Franchise Debate: Ctricket and Money

14/05

Cricket needs money to exist, but it doesn’t exist just to make money. 
Alan Higham.
The Guardian.
Tuesday, 14 May 2024.
PTG 4510-21821.

Selling stakes in the Hundred teams to private equity is a seismic moment in cricket’s history.  It points to a future where profit trumps all other factors (PTG 4496-21765, 28 April 2024). There is no detail on how the sale makes cricket more sustainable and accessible. Most of the new money will surely go on higher player and executive pay. Private equity won’t care whether more young people play the game or whether top players can help England win the Ashes.

English cricket is said to be broke but, taking in the England and Wales Cricket Board, 18 county teams and the Marylebone Cricket Club, it has an income of £UK600 million ($A1.1 billion) a year, more than double that of five years ago. A hard look at costs and spending priorities so that all stakeholders broadly support the direction of travel is surely the right action before selling the silver.

A deal needs 14 county chairs to agree, but 11 are more concerned about their and the wider game’s place in this bright new future. Many cricket bosses are set to deny fans any vote, but 15 chairs are elected by their county members. In member-controlled counties, the members have a vital role holding the bosses to account.  Members across counties big and small are far more united to safeguard the wider game’s future. We aren’t blind to the challenges and are willing to embrace change and compromise. We take our duty as custodians seriously and want to be part of the discussion. Cricket needs money to exist, but it doesn’t exist just to make money. 

12/05

SOMEONE CHECKED ON ALL THE FINANCES for every county

09/05

Bumbling Master Plan

Selling the Summer Away - Guardian Article

07/05

A desire to attract the best overseas players in the world is among several reasons underpinning the ECB's plan to sell equity stakes in Hundred teams to private investors later this year. Richard Gould, the ECB's chief executive, said last month that there is a "strong consensus that we would like to see private investment come into the Hundred".

The ECB have been meeting counties regularly and hope they will agree on a direction of travel this week.

MLC 2024 Clash with H*ndred dates

There is an article in The Cricketer that reports on the counties discussions (hidden behind their paywall).

They've advertised this article with:

The Hundred hosts send a warning shot to smaller counties which could splinter English cricket

Stalling talks and threats of a breakaway:

Has anyone got access to this publication? Is this just clickbait, or are the eight H*ndred host going all out for a money grab at the expense of the ten other counties?

Surrey's chair is said to have distanced himself from such comments.

Notts' chair remains quiet.

06/05

Do Stake Holders Want Private Investment in The H*ndred?

"I'm wouldn't believe everything you read in the press" said by Mick Newell in a podcast interview  is the only thing uttered in public by any Notts senior staffer on the topic of a decision having to be made at the end of this week.

However, Lancashire have had frank and open discussions with some members on this topic and the topic was also referenced by the Warwickshire CEO also on air (see below).

So a decision is being made in three or four days time, it's just that the Notts members are being left out of the Nottinghamshire decision making, that being left to unelected committee members and members of staff, some of which may have a conflict of interest.

This flies in the face of assurances made by Chair Andy Hunt and our CEO in December, who have failed to carry through those same assurances to inform and engage with members "in the first quarter" of 2024.

05/05

Kevin Howells talk with Alan Higham 

Interview at around 2.19.30

Discussion on TalkSport

Lunchtime interview by Kevin Howells on 5Live SportsExtra from Day 4,

linked here

Go on to the Watch and Listen tab then follow John's instructions below:

If you start at around 13:22 (i.e. 2:26 of the 8:10) you will hear first the Warks CEO being interviewed and then George Dobell of The Cricketer….it makes very interesting listening.

’Totally mad conspiracy theories’ circulating on future of counties, says ECB chief.

Tim Wigmore.

London Daily Telegraph.

Wednesday, 3 April 2024.

PTG 4477-21696.

England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) chief executive Richard Gould has hit out at ‘totally mad conspiracy theories’ regarding the future of county cricket, dismissing claims “Luddite” members are holding them back, and rejecting claims it had any desire to reduce the number of first-class counties from 18, the number it has been since Durham joined the County Championship in 1992.  Gould pointed out that while football and rugby had lost professional clubs in recent years, “We’re the one professional sport that hasn’t lost a club” and that in five years’ time, “I really do think we will have 18 first-class counties”.

Durham’s chief executive Tim Bostock made the “Luddite” claim in 'Batting for Time: The Fight to Keep English Cricket Alive'; a new book about the current state of the county game by Ben Bloom. Durham are one of three privately owned counties who are not answerable to members, of which there are around 60,000 across the country (PTG 4471-21675, 26 March 2024).  Such "comments [are ones] that I would recognise or agree with”, said Gould. “This is not our feeling, not our perception. So no, they’re not helpful comments. I think the Luddite comment was from about 18 months ago”.

