.JPG)
George Dobell
The return of an FA Cup-style knockout competition and the restructuring of the County Championship into a conference system will be on the agenda when an ECB working party meets in the coming days.
ESPNcricinfo understands the working party, to be chaired by Leicestershire chief executive Wasim Khan, will discuss options for the domestic season once the new-team T20 competition starts in 2020.
Among the issues it will consider is the possibility of playing the 50-over competition as a knockout tournament involving the Minor Counties. Such a competition was a feature of English cricket for more than 40 years - at various times known as the Gillette Cup, the NatWest Trophy and the C&G Trophy - but in 2006 the tournament was altered to be played as a league without the involvement of the Minor Counties.
A return, it is argued, would ensure a good level of cricket is played across the country - rather than just at the 18 first-class county venues - providing opportunities to capitalise on the projected popularity of the new-team T20 competition.
It currently looks all but certain that the system of promotion and relegation in Championship cricket will be replaced a conference system from 2020 - ending the two-division structure that has been in place for two decades.
The benefits, in the view of the counties, is that all 18 will start the season with a chance of winning the competition and there will be less pressure to make short-term decisions about playing opportunities in a bid to achieve promotion or avoid relegation. This, they argue, will create greater opportunities for young players and reduce the temptation to sign Kolpak registrations and the like. It is also likely that most teams will play fewer Championship games - probably 12 - per season.
Andrew Strauss, the director of England cricket, is understood to be warming to the idea of conferences having initially been unenthusiastic. There is also a sense around the counties that those teams who find themselves towards the bottom of Division Two on a regular basis might, without intervention, start to prioritise their white-ball aspirations.
The counties will also discuss whether they should play Championship, 50-over cricket or a mix during the window allocated to the new-team T20 competition. The original plan was to play 50-over cricket during the six-week window, but some counties have suggested they would prefer to play first-class cricket in order to minimise the loss of commercial opportunities from 50-over games that could be overshadowed by the new competition. Some also argue that spinners might benefit from the opportunity to play on dry pitches in August.
With the new-team competition likely to take the best 100 or so players out of the county game, however, there is a fear that playing Championship cricket in that window will dilute the quality of competition. Test cricket is also scheduled to continue during the window.
There has also been a suggestion that a squad of recently released professionals - something like the Unicorns squad of recent years - might be assembled to either play in the 50-over competition or provide substitutes to those teams who have lost players to the new-team T20 tournament. This, it is argued, would provide a second chance for players who would otherwise struggle for opportunities in the professional game.
Elizabeth Ammon
March 28 2018,
The Times
The chairman of Surrey, Richard Thompson, has resigned as a director on the ECB board with immediate effect over a £2.5 million compensation payment made to Glamorgan, and his broader concerns about the lack of transparency in decision-making and failings of corporate governance.
It is the second high-profile resignation this month after Andy Nash, the former Somerset chairman, stood down three weeks ago, saying publicly that standards of governance within the ECB had fallen “well short of what’s acceptable”.
This is a significant development because Surrey are a key partner for the ECB because of their size and wealth, and because the Kia Oval is a major venue both for international cricket and the new eight-team Twenty20 competition to be introduced in 2020.
It is understood that Thompson informed Colin Graves, the ECB chairman, yesterday of his immediate resignation, also citing his grave concerns about failures of governance and lack of transparency within the ECB as well as his belief that, in making a compensation payment to Glamorgan, it had contravened its own articles of association.
Thompson is a popular figure in county cricket, having won two elections among county chairmen to be the representative of the Test-match grounds on the ECB board.
Surrey have consistently argued that any decisions taken about the future of the game must be in the interests of all 18 first-class counties, not just the eight Test grounds, and while Thompson’s resignation means that the voice of the counties will no longer be represented on the ECB board as they bring in more independent directors, it is likely that he will continue to oppose openly any decisions that have a negative impact on the county game.
There has been increasing pressure on Graves about the lack of transparency regarding key decisions within the ECB after revelations in The Times that Glamorgan received compensation in return for not bidding to host Test matches, and that other Test grounds had been promised £500,000 payments for each year they were not allocated Tests between 2020 and 2024. Other counties were not aware of the payments, and Nash said they had not been agreed or sanctioned by the board.
After the reports in The Times, the first-class chairmen, plus MCC, asked for an emergency meeting with the ECB, which was held yesterday at Lord’s. One county told The Times the meeting was “very heated” and some counties had been extremely critical of the ECB’s lack of transparency and communication, and asked for an independent inquiry into the payments to Test-match grounds. This request was turned down by the ECB.
It is understood that Thompson’s grievances were raised directly to Graves in the chairmen’s meeting on Monday. They included the failure to inform all counties about the compensation payments, a consistent lack of transparency around decision-making, and a failure by Graves to inform the board members of his intention to take expensive and lengthy legal action, using ECB money, against a media organisation.
During Monday’s meeting, Thompson and others said the payment made to Glamorgan last year could be unlawful as it contravened the ECB’s articles of association, which state that the counties must be treated equally and that payments to counties must be in return for delivery of a service or competition, rather than being paid not to host something. He said this apparent contravention of the ECB’s constitution was the main reason for his resignation.
DIRECTOR OF ECB BOARD JUMPS ...
The decision comes as ECB prepares for a new Board structure from its Annual General Meeting in May 2018.
In December 2017, ECB announced plans to reform its Board following an independent review, with a reduction from 13 to 12 members, including four independent directors and five non-executive cricket directors.
Colin Graves would appear to have emerged unscathed from a chairmen's meeting called to assuage concerns raised by several of the first-class counties.
Graves, the ECB chairman, called the meeting of the chairmen of the 18 counties and the MCC (or their deputies) after it emerged compensation payments could be paid to Test Match grounds in years they do not host Tests. In particular, concerns had been raised after it emerged Glamorgan had received 2.5m from the ECB. Andy Nash, the former Somerset chairman, resigned from the board in protest claiming such payments had not been discussed and citing "standards of corporate governance falling well short of what's acceptable".
But Graves was able to produce minutes of a board teleconference in September 2016 - a teleconference at which Nash was involved - during which the principle of compensating grounds "in exchange for waiving the right to be eligible to host Test Matches in the future" was raised. At the time, the ECB board were reflecting on the arrangement made with Durham - they were given help with their financial problems in return for surrendering their aspirations to host more Test cricket for the foreseeable future - but Graves was recorded to have said he wanted to use the idea "as a template going forward for any counties that find themselves in a similar situation". The minutes say the ECB board "unanimously agreed" the proposal.
The ECB have previously intimated that compensation payments to other Test-hosting clubs for years when they do not host such games will only be confirmed once the board has agreed the policy. It is understood several counties have budgeted in anticipation of such payments, but they have not yet been finalised.
