At present Durham are one of the betrayed 10 but there's a suggestion that Durham and a SW region will increase the franchises to 10.Bostock is undoubtedly cosying in with the Saudis with this in mind.
-
The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state with some features missing, normal posting/reading should now be possible.
Please read this thread for more details.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.
The Hundred 2025
- Thread starter Hetty
- Start date
Inside Forward
Winger
Thought the FTECB were determined not to just sell to IPL owners? Cum stains to a man.
I think this must be extremely unlikely in the short to medium term now. You can’t see how they can have secured the franchise sales they are going through the process of securing without a pretty clear guarantee of a period of stability.
Of course, the reverse could be true, that they have a set plan for new franchises, with the sales based on that,but I would imagine that would have leaked out.
SuperSub
Midfield
It doesn't look like there will be another hundred franchise until 2029.
This article is a useful insight into the pros and cons of the recent sales for both the hundred host counties and the have-nots
You must be logged on to see external links
Voice of fair play
Striker
The article seems well balanced and the money raised looks like could have a massive beneficial for all and the complete opposite of bankruptcy for English cricket as previously suggested.
In fact sustainability for a lot of it!
‘ The level of interest in the hundred sale has confounded all targets’
‘ The numbers are staggering’
Quite good considering we have been told on here nobody would be interested.
In fact sustainability for a lot of it!
‘ The level of interest in the hundred sale has confounded all targets’
‘ The numbers are staggering’
Quite good considering we have been told on here nobody would be interested.
Last edited:
It is a well balanced article and it does ensure against bankruptcy for the short term. for all CC teams. One concern,however,is the imbalance in the share out between those counties which stage Hundred games and those that don't. That's palpably unfair-all counties contribute equally to the make up of Hundred squads and so the monies raised should surely be divided equally between all counties. Most Hundred staging counties already have a financial advantage by being test match venues. It will lead to bankruptcy eventually for the non staging venues which was always my concern. Admittedly you are limited to 8-10 teams but there's no justification or fairness in the proposed share out.
Voice of fair play
Striker
Yeah sharing it more fairly would have even better.
However as the quote below from the article shows, it’s a great windfall by anyones standards for cricket in this country.
‘But perhaps the biggest beneficiaries of the sale are the smaller counties. The formula devised last spring sees the first £275 million of revenues split 19 ways’
The money generated is better than most expected by a considerable margin
How can justify your claim that I've highlighted? Staging counties would be entitled to a staging fee perhaps but such costs would be minimal to the figures involved. It's not simply "sharing it more fairly would be better",how can giving the staging venues 50% of the sale be justified? It's totally corrupt.
Voice of fair play
Striker
Don’t think I have justified it in the slightest?
In fact I agree the share of the pot should have shared more equally
We'll disagree on semantics
.
Voice of fair play
Striker
As much I as I agree with you on your main point.We'll disagree on semantics
It’s surely can’t be disputed it’s a hell a lot of money coming into cricket in England.
And while I don’t disagree some will benefit more than others all are still benefiting quite a lot?
Agree but the windfall has been tarnished by a corrupt share out. The rich get richer. Become like football with obscene salaries to a small elite. Where's the inclusitivity in that?
Voice of fair play
Striker
Yeah I do agree like
All top level sport is just a business now (rather than competition in the truest sense) to those with the most money who want to keep and make the most money. They don't really care about pyramids, the want a smaller collection of teams/franchises in closed shop competitions sold to the biggest TV rights offers year in year out (See NFL, American takeovers of English football clubs, attempts at European Super leagues, The new FIFA world club cup including shoehorning Miami into it, IPL and all other T20 franchises, LIV golf, The Hundred). They pay lip service to the sustainability and long term security of grassroots and the owners and players take all of the extra revenue.
Cricket never had a pyramid though. It always had a limited effectively franchised elite playing at the top level, which from the expansion of the numbers to 16 before the first world war has been roughly a third of the counties of England and Wales. They added two new ones in 125 years (one being us of course). It made the old football league re-election system look open.
I’m not saying I like reducing those who get the lucky tickets still further, particularly when it means Durham miss out. But it’s not as if cricket was a fully open competition between all the counties in the first place.
