The Hundred 2025

[Voice of fair play]

So what’s the outcome English Cricket when it comes to these sales?

The money will eventually run out.

There doesn’t seem to be much interest in expanding the league.

Viewing figures are falling.

Crowds are falling.

Participation is falling.

Cricket in this country might be getting a huge cash injection but does it count for anything if no one cares.

Guess the question there is, it’s good job the money has come then,

As you paint such a bleak picture so if all that true.

Would be knackered without it

 

[Parkside]

So what’s the outcome English Cricket when it comes to these sales?

The money will eventually run out.

There doesn’t seem to be much interest in expanding the league.

Viewing figures are falling.

Crowds are falling.

Participation is falling.

Cricket in this country might be getting a huge cash injection but does it count for anything if no one cares.

The death knell of cricket has been rung today. The baseball version designed to occupy the minds of children is already in decline attendance wise as the novelty wears off. Sad day for a beautiful game.

The death knell of cricket has been rung today. The baseball version designed to occupy the minds of children is already in decline attendance wise as the novelty wears off. Sad day for a beautiful game.

Ashes obituary in the Times to follow

 

[smoker]

You must be logged on to see external links

And just like that, Yorkshire paid off their debt.

 

[Provider]

I will watching too having a couple of bets and enjoying the talent on show.

Much like I do with the IPL.

Only thing that frustrates me is they never made it a T20 tournament like everywhere else in the world.

It was a step too far to change it to 100 balls, but suspect and hope it will be changed to T20 in the future

The narrative has changed throughout.

No investors would be interested?

Until they were!

ECB had overestimated the value of the teams?

Until investors paid even more than expected!

The deal may not go through because of TV rights discussion?

Now they have!

Etc etc etc etc!!

The narrative has changed throughout.

No investors would be interested?

Until they were!

ECB had overestimated the value of the teams?

Until investors paid even more than expected!

The deal may not go through because of TV rights discussion?

Now they have!

Etc etc etc etc!!

Not that I expect you to care but you do realise the implications of these "investors" buying the franchises don't you?

 

[Parkside]

Not that I expect you to care but you do realise the implications of these "investors" buying the franchises don't you?

He's been told several times of the implications but clearly doesn't care and even gloats . Counties are getting £750k yet were promised £27m when the deal was signed off.Whoops!

 

[Voice of fair play]

Not that I expect you to care but you do realise the implications of these "investors" buying the franchises don't you?

That wasn’t my point though.

My point is that throughout this process people on this board have suggested that investors would not be interested and then they were.

And that investors would never pay what the ECB wanted for the teams yet they did and more

Amazingly 145 million for a half share in one team!




I happen to think if this immense money into our game is spent correctly it could be good for the game in the long run.

People may disagree that’s they right but I am entitled to a view the same as anyone else.

I also think like every other country it is inevitable we have a short form showcase tournament in peak time in a designated window with a lot of focus on it.

It needs changing to T20 to mirror those tournaments and for it to more relatable to fans to understand it better, but it’s here to stay and all parties need to work together to get balance right between red ball and white ball cricket rather than these constant petty insults,

As for original question think the question is what is the implications for cricket in this country without this influx of massive money as @Struts in his post just above hardly paints a picture of growing health

 

[Parkside]

That wasn’t my point though.

My point is that throughout this process people on this board have suggested that investors would not be interested and then they were.

And that investors would never pay what the ECB wanted for the teams yet they did and more

Amazingly 145 million for a half share in one team!




I happen to think if this immense money into our game is spent correctly it could be good for the game in the long run.

People may disagree that’s they right but I am entitled to a view the same as anyone else.

I also think like every other country it is inevitable we have a short form showcase tournament in peak time in a designated window with a lot of focus on it.

It needs changing to T20 to mirror those tournaments and for it to more relatable to fans to understand it better.

As for original question think the question is what is the implications for cricket in this country without this influx of massive money as @Struts in his post just above hardly paints a picture of growing health

Your defence of any counter argument is invariably "That's not my point".
ECB annual turn over currently is £350m -there's no financial crisis with fair and good husbandry. As to this sell off you float about-there"a no such thing as a free lunch.
Are these buyers just generous benefactors? Santa Claus?try
If the Hundred has such marketing potential,why,are ECB so ready to sell it?

 

[Provider]

That wasn’t my point though.

My point is that throughout this process people on this board have suggested that investors would not be interested and then they were.

And that investors would never pay what the ECB wanted for the teams yet they did and more

Amazingly 145 million for a half share in one team!




I happen to think if this immense money into our game is spent correctly it could be good for the game in the long run.

People may disagree that’s they right but I am entitled to a view the same as anyone else.

I also think like every other country it is inevitable we have a short form showcase tournament in peak time in a designated window with a lot of focus on it.

