most County matches played mid week .
Daniel Gidney, CEO of Lancashire use of term "heroin addicts" in the debate, stupid, and heatless to people and family friends of people, in that terrible situation.
ReplyDeleteReally he and Mr Bostock taking the debate to a very low level.
Difficult to accuse county members of wrecking the game, when we have been overruled on most decisions, the only exception I can think of being the rejection of taking The Championship down to 12 matches per side.
Losing the summer months to franchise cricket seems inevitable.
ReplyDeleteThere was no Sheffield Shield cricket between 2 Dec 2023 and 3 Feb 2024, for example.
Franchise cricket keeps expanding. IPL now involves 70 matches in the group stage.
The Hundred could be 10 teams playing over 8 weeks in July and August within the next 3 years.
Very good post Crickety, true but sad I think.
ReplyDeleteDo think representative cricket, in whatever format, should not just give up during Franchise periods. At whatever level, and with whatever players, amateur if necessary, carry on playing cricket that means something. The Achilles Heal of franchise stuff, is nobody cares, or even remembers, who wins.
I would be quite happy with a world where first class cricket ran through the whole season oblivious to the franchise nonsense. Of course, that would mean some games away from the big test match grounds, but there are other venues around and available.
DeleteWhat we now see is that there is no loyalty even to the national side, with the England captain picking and choosing when he plays.
Notts ccc board don't care about tradition or the 4 day game and care even less about smaller counties like Derbyshire. Why would anyone want to be a member nowadays?
ReplyDeleteWhich members of the "board" are you talking about?
DeleteWho is concerned about Derbyshire
DeleteIt could be our old chairman who likes to be known as vexatious
Ah dear old Jeff, out manoeuvred by the CEO and her pack of hounds. At least he was on "our side". I fear we will need a rottweiler of a chair in the coming weeks to fight off the pack of the ECB moneymen and the CEO's cronies but what we have is a poodle. I hope Chair Hunt is really on our side and is ready to fight for 18 County First Class Cricket, but I'm not sure that he is as he doesn't appear to need the members' support being a favourite of the Nominations Panel.
DeleteShould have said the powers that be presently "ruling" over the counties first class cricket team.
ReplyDeleteUnclear meaning: is it counties'...... teams or county's ..... team
Deleteapostrophes matter
I suspect "anonymous" is pointing the finger at MN, PM, LP and AH.
DeleteI humbly apologise for error on "county". And yes I believe you named the correct group. You would dislike them even more should you speak to them. Anyway we all have different views just that Notts only follow theirs.
ReplyDeleteWell, I (a member) have heard nothing from Notts about this matter so far...
ReplyDelete80 NOT OUT
ReplyDeleteDuring the forthcoming shortish lunchtime Members forum I wonder if there will be a proposal of “ NO CONFIDENCE “ in relation to the Notts Committee and HINDRED decision makers ( whoever they are!)
There might even be a call for an emergency AGM ? There is so much at stake with cricket evolvement at the moment and Notts members are being kept in the dark . Contrary to previous promises of “ being kept up to date”.
I forecast a “ done deal” and an attitude of like it or lump it to the faithful. Notts CCC have almost become a “ black hole” of information !? . A lot gets sucked in but nothing comes out ! 🌑🌑🌑
Question of whether we make money to play cricket, or play cricket to make money, now completely answered.
ReplyDeleteCould someone please point me to when and where we, as members, were consulted on this? Or did our club chairman simply lie about his commitment to consult with the membership?
ReplyDeleteEarlier this month he said: "We have also asked for further clarification in some important areas so that we, along with our fellow First-Class Counties, are able to collectively explore the options available. This will then enable us to share ideas, and to ultimately build a formal proposal to consult with you on, over the summer.
DeleteThis may take some time to bring together, but please be assured that we will start this process as soon as we have meaningful detail." Did I miss the consultation and exploration?
Well there is lots of "meaningful detail" now the ECB have announced their plans! Notts members appear to have been completely sidelined in this process.
DeleteI am a member at Notts and a season ticket holder at Leicester Tigers. Yet I feel like I am a member at Leicester Tigers and just a ticket holder at Notts!
How can Notts be so effective at isolating their members!
Sadly, that seems to be certainly the case. May go to TB sfter this year, but as 2023, not as a member.
ReplyDeleteMembers make your stand next renewal.
ReplyDeleteYes, time to boycott ?
ReplyDeleteGould now unrecognisable as the anti Hundred rebel of a few years back.
ReplyDeleteI agree, he appears to have been assimilated.