There was also some discussion over the ownership of the new-team T20 competition scheduled to start in 2020. The county chairmen will now discuss the information they gathered at the meeting with their own committees and executive.
"This was a constructive meeting, with healthy and open debate," Graves said. "We addressed a range of questions, including giving a full explanation of the payment to Glamorgan and the process through which the Board considered and agreed this.
"It was stressed that major funding decisions are always raised, discussed and agreed at the Board.
"Within the room, everyone also agreed on a shared responsibility for the health and sustainability of the game and further developing engagement and discussion within the game."
George Dobell Cricinfo 14/03/18
Beware an old man in a hurry. It's a phrase that has reoccurred several times in recent days when reflecting on Colin Graves' period as chairman of the ECB.
Graves never set out to be a cricket administrator. He was sucked into it by a desire to help. Seeing his beloved Yorkshire sink into debt, he first lent them money and then - frustrated by the lack of progress - rolled up his sleeves and threw himself into the fray as an executive chairman. Very much the type to identify with the 'If you want a job doing properly, you'd best do it yourself' philosophy, he saw the ground bought and redeveloped while the team was rejuvenated. It's no exaggeration to state that he saved the club. And, bearing in mind how many players Yorkshire continue to provide to the national cause, it is a contribution for which all lovers of England cricket should be grateful.
Having been dragged into cricket administration, Graves then turned his attention to the wider game in England and Wales. Frustrated by England's disappointing performances in limited-overs cricket, the diminishing relevance of the sport to the wider public and the disparity between the reserves of the governing body and the debt of the first-class counties, he resolved to make a difference.
Impressing his fellow county chairmen with his dynamism, his commitment and, most of all, his not being Giles Clarke, he threw himself into the role just as others of his age and means might have been planning on more time on the beach in Barbados. And, remember, this is an unpaid role. No reasonable analysis can doubt that he entered into it full of good intentions. But we know where the road paved with good intentions leads and the first fudge of many - the first deal done in the background - was to see Clarke, who really should have been given a carriage clock and farewell party, installed as the first (and quite possibly last) president of the ECB and their representative at the ICC. It ensured he went quietly.
Graves, meanwhile, made it clear he wasn't going to hang around. While others had seen their plans bogged down by bureaucrats and committees, Graves wasn't going to enter into protracted consultations and negotiations. Even before he was officially confirmed as chairman, he told ESPNcricinfo there would be "no more outside reviews of the game while I'm chairman". He was going to seize the issues and shape them to his will. And, by giving himself a time limit of five years, he removed any temptation to prevaricate or delay. The clock was counting and he was, to put it slightly harshly, an old man in a hurry.
There was little time for face-saving departures or dignified exits. Not when a coach or team director needed sacking. So much so that the former found out when his wife read the news on Twitter and the latter, given assurances as to his future in the morning, was axed in the afternoon.
A propensity to 'say it as he sees it' - a virtue in many ways, but not always conducive to chairing a governing body - soon caused more issues. He got himself - and the board - into a fearful mess after breaking ranks and suggesting Kevin Pietersen could force his way back into the England sides. Then he provided the team talk for England's opposition ahead of their Caribbean tour in early 2015 when he suggested West Indies were a "mediocre" side. And then, on the eve of the domestic T20 competition in England and Wales - a competition that many of the counties rely upon for revenue - he produced a Gerald Ratner moment by dismissing it, too, as "mediocre".
No-nonsense? Maverick? Or simply unprofessional? Whatever. It was the seen as the inevitable flip-side of the dynamic character that the board had elected to shake things up. A price worth paying. "Yes," a fellow board member admitted to ESPNcricinfo in recent days, "there are times his enthusiasm and passion get the better of him. But it's only because he's so keen to make a difference."
Like Clarke before him, he was a successful entrepreneur who had gained success through his own efforts, energy and ingenuity. He was used to doing it himself. Again, it is an admirable quality. But it doesn't always lend itself to the more delicate, consensual nature of committee work. He wasn't running his own business any more. He was leading a highly complex body catering for wildly divergent priorities. It sometimes calls for different skills.
As progress on new projects - notably the acceptance of the new-team T20 competition - threatened to stall, more corners appear to have been cut. Andy Nash, the former Somerset chairman and, until a few days ago, an ECB board member, has claimed on his Twitter account that his club were "given to believe at the time that Taunton would feature as a co-host venue". His version of events is supported by Somerset committee members, who hosted a private presentation from Graves and ECB chief executive Tom Harrison and insist were told they would be co-hosting a team with Bristol.
Somerset also have a letter, signed by Graves, that they allege provided encouragement to their hosting aspirations. With legal exchanges having taken place, Somerset allege there were suggestions made that, should more major matches appear in the schedule (and they probably will), they will be well-placed to host them. Somerset may well accept such a compromise, but is that how business should be conducted at a national governing body?
It should be conceded that several counties were on Graves' side, but recalcitrant counties were corralled into backing the plans in a notoriously feisty meeting at Lord's in September 2016. "Back me or sack me," roared Graves as the meeting began, before putting each of the county chairmen on the spot individually. "What's it going to be?" he allegedly challenged each one as he went round the room individually. And, with the first portion of the room having backed him - cynics suggest the meeting was arranged to ensure an early lead in the voting - those who were determined to vote the other way reasoned that, rather than be martyrs to a lost cause and in doing so deny their counties the patronage that might follow, they would vote for the plans. "Intimidating" and "oppressive" were the words used to describe the performance more than once.
Is this the way democracy should be? Too hurried for due process or debate? Too certain to waste time with other opinions?
Meanwhile a valuation conducted on behalf of the ECB suggested the broadcast rights of a new-team T20 competition were vastly superior to anything achievable from the existing tournament. It was stated that annual revenues of up to GBP35 million could be anticipated for the new competition and a maximum of GBP7 million for the existing one. Such a forecast was soon made to look deeply suspicious by other valuations, but this had long since become a propaganda war and some of the counties - desperate for a few dollars more - took the bait.
And, all the while, those trusts nagged away in the background. Was it really appropriate that the chairman of the ECB had set up trusts that were owed in excess of GBP20 million by Yorkshire, the legacy of his loans to the club? Legally it was. The trusts, converted so they were run independently and no longer benefited Graves personally, were put in the names of his family members.
But morally? Instinctively? Was it right that Graves' Family Trusts were reliant upon Yorkshire's successful financial performance (and were paid hundreds of thousands of pounds of interest a year) to be serviced and repaid? Was it right the trustees retained a veto over who could join (or be voted off) the Yorkshire board?