Gould said that representatives from Durham were on the phone within 30 minutes of the comments being published and that the size of the professional structure should be seen as a strength of the English game. “The depth of our talent pool, both in terms of men and women, is our superpower at the moment”, he said. “You can see that having more teams and more players and more depth to our talent pool is ideal.  It’s where we want to be. It increases competition. It provides more opportunity for talent to come through, so I don’t see any backward step in terms of 18 first-class counties”.

Research by the ECB found that 75 England-qualified players featured in overseas franchise tournaments over the northern winter. Pakistan, who have the next most players in overseas leagues, had 45 players who feature in foreign leagues.  “We want to see the very best players playing in all of our domestic competitions, both men and women, county and franchise. And so the more talent the better if it increases the quality that we’ve got”, Gould said.

ECB now seeking private investment in the Hundred teams.
BBC Sport.
Wednesday, 3 April 2024.
PTG 4477-21697.

The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) is "starting to pursue" private investment in eight The Hundred teams, says chief executive Richard Gould.  The Hundred, a 100-ball tournament launched in 2021, is currently funded by the ECB, with capital filtered down to the associated counties.  Gould said discussions had led to investment being sought at team level rather than in the tournament itself.

Private investment in cricket has grown with the owners of Indian Premier League (IPL) teams - the world's biggest franchise league - investing in sides in South Africa, the United States and the United Arab Emirates (PTG 4450-21588, 1 March 2024).  Gould told BBC Sport: "The Hundred is a good vehicle for private investment to come into the game [and] we're looking at how that might manifest itself” (PTG 4471-21675, 26 March 2024). 

“We’re working through the options of what that could potentially look like in terms of how control revenue capital is shared”, said Gould, and "discussions remain ongoing about the proportion of clubs that could be up for sale". He said interest in teams has come from the United States as well as India  “We will work that one through - our interests won’t just be with IPL franchises”, Gould said. “We have got a lot of interesting sports owners from the States and from this country. So we’ll be looking at all those options”, but no timeframe had been put on the next stages of the work involved”.

Gould said he had no indication that Indian players could be permitted to play in the Hundred. “It’s not something that we are working into our proceedings”, he said, admitting though that the absence of Indian players impacted how much the ECB could earn from Indian broadcasters. “I think Indian broadcast money generally follows Indian players”, said Gould.

The ECB has invested a further £UK100,000 ($A193,180) in salaries for the women's game for 2024, but both the men's and women's players earn significantly less than in franchise tournaments in India, which has made it difficult to attract the world's best overseas players. "Most of our counties are privately-owned members clubs. That has provided a great stable base for a number of decades but, sometimes, in order to be able to compete on a global scale we need to bring in private investment also”, said Gould at a launch event before the new English domestic season starts on Friday. 

The Hundred was created by the ECB to attract a more diverse audience and to fit into shorter broadcast slots. A record 580,000 fans attended matches in 2023, with 41 percent of tickets sold to families and 30 percent to women. However, the tournament has faced criticism from traditional cricket fans, who are unhappy with how some of the 18 counties are represented in the tournament.  The eight Hundred sides see counties combined, such as Yorkshire and Durham at Northern Superchargers, but others face lengthy journeys with fans of Somerset and Gloucestershire having Cardiff-based Welsh Fire as their nearest side. 

Asked if there was a danger that investment at team level may result in money being harder to filter down and teams feeling more marginalised, Gould said he did not think that was the case. "The way that our sport is organised and governed, everything under one umbrella, does allow us to make sure that any money that is available is invested in the area that is most appropriate and where we'll get the most return”, said Gould (PTG 4442-21561, 24 February 2024). 

The ECB are committed to the Hundred tournament until 2028 in a broadcast deal with Sky Sports, and Gould feels investment will take the tournament to new levels over the next five years.  "The excitement levels will significantly increase”, he said.  "We'll be able to make sure we retain and attract all the best players in the world and have a game that either broadcasters, supporters or new fans want to be involved with. I'm very excited by what that could bring for the whole ecosystem of cricket, whether that is franchise led teams or county clubs”.

Sam Billings, who captained Oval Invincibles to the 2023 men's title, told BBC Sport: "We want to be the second-best competition in the world, so it is how we do that.  It might be a partnership, and that is a really key word, because if it is and it is always invested back into the fabric of our game then those are the key components, because ultimately we still want the English game to be incredibly strong in 50-100 years”.

02/04

Middlesex CEO Excited by Foreign Investment

01/04

Not an April Fool BTW

A summary of the current state of play, posted by Alan Higham on County Cricket Matters

SALE OF THE HUNDRED

Member forums at MCC, Surrey, Lancashire and Essex have explained some of the discussions the counties are having with the ECB about selling stakes in the Hundred teams. The Hundred competition is not for sale though offers have reportedly been made.

 

There aren’t yet firm proposals for the counties to vote on. To make changes 14 of the 18 counties need to agree. 