It needs changing to T20 to mirror those tournaments and for it to more relatable to fans to understand it better, but it’s here to stay and all parties need to work together to get balance right between red ball and white ball cricket rather than these constant petty insults,

As for original question think the question is what is the implications for cricket in this country without this influx of massive money as @Struts in his post just above hardly paints a picture of growing health

I'm not sure the first part of your post is relevant. Who said what on this messageboard doesn't matter at all.

What does matter is that the control of these franchises has been sold to parties who have no interest in the health of the English game to do whatever they want with them.

I realise you're not in this group but for 99% of English cricket fans this is bad bad news.

 

[Voice of fair play]

I'm not sure the first part of your post is relevant. Who said what on this messageboard doesn't matter at all.

What does matter is that the control of these franchises has been sold to parties who have no interest in the health of the English game to do whatever they want with them.

I realise you're not in this group but for 99% of English cricket fans this is bad bad news.

It has been sold to investors who granted have invested to make money.

Much like 99.9% of investments in anything.

It’s up to the counties and all concerned to invest their money wisely.

What is for sure is the money was badly needed and a short format tournament in peak time with hopefully world class players is imo going to increase participation in the game, more than watching Leicester against Derby playing out a high scoring draw on a flat wicket in August.

With respect to fans of those counties I get it will be disappointing and sympathetic for them not to watch their sides at that time but there is a much bigger picture.

 

[Provider]

It has been sold to investors who granted have invested to make money.

Much like 99.9% of investments in anything.

It’s up to the counties and all concerned to invest their money wisely.

What is for sure is the money was badly needed and a short format tournament in peak time with hopefully world class players is imo going to increase participation in the game, more than watching Leicester against Derby playing out a high scoring draw on a flat wicket in August.

With respect to fans of those counties I get it will be disappointing and sympathetic for them not to watch their sides at that time but there is a much bigger picture.

Yes the investors have invested to make money. For themselves. Do you think that unless there's anything in the contract, any future money after the initial windfall will go to the counties?

And your much lauded "short format competition in peak time" could have happened without adding a fourth competition to an already packed schedule in a format that nobody plays which leaves out large parts of the cricket watching public in the country.

You consistently use that as a justification for The Hundred which is beyond belief to be honest.

 

[Parkside]

It has been sold to investors who granted have invested to make money.

Much like 99.9% of investments in anything.

It’s up to the counties and all concerned to invest their money wisely.

What is for sure is the money was badly needed and a short format tournament in peak time with hopefully world class players is imo going to increase participation in the game, more than watching Leicester against Derby playing out a high scoring draw on a flat wicket in August.

With respect to fans of those counties I get it will be disappointing and sympathetic for them not to watch their sides at that time but there is a much bigger picture.

I'd be in whole- hearted agreement with you if these investors don't take money out of the current England finances. The concern is that they'll taken a disproportionate share of current tv funding and effect both T20 and England International income. Otherwise why would they be interested in a tournament that is already haemorraghing money? Cricket finances are healthy -Sponsorship and TV income are worth £350m per annum-shared fairly together with the non-profit cricket monies that county venues attract i.e.,concerts,conferences,social functions and finances are fine. The promised £27million per county is fools gold - what happens when it runs out and present income sources have been obliterated by Franchise cricket.
There's no evidence whatsoever that there's an appetite for supposedly world class cricketers performing in a limited number of venues will increase participation in the game.

 

[Voice of fair play]

Yes the investors have invested to make money. For themselves. Do you think that unless there's anything in the contract, any future money after the initial windfall will go to the counties?

And your much lauded "short format competition in peak time" could have happened without adding a fourth competition to an already packed schedule in a format that nobody plays which leaves out large parts of the cricket watching public in the country.

You consistently use that as a justification for The Hundred which is beyond belief to be honest.

Not really I have always maintained there should be a short format tournament in a designated window in peak time with world class players.

However have never advocated a fourth tournament, would have been more than happy if that could have happened without a 100 ball tournament and remained T20.

In fact would have preferred it as grown up watching T20 in club cricket and understood and related to it better

It should be one big T20 tournament like in any other major nation.

Investment in anything in any walk of life the investors want to make money but that investment on a lot of occasions grows that industry for the better.

Based of your logic because investors in it for themselves we should not have investment in anything

 

[Provider]

I'd be in whole- hearted agreement with you if these investors don't take money out of the current England finances. The concern is that they'll taken a disproportionate share of current tv funding and effect both T20 and England International income. Otherwise why would they be interested in a tournament that is already haemorraghing money? Cricket finances are healthy -Sponsorship and TV income are worth £350m per annum-shared fairly together with the non-profit cricket monies that county venues attract i.e.,concerts,conferences,social functions and finances are fine. The promised £27million per county is fools gold - what happens when it runs out and present income sources have been obliterated by Franchise cricket.

