Players' Survey about T20 Future

Survey indicates players favour two-tier County T20 structure.

Richard Gibson.

Daily Mail.

Monday, 13 February 2017.

PTG 2048-10377.

Four out of five county cricketers believe a two-divisional Twenty20 remains an attractive option for the future of Twenty20 in Britain, according to a survey conducted by the UK Professional Cricketers’ Association (PCA).  While players are overwhelmingly keen on a Big Bash League-style tournament, draft plans for which have been penned by the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB), retaining all 18 first-class counties in a revamp is also popular with players.

The PCA results highlighted a lack of information reaching the players on the preferred eight-team 'Super League' model proposed by the ECB, 62 per cent of respondents suggesting they would like to hear more before anything is rubber-stamped.  The ECB are considering revamping T20 in England in order to attract more supporters, although at least one county has some basic concerns (PTG 2044-10355, 10 February 2017).

Other player concerns brought out in the PCA survey included: further marginalisation of the County Championship, the competition 92 per cent of respondents said was the one they most wanted to win; the absence of England players, 94 per cent agreeing domestic T20 cricket is enhanced when they participate; a lack of terrestrial television coverage contributing to a drop in participation levels (84 per cent); and the format of cricket to be played simultaneously with the 'Super League', 31 per cent suggesting none at all and 49 per cent favouring a secondary T20 competition

However, on the last point, it appears the ECB anticipate Tests and domestic 50-over matches running alongside the tournament, meaning that England players would be conspicuous by their absence and premier white-ball cricketers getting reduced opportunities to prepare for One Day International cricket (PTG 2042-10344, 8 February 2017).

The rival county-centric proposal comprising two divisions of nine with promotion and relegation and fresh player drafts each season was seen as attractive by 79 per cent of those who made their views known.  That was one of five options put forward to the counties by ECB chairman Colin Graves at the end of the 2016 season, although the ECB’s preference for one with eight newly-created teams was made clear.

Setting up new organisations to compete over six weeks at the height of summer from 2020 would undermine 130 years of tradition - counties rather than cities or regions have contested top-level English cricket since the formation of the Championship in 1890.

All but three counties remain members’ clubs and the player survey revealed fears of ostracising them. One wrote "supporters are affiliated to a team and generally only that team. So you might find that Worcestershire fans won't come to watch the Birmingham team because they are classed as a rival. You might attract a new audience but again if people are not coming to watch in a major city like Birmingham in their masses now, then they never will”.

This week, PCA president Andrew Flintoff spoke of the charm of representing your county, and the pride he took in doing so.  But the ECB are intent on something fresh, including a new TV deal, which is why they are holding off until 2020 as a start date. Their ongoing agreement with broadcaster ‘Sky' runs until the end of 2019, and the tender document for the tournament will specify a quarter of matches are screened free to air.

Middlesex fear huge losses from new ECB T20 series.
Elizabeth Ammon.
The Times.
Thursday, 9 February 2017.
PTG 2044-10355.

Middlesex are set to hold talks with the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) on Friday to discuss their serious concerns that the ECB’s new domestic T20 competition could deprive them of hundreds of thousands of pounds because they do not own their ground.  Part of current plans for the tournament, which is set to start in 2020, involves new teams being owned and controlled by the first-class counties (PTG 2042-10344, 8 February 2017).

However, further details have emerged that grounds who host the 36 matches will be paid a staging fee of about £UK75,000 ($A123,500), with the ground also able to keep the profits from food and drink sold at the match. Ticket and merchandise revenue would go to the franchise rather than the ground.  But because Middlesex rent Lord’s from the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) they would not receive any staging fees or concessions profits and they believe that immediately puts them at a disadvantage.

At the meeting with ECB officials, Middlesex executives plan to point out that their income comes primarily from cricket-related activities, rather than being able to generate income from renting out their ground for conference facilities and weddings as other grounds can do.  Their revenue primarily comes from membership fees, sponsorship deals and their hosting agreement with MCC, whereby they are paid a subsidy by that club for the matches they play at Lord’s.  Middlesex though have one of the largest memberships in county cricket because it members can watch a lot of cricket at the prestigious venue.

With the new competition expected to occupy at least 38 days of the summer, and with Lord’s also hosting at least one Test match and a One Day International, the amount of ‘new’ T20 cricket they will be able to play there, rather than at one of their outgrounds, will be severely restricted. This will have an impact on both the worth of their staging agreement with MCC and could prompt a significant number of members to decide not to renew their membership.

Middlesex believe that because of their anomalous position they stand to lose out substantially more than any other county as a result of the new tournament. Each of the counties have been promised a considerable amount of additional income — a guaranteed extra amount arising from the profits of the tournament — thought to be around £1.3 million ($A2.2 m) per county.  However, Middlesex believe that once they have subtracted the amount they could potentially lose in lost sponsorship and decreasing membership, that £1.3 million could be cut by as much as half.