Fair point and true of the domestic game. I suppose internationally it's just being supercharged (!) by allowing multiple franchise ownership across various competitions.
With regards to the hundred in particular, why did they not just sell shares in T20 teams instead? Probably been discussed to death but I've not really paid enough attention. Quite significant sums involved though.
There's a two division pyramid in the county championship and many regions have a pyramid system in club cricket. Wouldn't say 1st class cricket was a closed shop, it's simply a case of it being too big a step financially for minor counties to step up to a full-time professional commitment.Not so sure that there have been many applications other than Glamorgan and Durham in the past.
The 1st class competition was fully open in that all counties were given equal remuneration from the central fund.Hundred competition receives its English playing staff from across all 18 counties. Revenue gained by selling off the competition should be shared equally between these 18 providers.
Can't see any validity to your claim that cricket was in anyway franchised historically.
Last edited:
Voice of fair play
Striker
The way cricket has gone and is going worldwide, it was inevitable as with every other country this was going to happen!
We were always going to have a short format competition in a designated window in peak time.
The money brought in from this sale is way beyond anyone’s expectations and will hopefully sustain and help both first class cricket and domestic club cricket which surely everybody wants?
I am not been disrespectful but it was never not going to happen and all concerned were never going to turn down this incredible amount of money and not have a flagship short format tournament.
To instead have a county championship matched in August when very few would watch a Derby V Northampton match.
This whole debate needed imo to accept this inevitability and work out how to make sure all this money is put to good use.
It’s certainly a concern whether they will happen of course but what can’t be disputed is the amount of money coming into our game is massive.
There should change the name of the competition imo and definitely change the tournament to T20 to reflect what every other country plays.
The biggest mistake imo was making this tournament 100 balls and changing some of the rules when T20 had proven to be a massive success.
We were always going to have a short format competition in a designated window in peak time.
The money brought in from this sale is way beyond anyone’s expectations and will hopefully sustain and help both first class cricket and domestic club cricket which surely everybody wants?
I am not been disrespectful but it was never not going to happen and all concerned were never going to turn down this incredible amount of money and not have a flagship short format tournament.
To instead have a county championship matched in August when very few would watch a Derby V Northampton match.
This whole debate needed imo to accept this inevitability and work out how to make sure all this money is put to good use.
It’s certainly a concern whether they will happen of course but what can’t be disputed is the amount of money coming into our game is massive.
There should change the name of the competition imo and definitely change the tournament to T20 to reflect what every other country plays.
The biggest mistake imo was making this tournament 100 balls and changing some of the rules when T20 had proven to be a massive success.
I wouldn’t insist on the word “franchised” as its meaning has somewhat switched in recent years at least in cricket away from the US idea of having a central control body which determines and licenses a limited number of otherwise privately run outlets to play in its elite competition, to something more like the current situation where newly minted Indian teams become a global brand. But certainly, cricket in this country has always had the former structure. The MCC/TCCB/ECB decides which counties can have a first class team and runs the competitions. There has never been open competition between the counties. There are, as you have said, good reasons for that, but it has still always been true.
So in essence, the choice between whether you allow 18 or 8 or 10 of the counties to participate in a particular elite competition is not a choice of principle as some people are inclined to suggest, since the principle that you have a limited number has already been established. It is just a choice of pragmatism. My argument has always been that if you think 18 is still the right number for an effective elite structure you need a pragmatic economic argument as to why because the other one doesn’t stand up. And much as I personally prefer the county game in its traditional structure (by which I mean, as we all mean in such a situation, the one that I grew up with) it’s becoming harder to argue with the financial numbers that are coming out of this process.
I agree it was always going to happen and the lovable Mr Graves is claiming himself as the saviour of English cricket for inventing and promoting the Hundred.
We've already seen the next egg is not being dispersed either wisely or fairly. A token amount given to grass routes cricket and to those counties who don't t serve as Hundred venues. So we have a core elite of 8 teams and sod the rest of cricket.
How will such limited focus promote and sustain the game nationwide; the vast majority of the country won't be able to watch the spectacle.
Sad, but I fear rather than being the saviour it signals the slow death of what has been a wonderful game.