Background

The Hundred is owned and run by the ECB on behalf of the sport. The first class counties and MCC through their ownership of the ECB have 1/19th each of 90% of the competition with the recreational game including the National Counties having 10%.

London teams are thought to be worth much more than the others.  For this reason, a third London team is being considered if two more teams are created in five years.

Reports suggest the eight Hundred teams could be worth £400m in total, if so then each county’s share is worth £19m.  

The teams are worth what someone is willing to pay, which in turn will depend on how much control new owners gain over crucial cricketing and commercial decisions.

Proposals

The proposals shared at member forums suggest something along the lines of:

• ECB sells 30% stake in all teams, keeping 20%

• Give 50% of the team to its host county/MCC . 

• Distribute some of the proceeds to the 18 counties, MCC and recreational game.

• Spend some centrally to improve making cricket a game for everyone.

Host counties/MCC are free to decide whether to sell some of their 50% stake. ECB and Hundred host to collaborate on the choice of new owners.

What does this mean in practice?

Assume Manchester Originals is worth £50m and Oval Invincibles is worth £100m, then:

• Lancashire CCC’s share of the Hundred becomes worth £35m from £19m.

• Surrey’s share becomes worth around £60m from £19m.

• Non-hosting 11 counties go from having a £19m share to £9m. They might get c. £5m of this in cash in the near future leaving them with just a small interest.

LCCC presented this to its members as a windfall to be grabbed. It is actually an asset strip of c.£10m from each of the 11 of the non-Hundred hosting counties.  Challenged on the adverse impact for the wider game, LCCC said it is committed to an 18 county system but CEO Daniel Gidney compared some of the smaller counties to “heroin addicts” for their wasteful spending priorities neglecting their pathways. 

One imagines that the non-Hundred hosting counties have noticed the £10m loss along with the superior attitude of certain major counties.  It only needs 5 of the 11 to say ‘No’ and the whole thing is dead in the water. 

Surrey confirmed that it will retain full operational & financial control of their team. LCCC avoided mentioning any specific goals but hinted at offsetting its risk by possibly selling some of its stake.  If it sold 20% of MO for say £10m then that could pay off its most expensive debt. 

Consequences for the wider game & county brands

The Hundred hosting counties are expected to take over running costs from the ECB and help turn the loss-making competition into a profitable one for the benefit of the wider game.

LCCC feel they can run MO more effectively but the main hope is that external investment will fund higher player salaries, which in turn improves the quality of the competition leading to higher broadcast revenues. Sporting TV rights are on a downward trend but if the IPL invested then that potentially opens up a lucrative new audience.  

LCCC want any deal with new private owners to give it a significant say in how MO is run on the cricket side. Mark Chilton hopes he can attract and retain key players for LCCC by offering MO and LCCC contracts combined. 

That might work, it might not. New owners could actually insist that players only played for the counties when it suits them just like the ECB with central contracts.  More star names might be on the books but appear rarely on the field for the county.

Surrey plan to re-name the Oval Invincibles to Surrey should they get control which went down well with members in the room. LCCC rejected any idea that it might change MO name to “Lancashire Originals”.  The Manchester brand is staying: regardless of how many Lancastrians this alienates. Recently LCCC officials have started using “Red Rose” rather than “Lancashire” in meetings/interviews and marketing blurb.  The entrance to the ground features Manchester Originals logos more prominently than Lancashire Cricket not just for the 4 home games in August but 365 days a year. Concerns that the Lancashire board were more interested in growing Manchester Originals than promoting LCCC were dismissed as a conspiracy theory.

Impact on schedule & first class cricket

No-one has been able to say what level of control on key decisions will be given to new owners. It is a vital detail that is more complex than simply having 51% ownership. Private owners could have just 30% ownership yet negotiate control over crucial commercial and cricket decisions.

Surrey and Lancashire both insist that the Hundred will be kept to a 3.5 week window.  Media reports suggest an extension to 6 weeks is being discussed.  

Surrey said to help the smaller counties, the Blast will be prioritised for weekends in the rest of the summer.  The net result is likely to be hardly any first class county cricket in June, July or August. There is a 7 week summer break this season in July and August. 

When pressed about the plans to preserve a vibrant first class system that generates players for Test cricket (which provides most of the money in the game), it turns out that the counties and ECB aren’t talking about it. The sole focus seems to be the cash from selling the Hundred teams. Discussions have just commenced on what will be played alongside the Hundred in future. 

Surrey’s chairman promised in his election manifesto to protect the County Championship and play it throughout the summer. 

Further discussions before decisions

Surrey expected things to move to a decision by the start of the new season but word from other counties suggest sufficient agreement isn’t that close. They would be guided on any decisions by its General Committee made up entirely of Surrey members elected by its members without any Nominations Committee barring members from standing.

LCCC promised more member forums as discussions advanced and more explanation of the financial analysis the Board has done but does not plan to give members any form of a vote. They begged members not to call a SGM because of the money they would then spend on trying to persuade members to vote in favour of their proposals. 