Clearly the ECB thought it a reasonable question. For, in March 2016, they produced a statement to ESPNcricinfo guaranteeing Graves "declares an interest and abstains from any vote or decision which could be deemed a conflict of interest (as is a statutory duty)". And, while the major match allocation was rubber-stamped by the board a few weeks ago, Graves briefly left the room.
Which sounds fine. But what about all of those decisions in between times? Who was left to decide whether there might be any conflict when Durham were stripped of their right to host Test cricket, thereby reducing the competition for such games in the north of England and indirectly benefitting Yorkshire? And who was left to decide whether there might be any conflict when a meeting, chaired by Graves, rejected the working party recommendation for the future of domestic T20? Did they do so on the grounds that it may not contain the local derby games that Yorkshire, whose domestic T20 ticket sales record might be described as "mediocre", rely upon disproportionately? Instead a new competition was devised in which staging fees were agreed for - you guessed it - Yorkshire (among others). That's the same Yorkshire who were awarded Tests against both India and Australia in the recent allocation.
Let's be clear: Yorkshire are a terrific club. There is no fault of them implied or presumed. But most reasonable observers will acknowledge it is remarkable how almost every major decision made in English cricket over Graves' period in office has benefited them. And they may acknowledge, too, at least the possibility of the perception of a conflict of interest there. And while that is the case, the governance of the ECB has to be open to serious questions.
Finally, what Nash described as "the straw that broke the camel's back". The Times published details of plans to compensate the Test-hosting grounds in years they did not host Tests. While the ECB insist the plans were only at the discussion stage and would, in April, have been addressed by the board, Nash was incensed that, as a board member, he should have found out about them from the media. Furthermore, it appears Glamorgan had already received a payment and at least two other clubs had received such assurances that they had budgeted for the payments. The NTGs (non-Test Match Grounds) were furious and concerned that one of the key principles of the ECB - an equitable distribution of revenues - might have been abandoned without even the courtesy of proper discussion.
Several counties are consulting their lawyers. Preliminary advice suggests that, if payments were made, they may not comply with the ECB's own constitution (the Articles of Association state no club can be treated in a prejudicial manner) and might be considered ex-gratia and therefore unlawful. Not only might the money have to be repaid, but those who unilaterally sanctioned the payments could be held personally responsible.
In an attempt to reassure the counties, Graves addressed the chief executives in a meeting towards the end of last week. Messages exchanged by CEOs (or their deputies) during and after the meeting include the words "unconvincing", "damaged" and, most powerful of all, that "there seems to be a consensus" that he might not be telling the whole story. Meanwhile two county chairmen used the word "feudal" to describe the workings of the ECB. One of them said he couldn't be named as he feared "reprisals" against his county. Let that sink in for a moment.
In that meeting, Graves railed against "leaks". But, as Leonard Cohen put it, "there is a crack in everything: it's what lets the light in". And without those leaks, most of the cricket-loving public would have no idea what was going on in those committee rooms at Lord's. This is, after all, an administration that served the counties with ten-year non-disclosure agreements - unprecedented in a sport where the clubs are, on the whole, owned by their members and a fact that was, initially, denied by the ECB - and that claimed their research justifying the new-team T20 (even though it contradicted research conducted as part of the Morgan Review just a few years' previously) was so persuasive that no-one could deny it; it just wasn't persuasive enough to publish. And it surely speaks volumes for this ECB administration that, when they required a new communications director, they called upon Team Sky of all places.
Might all this be a conspiracy theory? Might it just be the product of the mind of a couple of overly cynical journalists? Perhaps. But when the ECB were trumpeting their improved governance - the independent board members, the new regulatory committee - they didn't mention that the chairman of the nominations committee - the man who stood at the gateway to all other committees - was (you guessed it): Colin Graves. He will also chair the 'board' (it's not really a board; it's a committee) for the new-team T20 competition.
Yes, he has plans to step aside as chairman of the nominations committee soon. And yes, there is every possibility that he took on the role to ensure it was, in his mind, fulfilled properly. But this isn't how good governance is meant to work. It isn't meant to be reliant upon the goodwill of individuals, it is meant to offer systems that ensure it through checks and balances and scrutiny. It is meant to ensure different views from diverse perspectives. Not all of them filtered through the vision of one man.
The problem has been compounded by weakness elsewhere. The PCA, currently without a chief executive, who is off sick and a deputy chief executive, whose role was not replaced when Jason Ratcliffe stood down, is lacking the authoritative voice it once had.
At a time when a prominent administrator is warning that more than 50 percent of professional players should be fearing for their jobs, that is a significant failure. The PCA needs to be mobilising now but news that David Leatherdale, the absent CEO, asked the ECB to draft his response to the introduction of the new-team T20 suggests the organisation lacks the independence it once had. In Leatherdale's absence might an interim - perhaps a predecessor such as Angus Porter, or Richard Bevan or a former deputy such as Ratcliffe - be required?
The newly independent ECB board is a mixed blessing, too. While the departure, in May, of board members who have served Surrey, Middlesex and Nottinghamshire might sound like a good plan (Nash, the former Somerset chairman, has already gone), there are legitimate questions about the cricketing expertise of the new board members. Their experience in the police, teaching and social work will, in its way, be an asset but will it allow them to provide the specific, cricket-centric scrutiny that may be required? Or might it, perhaps inadvertently, result in Graves and co. having an easy ride? Especially if he is involved in the selection of the new board members. Who, some of the 18-first-class counties, have asked, will represent them? Who will give them a voice?
Other regulatory bodies seem oddly quiet, too. A couple of individuals on parliament's Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee have shown passing interest in events at the ECB but, whether they are too busy or their eye is on more glamorous headlines, they have so far failed to act. It currently seems, as Bob Dylan put it, as if "The cops don't need you and man they expect the same". Some of the counties, too, need to have the courage to turn their whispers into roars.
More and more of late, Graves' period in office has revived memories of the last days of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair in No. 10. Leaders who are so certain of their mission and message that they have stopped listening - or caring - about views from outside the bubble. To do so would be weak. To do so would cause delays. To do so would threaten progress. And when that happens, well, it's time for a change, isn't it?
March 8 2018, 12:00am, The Times Elizabeth Ammon
The ECB chairman is facing a county rebellion after the resignation yesterday of Andy Nash, a board director, over compensation payments to Test match grounds.
Nash, the former chairman of Somerset, sent a resignation letter to Colin Graves in which he accused him of seeking to create eight elite counties at the expense of smaller clubs. He said that standards of governance were “well short of what’s acceptable”.
The Times revealed this week that Graves had promised certain Test venues payments of £500,000 for each year that they would not be hosting a Test match between next year and 2024. Some counties became aware of these payments only after reading about them in The Times. They have indicated that they now intend to call on the ECB to commission an independent investigation into what payments have been promised — or already paid — to certain counties and on what authority they were promised.
