ECB Not about the money T20 Folly Competition latest

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Mike Atherton.

The Times.

Thursday, 16 March 2017.

PTG 2077-10516.

Given the history of the International Cricket Council (ICC), with its politicking, behind-closed-door dealings, lack of transparency and constant merry-go-round of here-today-gone-tomorrow administrators, it takes a significant event to elicit surprise, shock even, among seasoned observers and insiders. The resignation of Shashank Manohar, the ICC’s chairman and the most significant administrator in the world game, did just that (PTG 2077-10515 above).

It came out of the blue. There was no indication that this was coming, until a resignation e-mail dropped into the inbox of David Richardson, the chief executive, on Wednesday morning, citing “personal reasons”. With that, Manohar was gone, leaving a power vacuum in his wake, much in the same way that he had stepped down abruptly from running the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to take the top position in Dubai (PTG 1824-9123, 11 May 2016). 

Manohar is a strange cat, most unlike a cricket administrator. He is not very clubbable, is socially awkward and has little interest in personal aggrandisement. He was also unusual in that he was prepared to take on his former and powerful colleagues at the BCCI in persuading the ICC to row back from the reforms instigated two years earlier by India, England and Australia, which attempted to place administrative power and financial control in the hands of what became known as the “Big Three”.

Appointed the ICC’s first independent chairman (in the sense that he held no position within the ICC’s constituent governing bodies) just eight months ago (PTG 1826-9135, 13 May 2016), Manohar, along with the ICC’s executive team, was the driving force behind the retreat from these governance changes which were widely criticised for their unfairness, and which he admitted as being “not always in the best interests of the game”.

He was intent on moving to a more equitable model. His proposed reforms will see the BCCI’s income from the new television rights’ deal, for example, fall from  $US450-290 million (although still the largest share), with smaller reductions for England and Australia. These reforms were passed in principle at the ICC’s most recent board meeting in February, with only India and Sri Lanka voting against and Zimbabwe abstaining, giving the reformers a 7-2 majority, and awaiting full ratification in April (PTG 2039-10323, 5 February 2017).

These reforms were welcomed broadly, although a significant dissenting voice in the way they were negotiated came from Sambit Bal, the influential editor of the Cricinfo website. Acknowledging the need for reform, Bal argued the absence of the BCCI (India, he said, contributes roughly 80 per cent of ICC income) from the negotiating table was “bad politics” which would result in some payback before long. It was, he argued, a return to the days when the “BCCI was outside the tent, growling and ready to strike”.

Whether Manohar’s resignation is part of that remains unclear. Reports in India suggested that BCCI officials have been working hard to resist the changes, meeting with their opposite numbers from Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh recently. The BCCI would need the support of two more countries as well as Sri Lanka to scupper the two-thirds majority required in April. Manohar would have known there was a fair amount of wrangling to come.

More broadly, Manohar’s resignation comes at a significant time. The February meeting of ICC was important because of other proposed reforms to the game, too, such as providing context and meaning to international cricket through a rolling two-year rolling Test Championship, and World Cup qualification through a three-year cycle of One Day International cricket (PTG 2039-10324, 5 February 2017). The ICC was hoping to get these principles ratified at the next board meeting in April (PTG 2073-10495, 13 March 2017), and Manohar’s resignation must now put a question mark against all that.

Away from the intricacies of Manohar’s resignation, the significance of all this is the broader uncertainty at the heart of the administration of the game. The BCCI is currently in flux after India’s Supreme Court appointed a four-man panel of administrators, for the short term, following a purge of the previous leadership (PTG 2035-10307, 31 January 2017). That panel is an eclectic bunch: the former auditor general of India, Vinod Rai; an eminent historian, Ramachandra Guha; the managing director of India’s largest stock exchange, Vikram Limaye, and Diana Edulji, a former captain of India’s women’s cricket team.

The economics of the game are changing rapidly, meaning that the BCCI is not quite as politically dominant as it was. Many governing bodies (England are no exception in this regard) rely heavily on broadcast revenues from India to sustain their balance sheets, but there is an acceptance that those golden days are coming to an end, as broadcasters in India turn their attentions towards the Indian Premier League on the one hand, and ICC events such as World Cups on the other, leaving less money for foreign rights to bilateral international cricket.

This is part of the reason why the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) hope to emulate Australia by introducing a Big Bash-style T20 tournament, to mitigate their reliance on television income from bilateral international cricket (PTG 2076-10511, 15 March 2017). As more countries look to become financially self-sufficient, so there will be a knock-on effect on the way the game is administered. More and more the international game is crying out for independence and transparency, and for the requirement to administer the game according to the highest governance standards.

Where do the ICC go from here? They will look to appoint an interim chairman quickly, with a more permanent successor chosen at the April meeting. It raises the intriguing question as to whether Giles Clarke, the president of the ECB, would be a candidate, given his long-standing ambitions in that regard. If India is flexing its muscles about proposed reforms of the financial distribution model, then they may push for one of their own candidates.

So the danger is of a return to more politicking which would be a shame given that there was an unmistakable feeling of optimism recently among various bodies, such as the Federation of International Cricketers, or players’  union, who had been previously critical of the ICC. There was a sense that decisions were being made with the greater good of the game in mind, and that real progress was being made. Now, following Manohar’s resignation, there is confusion and uncertainty again. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

New ECB T20 series forecast to lose £UK15 million in first year.