Summary

The changes may benefit the big counties and the MCC financially but they seem to come at a cost to the wider county game especially first class cricket.  Smaller counties dependent on ECB distributions via the County Partnership Agreement are in a difficult position. 

No wonder the changes have been labelled as “Strauss by Stealth”! 

The CCMG strongly feels that member-controlled counties should have full, open discussions to allow members’ views to be respected. Far from being Luddites, Fleas or Heroin Addicts, county members are not blind to the challenges facing the sport and are open to considering proposals for change. If the ideas are good enough, then the bosses shouldn’t shy away from scrutiny and accountability. 

The hard-line stance taken by LCCC means a petition to hold a SGM at Lancashire already has well over the minimum number of signatories. The CCMG continues to lobby the LCCC board to agree to hold a members’ meeting with a vote.

31/03

The H*ndred, where next? Ben Bloom plugging away on Cricinfo this time

28/03

Ben Bloom plugging his book, 'Batting for Time: The Fight to Keep English Cricket Alive', in a Guardian article [linked here] featuring a chat with Ashley Giles.

26/03

It's not much of debate as one side is being deprived of a voice or information whilst the other side has descended to name calling...

Thankfully most counties have the safeguard of membership ownership, but we have seen at Yorkshire how Members' sensible decision can be thrown out of the window, once words like debt and huge investment are banded about.

‘Luddite members will kill county cricket unless they allow change’ – Durham chief executive

Nick Hoult.
London Daily Telegraph.
Tuesday, 26 March 2024.
PTG 4471-21675.

A string of senior county figures believe privatisation is inevitable in England and Wales and have hit out at what one described as “Luddite” members holding county clubs back in a new book published this week titled 'Batting for Time: The Fight to Keep English Cricket Alive'.  Written by former sports journalist Ben Bloom, the book contains warnings from a number of club chief executives that the game is at a “fragile time” in its history.

Tim Bostock, the chief executive of Durham, leads the calls to lessen the influence of county members.  His club is one of only three counties that are privately owned and so is not answerable to members.  He has in the past talked about lining up Saudi investment in Durham while Hampshire, another privately owned club, have attracted interest from the part-owners of the Delhi Capitals Indian Premier League franchise, who have been in talks with the club’s former chair, and majority stakeholder, Rod Bransgrove (PTG 4450-21558, 1 March 2024).  

All that comes at a time when the game is discussing the sale of equity in the Hundred franchises which could in turn lead to some counties considering outside offers and private ownership.  An article in 'The Cricketer' magazine recently revealed that five counties have needed emergency financial help from the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) over the past two years and that an average of 47 percent of clubs’ revenue is generated by payments from the governing body.   Some smaller counties, Worcestershire (63 percent), Middlesex (64 percent), Leicestershire (65 percent), and Gloucestershire (60 percent) – are higher.  

A member revolt two years ago was partly responsible for sinking the Andrew Strauss review into the domestic structure which recommended cutting the number of championship matches, which are popular with members who are also, by and large, unsupportive of the Hundred.  Under current proposals being discussed, the grounds that host Hundred franchises will be handed 51 per cent equity stakes to sell, with 49 per cent retained by the ECB. If the ECB sells its stake, the money will be split across the whole game. If the club sells its stake, it will keep the money, which could run into hundreds of millions for some (PTG 4429-21509, 11 February 2024).

Bostock says in the new book: “Members don’t realise that what they are trying to say will kill the game. We’re running a multi-million-pound professional sport and yet the long-term, big decisions are made by a handful of... I don’t want to call them activists because they will get on their high horse, but they are effectively activists.  Of all the millions of people who watch cricket in an English summer, the whole structure is being dictated to by what might only be about 10,000 people. You’ve got chairmen threatened with removal if they don’t do what a small handful of Luddites say – and they are Luddites.  I just don’t know how they think it will survive without radical change. We’ve ended up with the lowest common denominator ruling the day”.

Will Brown, the chief executive of Gloucestershire, who is hoping to fund a ground move away from Bristol over the next decade, said about county membership: “You do get that passion, heart and love, but I don’t know if it’s the model for the future.  If county cricket was run the way the membership would like it to be run it wouldn’t be sustainable – even down to not having music or replay screens in the T20 Blast because it detracts from the cricket. I’m being facetious but there is potential for disconnection.  Within the next five years I can see private equity ownership of maybe half the counties, if not more. The minute the first couple go – beyond what Hampshire, Northants and Durham have done previously – the rest will follow”.

Ashley Giles, the chief executive of Worcestershire, said: “Can we maintain and sustain this model? I don’t know. The way the gap is widening between counties, we need to find a way to future-proof ourselves. I don’t think there has ever been a more fragile time for the whole game”.