In his resignation letter to Graves, Nash said: “I’ve recently become concerned that the standards of corporate governance at the ECB are falling well short of what’s acceptable and, in all conscience, I can’t allow myself to continue to be assocated with it. I would be failing in my duty as a director if I didn’t bring these to the board’s attention and I have tried to do this.
“The current fiasco over the actual/alleged/planned payments to [Test match grounds] is an exemplar. Whether intentional or not it clearly signals to many a move to promote eight counties as the first among equals. As an ardent supporter of the 18 first-class counties, this is not a direction of travel I can live with.”
Nash was deeply concerned that giving significant amounts of money to international grounds and the counties who are hosting the new Twenty20 competition will further marginalise the ten counties who are not host venues for that new tournament. The Times understands that he had raised his concerns with another senior director, which led to a disagreement with Graves about the role of independent directors on the board.
“It has also come to my attention in the last 24 hours that my actions as a listening and conscientious non- executive director are sadly misunderstood and misinterpreted by yourself,” Nash writes. “I sincerely regret that, because all I want is the best for the game and for good governance of the ECB.”
While Graves has previously indicated that he believed international grounds should get some compensation in fallow years to allow them financial stability, there was no mention of additional payments in the recent bidding process to allocate international cricket for future years. Counties understood that any compensation would be reflected in the ticket revenue from their international matches that they would be expected to pass on to the ECB and that counties who received fewer matches would pay a lower percentage of their revenue.
For example, Lord’s is paying 50 per cent of its ticket revenue for international matches because it was awarded two Tests each year. The Oval will be paying 40 per cent because it has a Test and an ODI every year whereas the other grounds are only paying 30 per cent of ticket revenue. There was an understanding that these differentiated percentages were how counties were to be compensated.
An ECB official told The Times: “ECB can confirm that Andy Nash has resigned as a non-executive director. His resignation has been accepted and Colin Graves has thanked him for his hard work and support.”
By Sky Sports News
Last Updated: 06/03/18 1:09pm
The England Cricket Board is considering compensating cricket venues for each year they don't host a Test match between 2020 and 2024.
As reported in The Times on Tuesday, the venues would receive cash as part of proposals yet to be approved by the country's governing body.
The board recently announced the Test ground allocations which notably saw Southampton's Ageas Bowl miss out on hosting a Test match, meaning Hampshire could receive £2.5m.
Headingley, Edgbaston, The Oval, Lord's and Old Trafford have been selected to host matches in the 2023 Ashes Tests.
Nottinghamshire's Trent Bridge will host Test matches for the set period but will not stage an Ashes match in either of the next two series.
walesonline.co.uk By
Dominic BoothDigital Sports Writer
14:25, 28 FEB 2018
Glamorgan to focus on staging white-ball cricket... but England Tests could still return to Cardiff
Cardiff-based county feel one-day cricket is the best way to grow the sport in Wales
Glamorgan have told England they just want to focus on staging white ball cricket at the SSE SWALEC Stadium for the next six years.
The move comes amid reports in the Times that the Welsh county were set to receive more than £1million from the ECB in return for giving up their status as a Test venue.
One-day cricket presents a more attractive option to Glamorgan right at the moment and so formed the focus of their bid for the next batch of England internationals. The Cardiff-based county views white ball cricket as the best way to grow the game in Wales.
The move from Glamorgan as the county mirrors what has happened with two of England's leading players. Swashbuckling batsman Alex Hales and leg-spinner Adil Rashid have each said they only wish to focus on playing the one-day game.
England's exciting ODI team has won many plaudits since being overhauled in 2015 and it appears Glamorgan want to harness that buzz by attracting big crowds for white-ball games in the Welsh capital.
Test matches could yet return to Cardiff after 2024, although the only internationals to take place at the SSE SWALEC until then will be ODIs and T20s.
The ground has been allocated eight white-ball England games between 2020 and 2024, with England's more traditional Test venues sharing the five-day matches.
Prior to that, the stadium will host an England versus Australia 50-over game on June 16 this year, while India are the visitors for a T20 international in the Welsh capital on July 6. World Cup fixtures are also inked in for next summer.
Cardiff has also been selected as one of eight venues for the ECB’s new city-based T20 competition, which starts in 2020.
Glamorgan last staged a Test in 2015, the Ashes opener between England and Australia. That was played out in front of sell-out crowds for the four days.
The SSE SWALEC had previously hosted a 2011 Test between England and Sri Lanka and the 2009 first Test against Australia.
February 28 2018, 12:01am, The Times
Glamorgan are set to receive more than £1 million from the ECB in return for forfeiting their status as a Test venue.
Since redevelopment in the mid-2000s, the Swalec stadium has hosted three Tests, but none since the first match of the 2015 Ashes series. That now looks likely to be the last in Cardiff, with the county set for a payment thought to be in excess of £1 million that has been agreed as part of the venue discussions covering the five-year period from 2020 to 2024.
The Times understands that should the county bid for Tests after 2024, they may have to pay back some of the money, which will appear in their accounts due to be published next month. Cardiff will remain an international venue and has been allocated eight white-ball England matches from 2020 to 2024 as well as being one of the ten venues for next year’s World Cup.
This month, the ECB announced the venues for England’s international fixtures for the period 2020 to 2024 and made the decision that Test matches would return to the traditional venues of Lord’s, The Oval, Trent Bridge, Headingley, Edgbaston and Old Trafford. It is understood that the Glamorgan board agreed to help achieve this aim by only bidding to host ODIs, T20Is and agreeing to be a host venue for the ECB’s new T20 competition.
Glamorgan’s financial situation has been precarious since the £10 million redevelopment of the stadium before they hosted their first Test in 2009. In 2015, they benefited from a multi-million pound debt write-off by Cardiff city council, Allied Irish Bank and the former chairman Paul Russell. In 2016, in their last published accounts, they recorded a loss of more than £300,000.
The compensation package, combined with an extra £1 million in 2019 that counties will get from World Cup profits, plus an extra £1.3 million a year from 2020 from the ECB that counties will receive as a payout when the new T20 competition begins and ODI revenue, should secure Glamorgan’s financial future.
Meanwhile, Nottinghamshire have turned a £741,000 loss in 2016 to a £279,000 profit in 2017 after the return of Test cricket to Trent Bridge last July.
The chairman of Surrey, Richard Thompson, has resigned as a director on the ECB board with immediate effect over a £2.5 million compensation payment made to Glamorgan, and his broader concerns about the lack of transparency in decision-making and failings of corporate governance.