Given that a significant portion of Middlesex’s revenue also comes from the ECB in the form of England player payments — for Eoin Morgan, the white-ball captain, and fast bowler Steven Finn — and their share of the broadcast revenue, they will want to pin down a confirmation from the ECB that this new £1.3 million will be on top of existing payments not instead of them.


08/02/17

I notice that the East Midlands is used as the example...

Revealed: how the new ECB Twenty20 format will work.
Elizabeth Ammon.

The Times.

Wednesday, 8 February 2017.

PTG 2042-10344.

Detailed plans for the England and Wales Cricket Board’s (ECB) new Twenty20 competition can be revealed today after a briefing memo sent to county executives was seen by 'The Times'.  The revolutionary tournament, set to start in 2020, aims to create an English league that will rival the Indian Premier League and Australia’s Big Bash League (BBL), but has caused controversy among the counties (PTG 2030-10274, 25 January 2017). 

The eight-page memo confirms that the eight teams involved will have 15-man squads that include three overseas players, with 13 of those players picked during a draft that the ECB hopes will be televised. The two other players in each squad will be picked as “wild cards” after the NatWest T20 Blast has been played. All county cricketers, plus overseas players who enter themselves, will be put into the draft unless they request not to be. They will be placed into different salary bands. The tournament will run from mid-July, after the conclusion of the ECB’s 18 county T20 ‘Blast' and alongside a 50-over format competition (PTG 1950-9813, 18 October 2016).

Despite the memo outlining the basics of the T20 series, there is no mention of where the eight teams might be based, an issue that is likely to cause ructions as some counties will miss out on hosting matches. Hosting decisions will not be taken until at least the end of March (PTG 2001-10115, 10 December 2016).

A number of county chiefs had expressed concern over the original proposal that the eight teams would be solely owned by the ECB (PTG 1987-10019, 26 November 2016). In an effort to alleviate some of those worries, the latest proposal about the governance of the competition is that the eight sides would be separate legal entities, but each will be controlled by two to three first-class counties. So for example, a team based in Nottingham may be controlled by Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire.

Head coaches and directors of cricket from counties who work in the new tournament will not be permitted to coach at their local county venue. The memo explains that this is borne out of a desire that the proposed competition is not a facilitator for player movement from smaller counties to the larger Test-venue counties.  Coaches and support staff from county cricket will be eligible to work in the new competition should their counties be happy to release them.

Each of the eight teams will be allocated the same fixed budget for players, a separate budget to cover coaching costs and a salary cap similar to the one in place in the BBL.  Originally the ECB had hoped that players would not play for the team at their “home” club so that each new team would have a totally separate identity from the county side based at that venue. However, this was a bone of contention among some of the larger counties, who did not wish to see all their best players based at other venues, so the ECB has rowed back on this proposal.

Teams will be able to call up players from the county 50-over competition in case of injuries and, similarly, players can be released back to the county 50-over competition should their coaches in the new T20 competition want them to play competitive cricket. It is anticipated that players would be released by their counties to join the new team squad not more than a week before the T20 competition begins and would be given back to their counties as soon as their team are eliminated.

Players will be signed on an initial one-year contract with an option to extend for a second year. A proportion of a player’s existing county salary will be deducted if he plays in the new competition and it is anticipated that the salary from taking part will more than make up for any shortfall in his county pay.

The new competition will be played over 38 days — England players will not be available, as Tests will be played at the same time. There will be 36 games, rather than the 35 expected initially. This is because there will not be semi- finals. The finalists will be decided on the results of three play-off games. The team who finish top of the table will play against the second-placed team in “the qualifier” for a place in the final. The third and fourth-placed teams will play each other in “the eliminator”. The winner of the eliminator and loser of the qualifier will then go head to head for the other spot in the final.

The memo sets out that each team will be run by an operations board comprising an independent chairman and chief executives from the two or three counties who control the team. The board will be in charge of appointing a general manager and coaches.

It is believed that the consultancy firm tasked with coming up with the venue options is not just looking at Test grounds for hosting and there is a potential move away from the competition being purely city-based, with some host teams having one or more of their four home group games at a second or third venue. Each first-class county will also receive a guaranteed minimum amount of revenue from the proceeds of the competition.

While the tournament is three years away, the ECB needs the details signed off before it puts the broadcast rights for this, international cricket and the other domestic competitions from 2020 onwards out to tender, which it wants to do at the end of next month (PTG 1936-9729, 1 October 2016).  The broadcast tender document will specify that a certain number of the matches — possibly ten — must be shown live on free-to-air television and that highlights and clips should be available on other digital outlets such as ‘YouTube' or 'Amazon Prime’.