Simon Harmer, who has years of experience of county cricket at Essex, supports a reduction in members’ influence. Harmer is South African and in his home country the SA T20, launched last year, has been a huge success but led to South Africa picking a third string team for a recent Test tour to New Zealand.  In his view: “In an ideal world you wouldn’t want member-run clubs. It probably breeds an average culture. In an ideal world you would want your club run by cricket people who understand both the cricket and financial side of what goes into a successful county team. I don’t think there would be as much politics, and it would be better for the game”.

Support for the member structure remains strong at the top of the ECB with Richard Gould, the chief executive, believing the fans should have a voice. Gould greatly expanded Surrey’s membership when he was chief executive at the Oval and is cautious of giving up too much control to private finance as he spearheads the Hundred buyout plan.

He said: “When I’ve got clubs moaning that their members want them to do something that they don’t, often it’s clubs that have neglected their membership base. Some clubs have seen them as difficult to deal with. The problem is that the smaller number you’ve got, the more outspoken some of them will be in a smaller pond. More members means more diverse voices, more opinions and it’s much easier to reflect the region.  Although the cricket membership model may be a bit slower to react, the facts are that it provides a much more stable model for clubs in the community”.

Tim Bostock according to wikipedia

Ned Ludd according to Wikipedia

16/03

Will Cosham wrote:

For my third-year dissertation, I'm conducting an interesting bit of research into "The effects of the growth of cricket franchises on cricket in the UK."

As part of this, I have created a questionnaire that should take just 10 minutes to explore the current outlook on franchise cricket around the world and how it may affect the county game in the near future.

If you could spare some time to fill it in and share it with local cricket team groupchats or just with anyone you believe would be interested in helping out with this research, it would be greatly appreciated and hopefully may highlight to these franchises the thoughts of the UK fanbase.

Take the Questionnaire

Thank you for your help

11/03

Notts County Cricket Members Group

At the recent AGM, the Notts top table felt the discussions with the ECB were at too early a stage to be sure what the implications were but there is a commitment to keep members informed once firmer proposals emerge.

It was clear from details disclosed at member events at Surrey and Lancashire that the plans to sell the Hundred pose a medium term threat to county cricket.  The idea is that the Hundred is kept within its 3.5 week window in August and the Blast is given more priority going forward. With 7 host counties being offered 50.1% of the Hundred team this is a major giveaway from the smaller counties to the bigger counties. The domination of 5 ball and 6 ball T20 cricket is going to have implications for the schedule.  It is likely that very little first class cricket will be played in June, July and August. There is a 7 week break this year in July and August.

We want to be able to keep all members up to date with developments as they emerge as it is fair to say there are no firm proposals at the moment.

To manage the work involved, Nick Evans will be running the e mail updates for Notts members. I am doing the same at Lancashire and coordinating efforts nationally.  We welcome any volunteers to help out when the time comes to spread the messages.

Alan Higham

nottsccmg@send.mailchimpapp.com

27/02

Nothing on this hot potato was learned from the Nottinghamshire AGM last night. Chair Hunt made an inference that might have been to this topic but as there were no proposals to the counties he shut the non-discussion down before it started.

We still don't know where this Chair really sits on the subjects of First Class cricket, the congested schedule, the future of the H*ndred and this guy is supposed to represent the wishes of the membership in ongoing talks with fellow Chairs, CEOs and the ECB. Into his second year as Chair and so far he's been very coy, made some right noises but has given nothing away, apart from the name of the Pavilion End, that is!

The Grumbler No. 114

ECB refuses $US1 billion proposal for the Hundred from IPL founder.
Nick Hoult.
London Daily Telegraph.
Saturday, 17 February 2024.
PTG 4434-21532.

The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) has turned down a proposal for the Hundred from Lalit Modi, the founder of the Indian Premier League (IPL), who values the competition at $US1 billion ($A1.53bn, £UK793.6m).  Modi’s representatives met recently with Vikram Banerjee, the ECB’s director of operations, who is de facto head of the Hundred, and chief executive Richard Gould, to lay out a 10-year proposal to buy the Hundred and fund it through private investment. 

However, it is understood the ECB will not be pursuing talks with Modi with a formal offer and figure yet to be put on the table. It is not interested in selling the competition as a whole because it fears losing control of the peak months of the season and worry dealing with Modi would jeopardise its relationship with the Board of Control for Cricket in India.  Modi was banned for life by the BCCI in 2013 for “serious misconduct and indiscipline” related to bids for two new franchises in 2010 (PTG 1198-5767, 30 September 2013). 

Modi was forced to leave India and has lived in London since.  The ECB turned down a similar offer last year from the Bridgepoint Group worth £UK400m (£UK772m) for a 75 per cent stake in the Hundred (PTG 4349-21176, 21 November 2023).  At the time, Richard Thompson, the ECB’s chairman, said he would only consider offers of a “few billion” and since then the ECB has pursued a strategy of selling equity in the teams, with the board retaining ownership of the competition.