It is the second high-profile resignation this month after Andy Nash, the former Somerset chairman, stood down three weeks ago, saying publicly that standards of governance within the ECB had fallen “well short of what’s acceptable”.
This is a significant development because Surrey are a key partner for the ECB because of their size and wealth, and because the Kia Oval is a major venue both for international cricket and the new eight-team Twenty20 competition to be introduced in 2020.
It is understood that Thompson informed Colin Graves, the ECB chairman, yesterday of his immediate resignation, also citing his grave concerns about failures of governance and lack of transparency within the ECB as well as his belief that, in making a compensation payment to Glamorgan, it had contravened its own articles of association.
Thompson is a popular figure in county cricket, having won two elections among county chairmen to be the representative of the Test-match grounds on the ECB board.
Surrey have consistently argued that any decisions taken about the future of the game must be in the interests of all 18 first-class counties, not just the eight Test grounds, and while Thompson’s resignation means that the voice of the counties will no longer be represented on the ECB board as they bring in more independent directors, it is likely that he will continue to oppose openly any decisions that have a negative impact on the county game.
There has been increasing pressure on Graves about the lack of transparency regarding key decisions within the ECB after revelations in The Times that Glamorgan received compensation in return for not bidding to host Test matches, and that other Test grounds had been promised £500,000 payments for each year they were not allocated Tests between 2020 and 2024. Other counties were not aware of the payments, and Nash said they had not been agreed or sanctioned by the board.
After the reports in The Times, the first-class chairmen, plus MCC, asked for an emergency meeting with the ECB, which was held yesterday at Lord’s. One county told The Times the meeting was “very heated” and some counties had been extremely critical of the ECB’s lack of transparency and communication, and asked for an independent inquiry into the payments to Test-match grounds. This request was turned down by the ECB.
It is understood that Thompson’s grievances were raised directly to Graves in the chairmen’s meeting on Monday. They included the failure to inform all counties about the compensation payments, a consistent lack of transparency around decision-making, and a failure by Graves to inform the board members of his intention to take expensive and lengthy legal action, using ECB money, against a media organisation.
During Monday’s meeting, Thompson and others said the payment made to Glamorgan last year could be unlawful as it contravened the ECB’s articles of association, which state that the counties must be treated equally and that payments to counties must be in return for delivery of a service or competition, rather than being paid not to host something. He said this apparent contravention of the ECB’s constitution was the main reason for his resignation.
DIRECTOR OF ECB BOARD JUMPS ...
ECB 28/03/18
The England & Wales Cricket Board can confirm that Richard Thompson has stepped down as a Non-Executive Director of the Board.
The decision comes as ECB prepares for a new Board structure from its Annual General Meeting in May 2018.
In December 2017, ECB announced plans to reform its Board following an independent review, with a reduction from 13 to 12 members, including four independent directors and five non-executive cricket directors.
Directors who held other cricket roles within the domestic game – Peter Wright, Martin Darlow, Andy Nash and Richard Thompson - had three months grace in which to decide whether to remain on the Board or in their other cricket role.
ECB Chairman Colin Graves said:
“For a fully independent Board structure, a number of Directors with positions in cricket had to decide whether they continue to serve on the Board or in those roles.
“Each of these has now made their decision and we can look to recruit new Directors for that new-look Board.
“The Board thank Richard for the role he’s played in helping to shape long-term plans for the game over the last five years and look forward to working with him as Chairman of Surrey CCC.”
The changes to the Board structure, which were agreed unanimously by the 41 members within new Articles of Association, ensures that ECB sets new standards of corporate governance and meets the requirements of Sport England’s Code for Sports Governance.
George Dobell 27/03/18Colin Graves would appear to have emerged unscathed from a chairmen's meeting called to assuage concerns raised by several of the first-class counties.
Graves, the ECB chairman, called the meeting of the chairmen of the 18 counties and the MCC (or their deputies) after it emerged compensation payments could be paid to Test Match grounds in years they do not host Tests. In particular, concerns had been raised after it emerged Glamorgan had received 2.5m from the ECB. Andy Nash, the former Somerset chairman, resigned from the board in protest claiming such payments had not been discussed and citing "standards of corporate governance falling well short of what's acceptable".
But Graves was able to produce minutes of a board teleconference in September 2016 - a teleconference at which Nash was involved - during which the principle of compensating grounds "in exchange for waiving the right to be eligible to host Test Matches in the future" was raised. At the time, the ECB board were reflecting on the arrangement made with Durham - they were given help with their financial problems in return for surrendering their aspirations to host more Test cricket for the foreseeable future - but Graves was recorded to have said he wanted to use the idea "as a template going forward for any counties that find themselves in a similar situation". The minutes say the ECB board "unanimously agreed" the proposal.
The ECB have previously intimated that compensation payments to other Test-hosting clubs for years when they do not host such games will only be confirmed once the board has agreed the policy. It is understood several counties have budgeted in anticipation of such payments, but they have not yet been finalised.
There was also some discussion over the ownership of the new-team T20 competition scheduled to start in 2020. The county chairmen will now discuss the information they gathered at the meeting with their own committees and executive.
"This was a constructive meeting, with healthy and open debate," Graves said. "We addressed a range of questions, including giving a full explanation of the payment to Glamorgan and the process through which the Board considered and agreed this.
"It was stressed that major funding decisions are always raised, discussed and agreed at the Board.
"Within the room, everyone also agreed on a shared responsibility for the health and sustainability of the game and further developing engagement and discussion within the game."
BBC Sport 24/03/18
Glamorgan were given £2.5m compensation by the England and Wales Cricket Board in exchange for not applying to host Test matches between 2020 and 2024.
The county announced the deal ahead of their latest accounts which revealed pre-tax profits of more than £4m.
The remaining £1.6m included profits from hosting four matches in the high profile 2017 Champions Trophy.
Last year's profit helped reduce the club's net debt from £15.1m to £2.5m.
In February 2018, Glamorgan were awarded eight days of limited-overs internationals in the latest period of major matches decided by the ECB.
Glamorgan did not apply for Test matches in return for the financial reward.
They will instead host five T20 internationals and three one-day matches between 2020 and 2024.
No Tests will be played in Wales in that period with five-day matches restricted to the traditional venues of Lord's, The Oval, Edgbaston, Trent Bridge, Old Trafford and Headingley.
Glamorgan say they will repay the £2.5m if they apply for Test matches after 2024.
George Dobell Cricinfo 14/03/18
Beware an old man in a hurry. It's a phrase that has reoccurred several times in recent days when reflecting on Colin Graves' period as chairman of the ECB.
