Sale of the 16.4/The Death of County Cricket

brandon

brandon

Striker
Seen this document on a cricket group on Facebook that I’m a member of, it’s really vital than as many eyes as possible see this because for me this ‘Strauss by Stealth’ is the biggest single threat to our domestic game that I’ve ever known.

SALE OF THE HUNDRED

docs.google.com docs.google.com
 


brandon said:
Seen this document on a cricket group on Facebook that I’m a member of, it’s really vital than as many eyes as possible see this because for me this ‘Strauss by Stealth’ is the biggest single threat to our domestic game that I’ve ever known.

SALE OF THE HUNDRED

docs.google.com docs.google.com
Click to expand...
At first I thought you were posting this as an April Fool joke but I found that this appeared in the Cricketer back in February.

Looking at the proposals I can't see how this can get off the ground. The ECB are talking about huge sums of money but how is this going to happen? They need outside investors from places like Saudi and India. This will only happen if the game attracts huge interest worldwide and makes serious money like the IPL.

This is a format nobody wants. I can see India only being interested if it becomes another T20. SA has a new T20 with IPL investment but its not making huge sums of money.

The county CEOs are greedy. Want to make money for themselves and are trying to convince the "Luddites" that cricket in this country will be safe thanks to the huge sums of money this will make.

The report says 14 out of 18 counties ned to vote for it to got through. I hope the smaller counties don't fall for this. Luckily I don't think they will.
 
An Indian fan on another board explained why the IPL became a success -

There was little culture in watching domestic teams in large numbers before 2008 and India didn't really have any t20 competition of note apart from the short lived ICL. Therefore, the IPL essentially created something from scratch that big city audiences could relate to. In the UK, there were already well supported domestic teams for limited overs cricket so there never was a need for a city based franchise. Also many Indian fans attach themselves to individual players and pretty much worship them.

This explains why T20 over cricket took off in India the way it did. There are three key reasons why 16.4 will never be a success -

1. We have a county system so City names mean F- all.
2. Cricket here will never compete with football.
3. Even with Indian investment the BCCI will never allow their top stars to play in this competition. This would be essential for it to be a financial success when broadcasting it to India.
 
Aidan11 said:
At first I thought you were posting this as an April Fool joke but I found that this appeared in the Cricketer back in February.

Looking at the proposals I can't see how this can get off the ground. The ECB are talking about huge sums of money but how is this going to happen? They need outside investors from places like Saudi and India. This will only happen if the game attracts huge interest worldwide and makes serious money like the IPL.

This is a format nobody wants. I can see India only being interested if it becomes another T20. SA has a new T20 with IPL investment but its not making huge sums of money.

The county CEOs are greedy. Want to make money for themselves and are trying to convince the "Luddites" that cricket in this country will be safe thanks to the huge sums of money this will make.

The report says 14 out of 18 counties ned to vote for it to got through. I hope the smaller counties don't fall for this. Luckily I don't think they will.
Click to expand...
If this tactic doesn't work, they'll try another.

They can lose as many times as they like, they only have to win once and its game over for the counties.

They can promise anything they like because they know that once the counties are defeated, there is no alternative and they wont have to deliver anything. Then the money starts to roll in........
 
Aidan11 said:
At first I thought you were posting this as an April Fool joke but I found that this appeared in the Cricketer back in February.

Looking at the proposals I can't see how this can get off the ground. The ECB are talking about huge sums of money but how is this going to happen? They need outside investors from places like Saudi and India. This will only happen if the game attracts huge interest worldwide and makes serious money like the IPL.

This is a format nobody wants. I can see India only being interested if it becomes another T20. SA has a new T20 with IPL investment but its not making huge sums of money.

The county CEOs are greedy. Want to make money for themselves and are trying to convince the "Luddites" that cricket in this country will be safe thanks to the huge sums of money this will make.

The report says 14 out of 18 counties ned to vote for it to got through. I hope the smaller counties don't fall for this. Luckily I don't think they will.
Click to expand...

I really wish it was an April Fool, as for the vote if it gets to that stage, I hope you’re right, but they did all* take a bribe to sign up to the 16.4 in the first place :eek:

*except Surrey, from memory and fair play to them.
Aidan11 said:
An Indian fan on another board explained why the IPL became a success -

There was little culture in watching domestic teams in large numbers before 2008 and India didn't really have any t20 competition of note apart from the short lived ICL. Therefore, the IPL essentially created something from scratch that big city audiences could relate to. In the UK, there were already well supported domestic teams for limited overs cricket so there never was a need for a city based franchise. Also many Indian fans attach themselves to individual players and pretty much worship them.

This explains why T20 over cricket took off in India the way it did. There are three key reasons why 16.4 will never be a success -

1. We have a county system so City names mean F- all.
2. Cricket here will never compete with football.
3. Even with Indian investment the BCCI will never allow their top stars to play in this competition. This would be essential for it to be a financial success when broadcasting it to India.
Click to expand...

Beautifully put to be fair to that person. Points one to three are all absolutely bang on too.

I think that all the BCCI want, which is true of the SA competition, is to make as much money as possible from wherever they can get it - their intention with the SA competition is purely to leach as much money out of the SA game as possible.
 