Modi said he has lined up investors willing to pump money into a 10-team tournament but told the ECB the Hundred format does not work and should be converted into a Twenty20 competition instead.  He says his competition would include a team purse of up to $US10m ($A15.3m, £UK7.9m) every season, putting wages on a similar level to the IPL. He put the value of the Hundred at $US100m ($A153.1m,  £UK79.4m) a year over 10 years and says the franchises should be English-owned and English-run with minimal input from India. In his view, the ECB should sell no more than two franchises to IPL teams in order for it to keep its English identity and not turn into another version of the IPL.

Modi has been working on his plan for English cricket for the past 18 months and believes its scale would make the competition second only to the IPL in terms of financial clout, and the windfall would guarantee the future of the counties for a generation. The ECB’s plan to sell equity, by its own estimate, will bring in a tenth of what Modi is confident he can deliver. However, the ECB wants to retain control of the competition and the high summer window.

Modi’s plan would be for the competition to run from July 1 to Aug 15. He said: “I would give them a guarantee of a billion dollars.  A lot of people have been in touch with me interested in backing it and I made a proposal to the ECB but it had a lot of conditions. The Hundred format does not work and there should only be two franchises sold to Indian buyers. It will only work if it is an English competition and not Indo-centric”.

Modi set up the IPL in 2008 and latest estimates put its brand value at $US10.7bn ($A16.4bn, £UK8.5bn), a growth of more than 400 per cent since it started. Its media rights were sold in 2022 for more than $US6bn ($A9.2bn, £UK4.8bn).  The ECB believes it can raise £UK100m ($A192.8m) from selling equity in the teams and consultation is ongoing with the counties to change the constitution to allow private ownership of the eight Hundred clubs (PTG 4429-21509, 11 February 2024).

Franchise free-for-all compromises players’ incentives.
Matt Roller.
Cricinfo.
Tuesday, 13 February 2024.
PTG 4432-21522.

You are a T20 cricketer, who has spent the last three weeks at a franchise league playing for a team which has performed below expectations. Your final group game is approaching, and only a win will be enough to take you through to next week's knockout stages - but you have a dilemma.  Your agent has been on the phone, and tells you that a team in another league is looking for a replacement for a player who has left on international duty. You are their first choice, but the deal could fall through unless you are available next week. 

How does that knowledge affect your mentality heading into your must-win group game?  Similar scenarios have been cropping up on a daily basis this month: whenever a team was eliminated from the SA20, their overseas stars hopped on flights to Dubai or Dhaka to play in the ILT20 or Bangladesh Premier league (BPL). More than a dozen players - including Sam Curran, Liam Livingstone and Jimmy Neesham - have made appearances in more than one league already this month.

For the economically rational cricketer, the financial incentives are clear: early elimination from one league is likely to open up an extra week of availability for another, maximising overall earning opportunities. Any situation where it might be in a players' interests for their team to lose should cause alarm; an official at one franchise describes it as "the sign of a broken sport”.  There is no suggestion that any player has deliberately underperformed in one league in order to ensure their availability for another. But, as one agent puts it: "It's a bizarre thing to have in the back of your mind”. The blame lies not with the players, who are making the most of cricket's T20 boom, but with the administrators who have let an unregulated market mutate.

There are other bewildering scenarios for players who represent affiliates of one Indian franchise yet play in the Indian Premier League (IPL) itself for another. Last month, Nicholas Pooran made his debut for Durban's Super Giants - the South African offshoot of his IPL team, Lucknow - against MI Cape Town.  His stint lasted three matches: nine days later, he played for - and captained - MI Emirates in Dubai.

The status quo does not work for fans, regardless of their preferences. Purists lament the demise in bilateral international cricket's status, but even younger fans who have grown up with leagues are poorly served. Is there any meaningful way in which to follow - let alone support - a franchise whose squad changes every other day, often without any public announcement?

The six ILT20 franchises cycled through 129 players - the vast majority of them from overseas - in 30 group games this season. The seven BPL franchises have used 133 between them in the first 28 matches; that number will grow further this week when Keshav Maharaj plays for Fortune Barishal, even while South Africa's understrength Test side are playing New Zealand.

The fundamental issue is that five competitions - the Big Bash LeagueL, SA20, ILT20, BPL and the Pakistan Super League - stage at least a portion of their season between late January and late February. The problem has been exacerbated during this cycle by the World Cup, which ran until 19 November 19, will be again in 2024-25 with the Champions Trophy set to start in early February. Everyone wants a window, but there is not space for all of them (PTG 4431-21514, 13 February 2024.

There are some attempts to find a resolution. FICA, the Federation of International Cricketers' Associations, will invite players to a global scheduling symposium in the second half of this year. "Current players' collective views are critical”, says Tom Moffat, FICA's chief executive. "They are at the coalface, and should be at the centre of these conversations.  This is ultimately a scheduling issue… the same national governing bodies who control international cricket scheduling also own most of the domestic leagues”.