Graves never set out to be a cricket administrator. He was sucked into it by a desire to help. Seeing his beloved Yorkshire sink into debt, he first lent them money and then - frustrated by the lack of progress - rolled up his sleeves and threw himself into the fray as an executive chairman. Very much the type to identify with the 'If you want a job doing properly, you'd best do it yourself' philosophy, he saw the ground bought and redeveloped while the team was rejuvenated. It's no exaggeration to state that he saved the club. And, bearing in mind how many players Yorkshire continue to provide to the national cause, it is a contribution for which all lovers of England cricket should be grateful.
Having been dragged into cricket administration, Graves then turned his attention to the wider game in England and Wales. Frustrated by England's disappointing performances in limited-overs cricket, the diminishing relevance of the sport to the wider public and the disparity between the reserves of the governing body and the debt of the first-class counties, he resolved to make a difference.
Impressing his fellow county chairmen with his dynamism, his commitment and, most of all, his not being Giles Clarke, he threw himself into the role just as others of his age and means might have been planning on more time on the beach in Barbados. And, remember, this is an unpaid role. No reasonable analysis can doubt that he entered into it full of good intentions. But we know where the road paved with good intentions leads and the first fudge of many - the first deal done in the background - was to see Clarke, who really should have been given a carriage clock and farewell party, installed as the first (and quite possibly last) president of the ECB and their representative at the ICC. It ensured he went quietly.
Graves, meanwhile, made it clear he wasn't going to hang around. While others had seen their plans bogged down by bureaucrats and committees, Graves wasn't going to enter into protracted consultations and negotiations. Even before he was officially confirmed as chairman, he told ESPNcricinfo there would be "no more outside reviews of the game while I'm chairman". He was going to seize the issues and shape them to his will. And, by giving himself a time limit of five years, he removed any temptation to prevaricate or delay. The clock was counting and he was, to put it slightly harshly, an old man in a hurry.
There was little time for face-saving departures or dignified exits. Not when a coach or team director needed sacking. So much so that the former found out when his wife read the news on Twitter and the latter, given assurances as to his future in the morning, was axed in the afternoon.
A propensity to 'say it as he sees it' - a virtue in many ways, but not always conducive to chairing a governing body - soon caused more issues. He got himself - and the board - into a fearful mess after breaking ranks and suggesting Kevin Pietersen could force his way back into the England sides. Then he provided the team talk for England's opposition ahead of their Caribbean tour in early 2015 when he suggested West Indies were a "mediocre" side. And then, on the eve of the domestic T20 competition in England and Wales - a competition that many of the counties rely upon for revenue - he produced a Gerald Ratner moment by dismissing it, too, as "mediocre".
No-nonsense? Maverick? Or simply unprofessional? Whatever. It was the seen as the inevitable flip-side of the dynamic character that the board had elected to shake things up. A price worth paying. "Yes," a fellow board member admitted to ESPNcricinfo in recent days, "there are times his enthusiasm and passion get the better of him. But it's only because he's so keen to make a difference."
Like Clarke before him, he was a successful entrepreneur who had gained success through his own efforts, energy and ingenuity. He was used to doing it himself. Again, it is an admirable quality. But it doesn't always lend itself to the more delicate, consensual nature of committee work. He wasn't running his own business any more. He was leading a highly complex body catering for wildly divergent priorities. It sometimes calls for different skills.
As progress on new projects - notably the acceptance of the new-team T20 competition - threatened to stall, more corners appear to have been cut. Andy Nash, the former Somerset chairman and, until a few days ago, an ECB board member, has claimed on his Twitter account that his club were "given to believe at the time that Taunton would feature as a co-host venue". His version of events is supported by Somerset committee members, who hosted a private presentation from Graves and ECB chief executive Tom Harrison and insist were told they would be co-hosting a team with Bristol.
Somerset also have a letter, signed by Graves, that they allege provided encouragement to their hosting aspirations. With legal exchanges having taken place, Somerset allege there were suggestions made that, should more major matches appear in the schedule (and they probably will), they will be well-placed to host them. Somerset may well accept such a compromise, but is that how business should be conducted at a national governing body?
It should be conceded that several counties were on Graves' side, but recalcitrant counties were corralled into backing the plans in a notoriously feisty meeting at Lord's in September 2016. "Back me or sack me," roared Graves as the meeting began, before putting each of the county chairmen on the spot individually. "What's it going to be?" he allegedly challenged each one as he went round the room individually. And, with the first portion of the room having backed him - cynics suggest the meeting was arranged to ensure an early lead in the voting - those who were determined to vote the other way reasoned that, rather than be martyrs to a lost cause and in doing so deny their counties the patronage that might follow, they would vote for the plans. "Intimidating" and "oppressive" were the words used to describe the performance more than once.
Is this the way democracy should be? Too hurried for due process or debate? Too certain to waste time with other opinions?
Meanwhile a valuation conducted on behalf of the ECB suggested the broadcast rights of a new-team T20 competition were vastly superior to anything achievable from the existing tournament. It was stated that annual revenues of up to GBP35 million could be anticipated for the new competition and a maximum of GBP7 million for the existing one. Such a forecast was soon made to look deeply suspicious by other valuations, but this had long since become a propaganda war and some of the counties - desperate for a few dollars more - took the bait.
And, all the while, those trusts nagged away in the background. Was it really appropriate that the chairman of the ECB had set up trusts that were owed in excess of GBP20 million by Yorkshire, the legacy of his loans to the club? Legally it was. The trusts, converted so they were run independently and no longer benefited Graves personally, were put in the names of his family members.
But morally? Instinctively? Was it right that Graves' Family Trusts were reliant upon Yorkshire's successful financial performance (and were paid hundreds of thousands of pounds of interest a year) to be serviced and repaid? Was it right the trustees retained a veto over who could join (or be voted off) the Yorkshire board?
Clearly the ECB thought it a reasonable question. For, in March 2016, they produced a statement to ESPNcricinfo guaranteeing Graves "declares an interest and abstains from any vote or decision which could be deemed a conflict of interest (as is a statutory duty)". And, while the major match allocation was rubber-stamped by the board a few weeks ago, Graves briefly left the room.
Which sounds fine. But what about all of those decisions in between times? Who was left to decide whether there might be any conflict when Durham were stripped of their right to host Test cricket, thereby reducing the competition for such games in the north of England and indirectly benefitting Yorkshire? And who was left to decide whether there might be any conflict when a meeting, chaired by Graves, rejected the working party recommendation for the future of domestic T20? Did they do so on the grounds that it may not contain the local derby games that Yorkshire, whose domestic T20 ticket sales record might be described as "mediocre", rely upon disproportionately? Instead a new competition was devised in which staging fees were agreed for - you guessed it - Yorkshire (among others). That's the same Yorkshire who were awarded Tests against both India and Australia in the recent allocation.