Last edited:
brandon said:
*except Surrey, from memory and fair play to them.
Click to expand...
And they did it for the right reasons, though they were probably in a better position to do so, as presumably they weren’t under the same financial pressure to agree as other counties would have been? But as you say, fair play to them.
 
Further reading, which doesn’t sound very promising for the ‘have nots’.

www.telegraph.co.uk

Future of smaller counties could depend on how Hundred investment is shared out

County matters: The proposal is for the ECB to hand around half of each Hundred team to the host county – which they can then sell off
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

Future of smaller counties could depend on how Hundred investment is shared out​

County matters: The proposal is for the ECB to hand around half of each Hundred team to the host county – which they can then sell off​

  • The ECB has agreed that it will sell a set portion of its share: 30 per cent of each team
  • The host county is welcome to sell as much or little of its share as it likes. Wealthy Surrey have claimed they will keep their share of Oval Invincibles (let’s see on that), but others will look to sell very large chunks for two reasons. One, because they have large debts and ambitious plans. Two, because investors are prepared to pay truly vast amounts for control, but perhaps not minority shares
  • Either way, before going to market the host county and the ECB will agree the figure that would-be investors are welcome to bid on. It is possible that a stake of just 30 per cent may be available in one team, but 80 per cent in another
  • In the end, you have a three-way venture: between the host county, the investor, and the ECB, who retain 19 per cent of each team, and the entire central competition
This system is not as simple as it could have been. The ECB could just have sold a share in the eight teams, split the money between the counties and handed big hosting fees to the eight venues. But the ECB wanted to increase connection between the Hundred and the counties, and wanted to expand to an investable pyramid where every county had a team. That is no longer happening; at best there might be a new team or two by 2029 if the right investors were to get involved.
As Telegraph Sport have reported previously, the arrangement has put off some potential investors. While the biggest name investors in cricket and beyond, from inside and (mainly) outside the UK, are interested in getting involved in the Hundred, some – such as IPL franchises – have shown a lukewarm response to the idea of a joint venture with a county.
That is not this month’s crucial question, though. Nor is the seemingly unanswerable question of what will be played alongside the Hundred. The big question, for now, is how the money is distributed.
The host county clearly does very well, as they have 51 per cent of their team to sell and keep as they please. That makes the 30 per cent that the ECB sells vital and this month’s big battleground, because it will be spread across the game. It is agreed that 10p of every £1 sold will be ring-fenced for the recreational game. The remainder will be spread between the counties.
The question is how many counties? Nineteen (all first-class teams plus MCC), or the 11 non-host counties? Unsurprisingly, some of the big counties will fight hard for it to be 19, but that looks rather like having their cake and eating it.
For the small counties the difference could be vast. Say, to keep the figures simple, that 30 per cent of each team sells for £12.5 million, bringing in a total of £100 million. A tenth of that, £10 million, would go to the recreational game. If there are 11 counties sharing the rest, they would get £8.1 million each. If they have to share it between 19, the figure drops to £4.7 million. Remember, these figures are only approximate; in reality, the eight teams will sell for vastly different figures.
Most smaller counties badly need money. Of the average county’s total income, more than 45 per cent comes from ECB. Gloucestershire are about to issue some concerning financial results. Sussex are not turning the floodlights on at Hove in the County Championship this season in order to save money, which might have cost them victory against Northamptonshire this week.
As acute as their need might be and as nice as these figures might sound, the small counties must remember that there is only one chance to do this deal, so they must not be short-changed by their big-name neighbours. Used prudently, these are game-changing figures that can get them back on a firmer footing, wipe out debt, or even fund ambitious projects, like Kent’s ground at Beckenham.
The bigger counties, too, would do well to show a little altruism. Yes, they have big expensive grounds and their own problems. But they are already the beneficiaries of extreme ECB generosity with 51 per cent of their own team. Why should they get a portion of the proceeds from all the others, too?
A crucial month awaits, for the future of the 18-county system as we know it.
 
Last edited:
If ECB sell 30% of their share and the host county sell, say 25% to the same franchise, that will give them 55% and therefore the major controlling interest which could be bad for all counties not just the smaller ones.

If this happens to all 16.4 teams it could be very dangerous. For example would their selected players be withdrawn for some or all of the county season to play in this? Would they dictate how and when the games are played? An expanded tournament could result in July as well as August taking up the domestic calendar.

However the key issue is Indian players. Its well known the top players aren't allowed to play in overseas domestic tournaments and it is their presence that would bring in the serious money from broadcasting, sponsorship etc.

ECB and county CEOs are just being greedy. Any one of those franchises could be another Stanford. I just hope this greed doesn't result in the entire county domestic game going bust.
 
The logical next step, as predicted right from the start.

The host counties own the grounds and can kill this tournament whenever they like, so got to convince them to break away. Hoping for some altruism and sharing the wealth is like hoping the viper won't bite the farmer.

The only thing that's interesting to me now, is how the people who support the 16.4 will justify it to themselves. I suspect we'll see the rhetoric around county finances ramped up in the next couple of years to soften us up.
 

Back
Top