It's not just about the finance side for me, it's about the future of the English domestic cricket landscape for me.

Does anyone have any faith that if these powerful and wealthy "investors" wanted to expand The Hundred so it took up 2/3/4 extra weeks that the ECB's response would be anything other than "How much?"?

Not really I have always maintained there should be a short format tournament in a designated window in peak time with world class players.

However have never advocated a fourth tournament, would have been more than happy if that could have happened without a 100 ball tournament and remained T20.

In fact would have preferred it as grown up watching T20 in club cricket and understood and related to it better

It should be one big T20 tournament like in any other major nation.

Investment in anything in any walk of life the investors want to make money but that investment on a lot of occasions grows that industry for the better.

Based of your logic because investors in it for themselves we should not have investment in anything

"Not really" yet that's exactly what you were doing in the post I quoted.

And you've totally missed the point with your last paragraph. I haven't one said thar we shouldn't have investment. However, not all investment is good investment.

 

[Parkside]

It's not just about the finance side for me, it's about the future of the English domestic cricket landscape for me.

Does anyone have any faith that if these powerful and wealthy "investors" wanted to expand The Hundred so it took up 2/3/4 extra weeks that the ECB's response would be anything other than "How much?"?

"Not really" yet that's exactly what you were doing in the post I quoted.

And you've totally missed the point with your last paragraph. I haven't one said thar we shouldn't have investment. However, not all investment is good investment.

@Voice of fair play responses always begin with "not really" or "that's not my point" then reiterates his claim that a format that pays obscene salaries and is staged in limited areas of the country will increase participation in the game without a shred of evidence to validate that claim.

 

[Voice of fair play]

It's not just about the finance side for me, it's about the future of the English domestic cricket landscape for me.

Does anyone have any faith that if these powerful and wealthy "investors" wanted to expand The Hundred so it took up 2/3/4 extra weeks that the ECB's response would be anything other than "How much?"?

"Not really" yet that's exactly what you were doing in the post I quoted.

And you've totally missed the point with your last paragraph. I haven't one said thar we shouldn't have investment. However, not all investment is good investment.

It’s not for me my whole point is in a major cricketing nation like ours we should have a IPL like tournament where it is T20 and promoted and live games on every day ( preferably on free to air) although admittedly that will not happen.

It’s inevitable every other country has one.

‘The Hundred’ never been my preferred option T20 has!

People are incredibly naive if they think kids in this day and age in the school holidays want to go along to watch Dom Sibley bat god knows how many overs as opposed to watching Jos Buttler immense talent and skill
not sure how more clear I can make it.

I am not a fan of the hundred.

I am a fan of a tournament preferably T20 where all the focus is on it IPL style

 

[Provider]

It’s not for me my whole point is in a major cricketing nation like ours we should have a IPL like tournament where it is T20 and promoted and live games on every day ( preferably on free to air) although admittedly that will not happen.

It’s inevitable every other country has one.

‘The Hundred’ never been my preferred option T20 has!

People are incredibly naive if they think kids in this day and age in the school holidays want to go along to watch Dom Sibley bat god knows how many overs as opposed to watching Jos Buttler immense talent and skill
not sure how more clear I can make it.

I am not a fan of the hundred.

I am a fan of a tournament preferably T20 where all the focus is on it IPL style

But by consistently stating this on threads where The Hundred is being discussed you are justifying it's existence.

 

[Voice of fair play]

But by consistently stating this on threads where The Hundred is being discussed you are justifying it's existence.

Once again I am not justifying ‘ The Hundred’

I am justifying the necessity to promote cricket in this country by having a short format cricket tournament in a peak window with all eyes on it.

I am convinced and hope it’s changed to T20 asap

 

[Provider]

Once again I am not justifying ‘ The Hundred’

I am justifying the necessity to promote cricket in this country by having a short format cricket tournament in a peak window with all eyes on it.

I am convinced and hope it’s changed to T20 asap

So it's just the number of balls you're opposed to?

 

[Voice of fair play]

So it's just the number of balls you're opposed to?

I am opposed to people who think having the county championship in August will promote the game better and more than either a 120 ball or a 100 ball tournament in that month.

I also relate much better to overs than ‘sets’

And 20 overs to 100 balls

 

[Provider]

I am opposed to people who think having the county championship in August will promote the game better and more than either a 120 ball or a 100 ball tournament in that month.

I also relate much better to overs than ‘sets’

And 20 overs to 100 balls

That's not quite what I meant, but I think you knew that.

Is fact that The Hundred is 100 balls rather than 120 the only thing you oppose about the competition?