Let's be clear: Yorkshire are a terrific club. There is no fault of them implied or presumed. But most reasonable observers will acknowledge it is remarkable how almost every major decision made in English cricket over Graves' period in office has benefited them. And they may acknowledge, too, at least the possibility of the perception of a conflict of interest there. And while that is the case, the governance of the ECB has to be open to serious questions.
Finally, what Nash described as "the straw that broke the camel's back". The Times published details of plans to compensate the Test-hosting grounds in years they did not host Tests. While the ECB insist the plans were only at the discussion stage and would, in April, have been addressed by the board, Nash was incensed that, as a board member, he should have found out about them from the media. Furthermore, it appears Glamorgan had already received a payment and at least two other clubs had received such assurances that they had budgeted for the payments. The NTGs (non-Test Match Grounds) were furious and concerned that one of the key principles of the ECB - an equitable distribution of revenues - might have been abandoned without even the courtesy of proper discussion.
Several counties are consulting their lawyers. Preliminary advice suggests that, if payments were made, they may not comply with the ECB's own constitution (the Articles of Association state no club can be treated in a prejudicial manner) and might be considered ex-gratia and therefore unlawful. Not only might the money have to be repaid, but those who unilaterally sanctioned the payments could be held personally responsible.
In an attempt to reassure the counties, Graves addressed the chief executives in a meeting towards the end of last week. Messages exchanged by CEOs (or their deputies) during and after the meeting include the words "unconvincing", "damaged" and, most powerful of all, that "there seems to be a consensus" that he might not be telling the whole story. Meanwhile two county chairmen used the word "feudal" to describe the workings of the ECB. One of them said he couldn't be named as he feared "reprisals" against his county. Let that sink in for a moment.
In that meeting, Graves railed against "leaks". But, as Leonard Cohen put it, "there is a crack in everything: it's what lets the light in". And without those leaks, most of the cricket-loving public would have no idea what was going on in those committee rooms at Lord's. This is, after all, an administration that served the counties with ten-year non-disclosure agreements - unprecedented in a sport where the clubs are, on the whole, owned by their members and a fact that was, initially, denied by the ECB - and that claimed their research justifying the new-team T20 (even though it contradicted research conducted as part of the Morgan Review just a few years' previously) was so persuasive that no-one could deny it; it just wasn't persuasive enough to publish. And it surely speaks volumes for this ECB administration that, when they required a new communications director, they called upon Team Sky of all places.
Might all this be a conspiracy theory? Might it just be the product of the mind of a couple of overly cynical journalists? Perhaps. But when the ECB were trumpeting their improved governance - the independent board members, the new regulatory committee - they didn't mention that the chairman of the nominations committee - the man who stood at the gateway to all other committees - was (you guessed it): Colin Graves. He will also chair the 'board' (it's not really a board; it's a committee) for the new-team T20 competition.
Yes, he has plans to step aside as chairman of the nominations committee soon. And yes, there is every possibility that he took on the role to ensure it was, in his mind, fulfilled properly. But this isn't how good governance is meant to work. It isn't meant to be reliant upon the goodwill of individuals, it is meant to offer systems that ensure it through checks and balances and scrutiny. It is meant to ensure different views from diverse perspectives. Not all of them filtered through the vision of one man.
The problem has been compounded by weakness elsewhere. The PCA, currently without a chief executive, who is off sick and a deputy chief executive, whose role was not replaced when Jason Ratcliffe stood down, is lacking the authoritative voice it once had.
At a time when a prominent administrator is warning that more than 50 percent of professional players should be fearing for their jobs, that is a significant failure. The PCA needs to be mobilising now but news that David Leatherdale, the absent CEO, asked the ECB to draft his response to the introduction of the new-team T20 suggests the organisation lacks the independence it once had. In Leatherdale's absence might an interim - perhaps a predecessor such as Angus Porter, or Richard Bevan or a former deputy such as Ratcliffe - be required?
The newly independent ECB board is a mixed blessing, too. While the departure, in May, of board members who have served Surrey, Middlesex and Nottinghamshire might sound like a good plan (Nash, the former Somerset chairman, has already gone), there are legitimate questions about the cricketing expertise of the new board members. Their experience in the police, teaching and social work will, in its way, be an asset but will it allow them to provide the specific, cricket-centric scrutiny that may be required? Or might it, perhaps inadvertently, result in Graves and co. having an easy ride? Especially if he is involved in the selection of the new board members. Who, some of the 18-first-class counties, have asked, will represent them? Who will give them a voice?
Other regulatory bodies seem oddly quiet, too. A couple of individuals on parliament's Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee have shown passing interest in events at the ECB but, whether they are too busy or their eye is on more glamorous headlines, they have so far failed to act. It currently seems, as Bob Dylan put it, as if "The cops don't need you and man they expect the same". Some of the counties, too, need to have the courage to turn their whispers into roars.
More and more of late, Graves' period in office has revived memories of the last days of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair in No. 10. Leaders who are so certain of their mission and message that they have stopped listening - or caring - about views from outside the bubble. To do so would be weak. To do so would cause delays. To do so would threaten progress. And when that happens, well, it's time for a change, isn't it?
March 8 2018, 12:00am, The Times Elizabeth Ammon
The ECB chairman is facing a county rebellion after the resignation yesterday of Andy Nash, a board director, over compensation payments to Test match grounds.
Nash, the former chairman of Somerset, sent a resignation letter to Colin Graves in which he accused him of seeking to create eight elite counties at the expense of smaller clubs. He said that standards of governance were “well short of what’s acceptable”.
The Times revealed this week that Graves had promised certain Test venues payments of £500,000 for each year that they would not be hosting a Test match between next year and 2024. Some counties became aware of these payments only after reading about them in The Times. They have indicated that they now intend to call on the ECB to commission an independent investigation into what payments have been promised — or already paid — to certain counties and on what authority they were promised.
In his resignation letter to Graves, Nash said: “I’ve recently become concerned that the standards of corporate governance at the ECB are falling well short of what’s acceptable and, in all conscience, I can’t allow myself to continue to be assocated with it. I would be failing in my duty as a director if I didn’t bring these to the board’s attention and I have tried to do this.
“The current fiasco over the actual/alleged/planned payments to [Test match grounds] is an exemplar. Whether intentional or not it clearly signals to many a move to promote eight counties as the first among equals. As an ardent supporter of the 18 first-class counties, this is not a direction of travel I can live with.”
Nash was deeply concerned that giving significant amounts of money to international grounds and the counties who are hosting the new Twenty20 competition will further marginalise the ten counties who are not host venues for that new tournament. The Times understands that he had raised his concerns with another senior director, which led to a disagreement with Graves about the role of independent directors on the board.