"As difficult as it is to achieve, if global scheduling was built around clearer scheduling windows for international cricket, and therefore the leagues, it would provide more clarity, enable appropriate balance, and naturally line the leagues up more symmetrically”.  The solution must involve collaboration - exemplified by the Caribbean Premier League's successful avoidance of a clash with the Hundred in its 2024 window - as well as long-term thinking. It is a curiosity that the windows for leagues are often vague until weeks before they start, and that they are airbrushed out of the Future Tours Program (FTP) despite dictating so much else.

But the men's international schedule is effectively locked in until March 2027 through the FTP, and cricket's administrators cannot wait that long to address the perverse incentives that leagues have created. Instead, boards must find collective regulatory solutions to these problems which can then be presented for approval at International Cricket Council level. 

ECB plans to auction off Hundred teams to raise £UK100m.
Elizabeth Ammon.
London Times.
Saturday, 10 February 2024.
PTG 4429-21509.

The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) hopes to raise £UK100 million ($A193.6m) by holding an auction to sell off a stake in each of the eight Hundred franchises. The money generated from private investment will be given back to the 18 first-class counties and the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) in a one-off windfall payment, which could be as much as £UK5m ($A9.7m) each, while a further sum of up to £UK10m ($A19.4m) will be directed to the grassroots game.

Consultations about changes to the Hundred are continuing with the counties and MCC, but it is hoped an agreement will be reached by the end of next month. Key to the competition’s future is changing the ownership model of the eight existing teams, with 51 per cent of the ownership to be transferred to the host venue and the remaining 49 per cent to stay under ECB control. The intention would be to sell some or all of the ECB stake to private investors via an auction, which could take place as early as September this year.

A portion of the income generated from the auction, possibly 10 per cent, will be distributed to the recreational game and the remainder split between the 18 first-class counties and MCC. A suggested £UK5m ($A9.7m) windfall is almost as much as the total annual turnover of some of the smaller counties and could prove to be too enticing for them to reject, even if it restricts their opportunity to be part of the Hundred in the future.

It is unlikely that there will be any expansion beyond the eight teams until 2029 — after the broadcast deal runs out in 2028 — with the focus in the interim period being on getting external investment into the game, which in turn would allow for a large increase in the value of player contracts from 2025 onwards. Each of the eight host venues — Edgbaston, Old Trafford, Headingley, Lord’s, Sophia Gardens, the Rose Bowl (Hampshire), the Oval and Trent Bridge — will then be free to sell off some of their 51 per cent stake in the team to other private investors, although some have already stated they would not want to do that, preferring to retain complete control of their branding, name and marketing.

Under this proposed model, the host venues would take over responsibility for tickets, merchandise, marketing and branding, which is done by the ECB at present. However, it is not expected that it will result in a significant increase in the amount of annual revenue they get from the competition until a new broadcasting deal is secured, which, if the value of player contracts rises significantly and therefore the best global players are attracted, could rise.

As well as the £UK5m ($A9.7m) one-off cash injection from the autumn auction, the counties will continue to receive an annual dividend from the tournament, which is currently £UK1.3m ($A2.5m), although that will be dependent on the value of the next broadcast deal. After 2028, it is likely that the tournament will expand in size to ten teams, although it is still not out of the question that all 18 counties could be involved in a two-tier competition with some element of promotion and relegation. Such discussions can, though, be put on hold if the ECB get broad agreement next month to stick with the existing eight teams and sell off the equity stakes, letting that system bed in before any expansion takes place.

The injection of private capital into the competition will allow for a rise in the value of player contracts. This is deemed vital to the future success of the Hundred, which is in competition with other franchise tournaments that offer better pay, allowing it to attract the best international players and make further progress towards gender pay parity.

There's an Essex supporter, The Grumbler, that makes some provocative comments on his blog:

Read it here or Subscribe here to his newsletter

The thoughts of Hampshire members would be interesting..........

9/12

DO WE NEED TO WAKE UP?

Is Dave Gunn, now a committee member, on the case? 

Where does the new Nottinghamshire General Committee Chair sit on this serious matter? Mr Hunt hasn't given the membership any assurances or consulted members in any open, democratic or public manner, yet he gets to vote on our behalf. Have the promises to the membership by former chair, Mr Moore, been conveniently forgotten. Ownership, as explained below, will impact future schedules so where are the updates from Nottinghamshire CCC to its owners / the members?

What The County Cricket members Group ask:

CONCERNS ABOUT PRIVATE INVESTMENT IN THE HUNDRED

The ECB have clearly stated their ambition to bring private investment into domestic cricket.  Likely buyers are said to be IPL franchise owners, oil-states and hyper wealthy people looking to own their own franchise cricket team.  How it is done is being discussed in private with county bosses with many different options.  