DeleteIt's simple, yes Gould was the most outspoken
ReplyDeleteCEO against the hundred when at Surrey
But now having received the injection & wearing a new tinfoil hat
He knows that the ECB need to sell there so called 49% to balance their books on the money invested in this vanity project
& times running out
The main issue is the 51% ownership
The main franchise owners can sell there stake the next day if they want to, that's what most might do take the money & run
As this competition doesn't have longevity
Certain individuals are desperate to bring this to a conclusion to take advantage of a big payday as to when they off load
there stake, as Gould stated
They can do what they want with their 51%
That's the worrying point
On the international franchise scene, please let's not call it cricket, Kane Williamson has turned down a central contract with NZ, and resigned the white ball captaincy. It is up to him, of course, but he is keen on a franchise offer in in the middle of their international season, inc most of January.
ReplyDelete81 NOT OUT
ReplyDeleteSome great questions there Nick ! They will take some answering.
Probably most questions will go over the head of one or two current Notts Committee members. And of course those at the Club with vested interests (Financially) will want a smoke and mirrors wait and see answers .
The players like what is happening, or the top ones do. Because they are getting massive money. That makes it very difficult for members/real, devoted cricket lovers. They, we (?) are facing those players, the establishment, who have sold out on mass, and the financial vultures. Since 2016, like many, I have signed this and that, written letters, protested on line, twice refused to rejoin Notts. Sadly, it feels like all our efforts have got us nowhere. In fact they deride our efforts. Good luck to those who fight on, but I now will just watch what I like and ignore the rest. So many things have happened since 2016, bigger, by far than cricket. Medically I was just holding on for a year or so, still in "remission". Before 2016, cricket was an escape. Now only just worth following at all. When Gould, Thompson, Key, Strauss (still in there I think) have their way, what will be left ? Is that defeatism, or recognising reality ?
ReplyDelete81 NOT OUT
ReplyDeleteOh dear Rich . Hopefully there is a light at the end of the tunnel!
Lisa said at a Members Forum meeting over two years ago that the game of cricket was changing at a bewildering pace . It’s a case of adapt or die.
The genie is now out of the bottle - cricket wise . It ain’t going back in - that’s pretty obvious .
I choose neither, please. If cricket is fully going the way I think it is, I walk away.
ReplyDeleteAppreciate this chance to speak out here, and exchange of views. Lisa's comments about things changing at a "bewildering pace", should have been challenged at the time. BCCI set up the IPL, ECB the Hundred, Australian Board The Big Bash etc. Even the USA T20 comp was probably foreseen. There is no unplanned series of events. The changes that are happening are deliberate, and planned. It is a process that is turning the sport we loved in to something very different. Really something like pro wrestling is being designed, making a sport into a glitzy event, with lots of money to be made by already very wealthy people. The players are being bought off, rather easily. The fans of what cricket used to be, well we are not even a factor.
ReplyDelete81 NOT OUT
ReplyDeleteI suppose true cricket fans have to face the financial situation as it is now - and not 20/30 years ago .
The 3 day/4day County game involving 18 Counties is no longer viable as a stand alone main season Competition . It’s still very popular with Members but the Membership numbers are falling. And falling rapidly in some cases. Some Counties are currently in a poor position financially . The promised riches of the sale of the 100 Ball Comp must be a possible life saving prospect for perhaps half of the 18 Counties . They will not vote against its proposed sale and subsequent share out of proceeds, although it favours some Counties more than others .
Notts CCC emailed me yesterday stating the 100 ball match this weekend is a total sell out . You cant argue with figures like that . The Blast 20 attendances at TB are well down on previous attendances averaging well over 10,000 per game .
As always - money talks - and will dictate the way forward .
The current players want money - and lots of it !
County Cricket has one major advantage over all other rival competitions - its longevity, reliability and resilience. It's been around since the 18th century and the County Championship since 1890. How many of these global competitions are going to be there in 2 years time, never mind 10 years. Why would any young player risk a 10 -15 career for the promise of one payday, and a perhaps maybe another time, it could be next year pay off? A career playing in the global circus of T20 tournaments just isn't sustainable for 95% of county cricketers.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, many young players are choosing that money today, never mind about the future risk. Not wise, but the capacity for people to do stupid things is staggeringly huge.
ReplyDelete81 NOT OUT
ReplyDeleteI hope you are right Dave
I have never attended a 100 Ball match . Have been tempted but I just know it’s not me . The Blast I quite enjoy apart from really annoying shouty stuff from so called entertainers .
Is there room for the Blast and the 100 Ball long term ?