Nick Hoult.

London Daily Telegraph.

Wednesday, 15 March 2017.

PTG 2076-10511.

County clubs have been warned that the England and Wales Cricket Board’s (ECB) new Twenty20 competition will lose £UK15 million in its first year,   Despite that, the ECB has assured the counties they will still receive their £UK1.3 m ($A24.1 m) dividend from the first year of the tournament, when costs are expected to be at their highest due to marketing and launch expenses, but will receive no increase until the tournament becomes profitable.

The news was revealed by Scott Smith, the ECB’s head of finance, last week at Lord’s when he met with the treasurers and financial directors of the 18 counties and the Marylebone Cricket Club.  Since that meeting the counties have sent a series of questions to the ECB detailing their outstanding concerns over the tournament, which is set to be ratified in the coming months. 

The main concern of the counties is when the new competition will become profitable and what steps are being taken to prevent the ECB’s existing Twenty20 ‘Blast’ tournament, becoming a “subsidiary” to the new competition, competing for supporters and sponsorship and so potentially suffering from what the document calls a ‘dilution effect’. 

The memo states: “Whilst all FCCs [first-class counties] are expecting to receive £1.3m as a result of the new tournament, for those FCCs who do not host the new T20 competition, there is a real risk that they will suffer a loss of income from a number of other sources (e.g. membership, sponsorship, hospitality), particularly as a result of not playing a full first team during the period of the new T20 competition”. 

“This begged the question as to whether the new tournament would devalue the ‘brand’ of the FCCs, and in particular those not hosting the new tournament. Similar points also apply to host FCCs as there is a risk that the other games they are putting on during a season will be seen as being a lower quality of cricket”.

The county financial directors have also asked for evidence the competition will bring in spectators from wider than the current geographical area of 5-8 km from the grounds involved, none of whom have yet been confirmed as hosting matches in the new series..

ECB accused of bullying counties over T20 changes.
Elizabeth Ammon.

The Times. 

Saturday, 11 March 2017.

PTG 2071-10484.

The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) is facing a revolt from some counties that do not stage Test matches over its plans to push through a significant change to its articles and constitution (PTG 2065-10459, 5 March 2017).

Executives from the category B and C counties — those that do not host Test matches — are to meet on Monday week to discuss their concerns about the change and the implications of the proposed eight-team city-based Twenty20 competition before the ECB’s planned vote a week later.

At least six of the non-Test match counties have become increasingly concerned that they are being asked to vote to change the existing constitution, removing their power of veto and, for the first time, allowing the ECB to introduce tournaments that don’t include all 18 first-class counties.

The ECB needs these changes to be approved before it can begin the formal process of putting the broadcast rights for 2020 to 2024 out for bids.

One county executive said: “We feel bullied into voting for a huge change to the ECB’s constitution which has potentially far-reaching future consequences for domestic cricket in this country and which could be the thin end of the wedge to the future reduction of county cricket”.

The ECB’s constitution states that all 18 first-class counties have to take part in all ECB domestic competitions. Some counties want to ensure that any changes to this are specific to the new T20 competition only and do not give any constitutional scope for the reduction of teams in the County Championship or other domestic competitions.

County executives have been given further details of how the new T20 competition will work in a memo effectively threatens counties who try to obstruct the introduction of the tournament by not signing over their media rights to the ECB. Those counties risk being denied the promised £UK1.3 million ($A2.1 m) a year of new income from the competition.

Surrey and Middlesex are understood to be two of the counties who have not yet signed the ECB’s media-rights document (PTG 2044-10355, 10 February 2017).

What next, play with a tennis ball....

Cricinfo article 17/02/17

ECB mulls artificial pitches for T20

The ECB is looking into the possibility of using artificial pitches in its proposed new T20 competition.

Keen to ensure the best-possible surfaces (for batsmen, anyway) for a competition seen as vital in attracting a new audience to the game, the ECB recently held a meeting with county groundsmen where the idea was discussed. ESPNcricinfo understands that Chris Wood, the ECB's Pitch Consultant, has been charged with researching how to introduce such surfaces ahead of the launch of the competition in 2020.

There are significant pros and cons to the use of such pitches. While it would likely result in a certain homogenisation of conditions and provide even less opportunity for bowlers to extract anything from surfaces, it would also enable grounds to provide the centre-wicket pitches required by broadcasters multiple times without concerns about deterioration. Artificial surfaces might also be considered to provide uniformity of conditions for both teams, which a turf surface will not always offer.

Drop-in surfaces have also been considered but are not thought to be cost effective or provide quite the same uniformity of performance.

While long-term lovers of cricket may have reservations about artificial surfaces, the ECB's mantra over the new competition is that it is not designed to appeal to those already watching the game: it is designed to appeal to the vast potential audience that is currently immune to its charms. The ECB feels that providing such good-paced surfaces will help create the high-scoring, boundary-filled cricket it believes will attract that new audience. It might also minimise delays after poor weather.

To that end, Wood is looking into the best options and cost implications of laying such pitches close to the middle of squares in all first-class grounds.

It is a move that will do nothing to address the increasing imbalance between bat and ball and might rob the game of the sort of low-scoring thrillers that made the 1983 World Cup final, the 2015 World Cup match between New Zealand and Australia and the 2003 World Cup match between Australia and England - among many others - so memorable. But subtlety appears to be one the likely victims of the T20 revolution. George Dobell