“It has also come to my attention in the last 24 hours that my actions as a listening and conscientious non- executive director are sadly misunderstood and misinterpreted by yourself,” Nash writes. “I sincerely regret that, because all I want is the best for the game and for good governance of the ECB.”
While Graves has previously indicated that he believed international grounds should get some compensation in fallow years to allow them financial stability, there was no mention of additional payments in the recent bidding process to allocate international cricket for future years. Counties understood that any compensation would be reflected in the ticket revenue from their international matches that they would be expected to pass on to the ECB and that counties who received fewer matches would pay a lower percentage of their revenue.
For example, Lord’s is paying 50 per cent of its ticket revenue for international matches because it was awarded two Tests each year. The Oval will be paying 40 per cent because it has a Test and an ODI every year whereas the other grounds are only paying 30 per cent of ticket revenue. There was an understanding that these differentiated percentages were how counties were to be compensated.
An ECB official told The Times: “ECB can confirm that Andy Nash has resigned as a non-executive director. His resignation has been accepted and Colin Graves has thanked him for his hard work and support.”
By Sky Sports News
Last Updated: 06/03/18 1:09pm
The England Cricket Board is considering compensating cricket venues for each year they don't host a Test match between 2020 and 2024.
As reported in The Times on Tuesday, the venues would receive cash as part of proposals yet to be approved by the country's governing body.
The board recently announced the Test ground allocations which notably saw Southampton's Ageas Bowl miss out on hosting a Test match, meaning Hampshire could receive £2.5m.
Headingley, Edgbaston, The Oval, Lord's and Old Trafford have been selected to host matches in the 2023 Ashes Tests.
Nottinghamshire's Trent Bridge will host Test matches for the set period but will not stage an Ashes match in either of the next two series.
walesonline.co.uk By
Dominic BoothDigital Sports Writer
14:25, 28 FEB 2018
Glamorgan to focus on staging white-ball cricket... but England Tests could still return to Cardiff
Cardiff-based county feel one-day cricket is the best way to grow the sport in Wales
Glamorgan have told England they just want to focus on staging white ball cricket at the SSE SWALEC Stadium for the next six years.
The move comes amid reports in the Times that the Welsh county were set to receive more than £1million from the ECB in return for giving up their status as a Test venue.
One-day cricket presents a more attractive option to Glamorgan right at the moment and so formed the focus of their bid for the next batch of England internationals. The Cardiff-based county views white ball cricket as the best way to grow the game in Wales.
The move from Glamorgan as the county mirrors what has happened with two of England's leading players. Swashbuckling batsman Alex Hales and leg-spinner Adil Rashid have each said they only wish to focus on playing the one-day game.
England's exciting ODI team has won many plaudits since being overhauled in 2015 and it appears Glamorgan want to harness that buzz by attracting big crowds for white-ball games in the Welsh capital.
Test matches could yet return to Cardiff after 2024, although the only internationals to take place at the SSE SWALEC until then will be ODIs and T20s.
The ground has been allocated eight white-ball England games between 2020 and 2024, with England's more traditional Test venues sharing the five-day matches.
Prior to that, the stadium will host an England versus Australia 50-over game on June 16 this year, while India are the visitors for a T20 international in the Welsh capital on July 6. World Cup fixtures are also inked in for next summer.
Cardiff has also been selected as one of eight venues for the ECB’s new city-based T20 competition, which starts in 2020.
Glamorgan last staged a Test in 2015, the Ashes opener between England and Australia. That was played out in front of sell-out crowds for the four days.
The SSE SWALEC had previously hosted a 2011 Test between England and Sri Lanka and the 2009 first Test against Australia.
February 28 2018, 12:01am, The Times
Glamorgan are set to receive more than £1 million from the ECB in return for forfeiting their status as a Test venue.
Since redevelopment in the mid-2000s, the Swalec stadium has hosted three Tests, but none since the first match of the 2015 Ashes series. That now looks likely to be the last in Cardiff, with the county set for a payment thought to be in excess of £1 million that has been agreed as part of the venue discussions covering the five-year period from 2020 to 2024.
The Times understands that should the county bid for Tests after 2024, they may have to pay back some of the money, which will appear in their accounts due to be published next month. Cardiff will remain an international venue and has been allocated eight white-ball England matches from 2020 to 2024 as well as being one of the ten venues for next year’s World Cup.
This month, the ECB announced the venues for England’s international fixtures for the period 2020 to 2024 and made the decision that Test matches would return to the traditional venues of Lord’s, The Oval, Trent Bridge, Headingley, Edgbaston and Old Trafford. It is understood that the Glamorgan board agreed to help achieve this aim by only bidding to host ODIs, T20Is and agreeing to be a host venue for the ECB’s new T20 competition.
Glamorgan’s financial situation has been precarious since the £10 million redevelopment of the stadium before they hosted their first Test in 2009. In 2015, they benefited from a multi-million pound debt write-off by Cardiff city council, Allied Irish Bank and the former chairman Paul Russell. In 2016, in their last published accounts, they recorded a loss of more than £300,000.
The compensation package, combined with an extra £1 million in 2019 that counties will get from World Cup profits, plus an extra £1.3 million a year from 2020 from the ECB that counties will receive as a payout when the new T20 competition begins and ODI revenue, should secure Glamorgan’s financial future.
Meanwhile, Nottinghamshire have turned a £741,000 loss in 2016 to a £279,000 profit in 2017 after the return of Test cricket to Trent Bridge last July.
This is worrying as Andy Nash the ex-Somerset Chairman and voice for the 10 small counties said he knew nothing about a payment being agreed for @GlamCricket . Really disappointed he walked as he could now challenge what was said or not said but now Graves has won again.
ReplyDeleteAn added-on comment (conveniently minuted) during a tele-conference about Durham's plight (at that time). A slick mover is CG!
DeleteIt seems the ECB Chairman has got away with it. He produced from nowhere a set of minutes of a "teleconference" of county chairmen" that appears to have had unanimous agreement to pay Test Grounds not staging Tests. But did it agree to payment to Glamorgan not to bid ?
ReplyDeleteSo an ECB director - ANOTHER ECB director - resigns citing concerns over governance and the ECB issue a press release suggesting it's procedural. Stop looking at Australia, England supporters. You've trouble closer to home
ReplyDeleteDespite courage of Richard Thompson, last 2 days a crushing victory for Colin Graves over County/Test cricket. Independent inquiry re money to Glamorgan, but by whom/when? New ECB Board his people, new "T20 Board" only 2 county reps, chaired by CG. It is cricketing dictatorship
ReplyDelete