Anyone seen any stats on crowd numbers for the 100 thing ? On news, Bridgford Rd Stand looked fullish, but at 2 yesterday, 2 hours pre start, car parking on field near WB Library quite sparse. Also seen photos of rows of empty seats at other venues. So not really sure of the situation.
ReplyDeleteJust had a look at the highlights on Youtube of Skips v Hola-hoops, The Fridge was two-thirds full as was Fox Road and the pavilion might have been less filled, and not with "regular looking members" either. As it was advertised as SOLD OUT, you would expect less empty seats. Perhaps the queues were very long for the ladies toilets and that was where the missing audience was or perhaps sold out means something different in la la H*ndredland. The crowd was certainly a lot better than Notts have been getting for Blast games since this shambles started, but it was not a record attendance. The scheduling and weather helps.
DeleteSurely they are not telling untruths about "sell out" crowds ? Very pleased re family day, Notts x Essex crowd.
ReplyDeleteNever had a begging text from Pravda before re: tickets for the H*ndred but I got one last week.
DeleteSo England contract players rarely play for counties, so England captain , with injury history, plays in the franchise farce, and gets injured, doubt for Teat.
ReplyDeleteTest not Teat !
ReplyDeleteI preferred the original
DeleteNice one BH !
ReplyDeleteTuned in very briefly to Rent Pockets. Crowd size reasonable, but nowhere near full. But most of all something was lacking, apart from cricket. Crowd were silent, no atmosphere at all.
81 NOT OUT
ReplyDeleteMembers Forum at lunchtime 30th Aug in the Randall Suite
Opportunity to ask awkward questions .
And probably get well rehearsed bog standard answers that give nothing away!?
We shall see.
The “ top table” may well be given a hard time because of the dreadful season Nitts ccc have had this year . Obstinate team selection by you know who hasn’t helped the situation .
Many Members are angry !
Yes the hundred is still losing
ReplyDeleteBig money, that's why the ECB are desperate to sell it & recoup the money invested in this farce
One comment from tv reporter
Greg James, it's great to see so many people here who don't like cricket,
That says everything about the clowns
Who are running the game
I've noticed that the attendances have been down for the Women's matches compared to previous years.
ReplyDeleteTo put that Final viewing figure into context, it is close to average for BBC 2.evening viewing, 9pm, 1.2 million. So Hundred not really pulling in extra viewers. Freddie Flintoff programme getting 2.2 million. Sky viewing figures normally well below that.
ReplyDeleteWon't happen this guy wants total control
ReplyDeleteThe only good thing to happen if he did
Would be to jettison the CEO
He would like to get is hands on lady bay
already been talking to the strapped for cashed rugby club very intriguing
I am getting confused, would he, or potentially someone else, buying up Trent Rockets, be also the club itself ? Believe an IPL franchise is trying to buy Hampshire, as well as Hundred team based at Southampton. After the big sell off (sell out ?), what becomes of the 10 "non Hundred" counties. The annual pay out consigned to history ?
ReplyDeleteSeen that ECB "resting" Ollie Pope from Championship run in. Just as Root missed key relegation match in recent years. Though not sure who decided that one
ReplyDeleteEngland Central Contracts - ECB manage their work load, apart from the amount of golf they play. I read somewhere that KP had been black-balled by members from joining the same golf club as Andrew Strauss.
DeleteThe word pathetic comes to mind.
DeleteRe top of page story, thieves can sometimes fall out.
ReplyDeleteRe the selling off of crickets The Hundred competition, wasn't there a TV show "Sale of The Century" ?
ReplyDelete81 NOT OUT
ReplyDeleteThe franchise auction and the resultant riches are a bit complicated for me to grasp - long term .
However if Notts actually receive the promised millions does it mean the “ new” Notts Pavilion will be quickly paid for plus a possible redevelopment of the currently unpopular and under used William Clark Stand ?
Not necessarily,all countries will have to submit a business plan to the ECB
ReplyDeleteWith a list of priorities regarding
Every category of cricket & more before
They get a penny this will not be a straight
Process with plenty of hoops to jump through & it's certainly not there for bailing
Indebted countries out
Think RG fiddling while Rome, as in English Cricket, burns. It is a long time since ECB had any influence in players, longer still, since any control.
ReplyDeleteI cannot see any other option than the Indian families paying massive sums to buy the Hundred teams.
ReplyDeleteThey are trying to build a global franchise leagues of leagues, comparable to Formula 1. When they build it, they will release the Indian players to play all over the world. Cricket will become a travelling circus global competition.
How very exciting the prospect is, NOT!
DeleteWhen anyone uses the term "Future Proof", run for the hills. Mr Harrison also used it re County Cricket in 2017. Look what has happened since !
ReplyDelete