At the moment the ECB is answerable to the 18 first class counties, MCC and the national counties.  Changes impacting the domestic cricket structure or schedule needs 12 out of 18 counties to agree.  Changes to the Hundred are thought to require 14 out of the 18 counties to agree (though some reports say that might only be 12). 15 of the 18 counties are controlled by their members as they have the power to appoint and remove the board.

Why seek private investment?

• Funding more women’s cricket with better pay until such time it grows to be commercially viable on its own terms.  

• Improving access at grassroots to reach more disadvantaged communities

• Paying higher wages to compete with global franchise leagues 

• Paying down debt

It is easy to forget that the ECB had £335m of revenues plus the revenues of the 18 counties and the MCC.  There is a lot of money in our game. Just 5 years ago the ECB made only £125m so the money has increased a lot. 

Is it about control?

Whatever the motive, the consequence is that control of cricket will pass over to the new owners alongside the ECB.   It may take time and several steps but those putting huge sums in will want effective control of key aspects such as

• When and for how long the Hundred is played

• Who plays in it

• Who runs it, decisions on TV rights etc

Is it cynical to think the main motive is actually to transfer control of cricket away from the counties and their members to the ECB and private owners?

He who pays the Piper Calls The Tune!  

This summer, there’s no championship cricket from 4 July to 22 August. Last summer there was not a single first class cricket match in the whole of August.

It is easy to see that players contracted to the 100 on new higher pay will be restricted from playing for other teams.  Instead of England releasing its players, permission will be needed to play for England. Will there be Test cricket in peak summer?

IPL ownership might bring higher TV revenues from India, Indian superstar players and other world class players.  All this will come at a price.  As ICC TV rights have increased in value, the Indian board has insisted that the lion share is retained by India because Indian cricket fans are the ones funding it all.   

There is talk about expanding the Hundred so that in time there can be a team for every county (except Middlesex???).  But TV rights are more valuable if the league is just 8 teams with all the best players.  If there is a second division with promotion and relegation then the elite teams are less valuable to investors.  

Do we want important decisions being made mainly for profit reasons? 

Key questions to ask about these proposals

1. What do we need the money for?

2. Why sell for a lump sum now rather than banking all of the future profits?

3. Can we make better use of our current income?

4. What control will we lose as a result?

5. What is the impact for counties especially those who don’t host a Hundred team?

6. What happens to the £1.3m annual payments to counties

7. Can an 18 team Hundred exist alongside counties playing the Blast?

8. What stops further expansion until it consumes and controls all cricket?

Cricket fans deserve honest answers to all these questions before any decision is taken.  Selling stakes in teams that are given all the best conditions to flourish must inevitably condemn the counties to a permanent second tier existence if indeed they continue to exist.

Football fans rejected the ESL because competition, history and integrity mattered more than money.

County governance

If the counties were to be bought instead of the Hundred teams then county members would have to vote 75% in favour with at least 50% of members voting amongst the 15 member owned counties.

Far easier to just move all the best parts into the new teams and lean on county chairs dependent on the national team’s money to vote for it.  

County members are cricket’s independent guardians. They appoint the boards & chair who in turn oversee professional managers running the game. Before these fundamental & irreversible changes to who controls and benefits from cricket are made, county members must agree to them and not have them imposed against their will just like when the 100 was created.

The County Cricket Members Group is a voluntary group of concerned members who want our counties to grow, thrive and improve.  We recognise the need to change as the world changes. We encourage cricket lovers to join their local county and become involved. We say this to our county chiefs.

Talk to your members openly and honestly about the pros and cons of these proposals.  Listen to your members’ concerns and respect their wishes if they are not persuaded. 

What Alan said to the Lancashire chair:

The following email to the Lancashire chair and member board rep. Chris Peacock was sent on 22 November.

Dear Andy and Chris

The newspaper speculation on what is being discussed with county CEOs and chairs prompts this email.

We already have a commitment to hold a members meeting and vote on any proposed domestic schedule changes requiring a chairs’ vote but there is nothing in place for a chairs' vote on extending the Hundred or changing the ownership structure to allow private investment. I seek your agreement to the club holding a special general meeting of members to discuss any such proposals requiring a chairs vote prior to the club making any decisions on how to vote.

A similar request is being made across all member owned clubs. Members are aware of the huge significance of these proposals which are potentially far more serious than the reforms proposed and rejected under the Strauss review. It is our position that such changes need full member consultation and approval before county chairs cast their votes.

We are content to wait and see what emerges from discussions county officials have with the ECB but we do need the assurance that members' views will be listened to and acted on which of course did not happen when counties voted to approve the Hundred in the first place.

I'd be grateful to understand how you wish to proceed in this area given that the ECB are reported to want to have a vote on proposals before the start of the new season.

With best wishes

Alan Higham

County Cricket Members Group

DO NOTTS MEMBERS NEED TO ACT?