• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Hundred Corruption

Turner the Cat said:
Yes, most counties are reliant on ECB money but without the counties the ECB wouldn't generate any money and the ECB is currently making a profit. I think the ECB and English cricket would suffer from reducing the number of counties. Many of the unfashionable counties are producing and developing important players. Bashir now at Derbyshire. Tribe at Glamorgan as examples.
Click to expand...

Absolutely this, there are some in the game who would love nothing more than to see the number of counties reduced, but the biggest issue with that is that some of the ‘bigger’ and more ‘fashionable’ counties produce very very little for England. We saw with the distribution of franchises that the Test grounds were prioritised but look at counties like Warwickshire and Hampshire and have a think about how few players they’ve provided for England (I’m talking regulars) in the last 20 years? It isn’t a great record and I’d argue they should be being held to account.
 

Raymondo said:
You must be logged on to see media items
We are told that the Hundred has saved county cricket. Or rather the £500m raised from selling a month of the summer to billionaires could be a lifeline for counties.

Counties face an uncertain future. They cannot host big games in peak summer with over 100 players missing. Moved to May, June and July the Blast audiences have dwindled. Crowds of 15,000 that used to watch Lancashire play Leicestershire now go to watch the Manchester team after huge marketing spend and cheap tickets aimed at attracting different people.

Counties hosting the Hundred have been asked to play as few games as possible at their home ground during the Hundred. Surrey use 2000 capacity Guildford, Nottinghamshire play three games at Welbeck Colliery and Chesterfield, in Derbyshire, Warwickshire play three games at Rugby school.

One suspects that some host county boards prefer their franchise stake to developing their county brand. Surrey stands out, making a big effort to encourage people to watch county cricket.

Non-host counties have very few days of home cricket to showcase in peak summer. Somerset had sell-out games in the One Day Cup last summer, but only four home games were scheduled.

Even more significantly, TV rights money is being allocated to the Hundred teams without any transparency. Money going to the owners of the Hundred will not be available to the counties. Counties can expect lower ECB distributions in future. But until we see the next TV rights deal, we won't know just how hard the counties are going to be hit.

For this reason the allocation of c £25m of the sale proceeds for each non-host county is being carefully managed by the ECB. Counties have to apply to use the money. Allowable purposes include reducing existing structured debt - but not paying off debts run up by recent operational losses (Sussex).

Investment in revenue generating facilities such as a hotel or hospitality facilities are allowable. Investment in cricket facilities such as indoor nets, upgrades to the ground and possibly even a second ground are potentially possible - but funding operational losses to hire management to formulate plans are not (Middlesex).

Reports suggest the ECB is holding the money in cash and will pay over some interest earned on it to the counties each year, but again details are sparse.

For counties like Middlesex with few revenue generating opportunities open to them (as MCC rather than Middlesex own Lords) and a management/governance crisis on its hands, what can it do with the sale proceeds? £25m is not enough to fund a new ground. Its board wants to explore demutualisation to bring in extra investment. But where are the profits from county cricket going to come from to support a new home away from Lords and the probable loss of membership that will follow? Is it just to chase the dream of another Hundred team?

If counties can only spend the interest on their £25m then focus goes on where the money is actually invested on their behalf.

Stuck in cash paying around £1m a year then this income will reduce year by year in real terms. Around £0.5m a year could be paid to keep pace with inflation each year if invested in government inflation-linked bonds. Another approach is a county cricket wealth fund investing more broadly in the global economy. An income of £1m or more per county could be achievable in real terms if well run at a national level on low costs. However, if the global economy suffers a shock from war, pandemics or AI revolution then this income may need to be scaled back or even paused. Who has the expertise to manage these sums and what would be the governance rules?

Counties like Somerset, Gloucestershire, Durham, Kent and Essex have all shown some ambition to part-own a Hundred team. But they need to expand their grounds/develop a new ground before they could be considered, even if the current Hundred owners agree to an expansion.

Somerset CEO Jamie Cox speaking to Mike Atherton said:



If anything Cox is understating the challenge.

Counties can expect lower ECB payments in future that the interest on their allocation may well not cover. There is a risk in spending money on private investments that may not pay dividends. Chasing the franchise dreams involves even bigger risks. Still Somerset can only host very few days of county cricket in the peak summer holidays.

In order to access funds then counties need to become private developers and expand their business models if the market opportunity exists. Balancing that challenge whilst remembering that they are still a members' cricket club at heart underlies why Lancashire's board have faced membership complaints for over 10 years.

It is fraught with risk and upfront costs too. Household finances are extremely strained and there is strong competition for leisure spend. Sussex found its business development plans for extra income hard to deliver in the current climate, despite being in a relatively wealthy area. The costs it sustained trying to grow the business model to support cricket investment has seen the ECB step in with funding alongside reprimands and penalties.

Outgoing Hampshire Chair and investor, Rod Bransgrove is clear that counties will have to demutualise to get the investment and expertise needed to transform their grounds and business models. Any club not doing that faces financial disadvantages and irrelevance. Colin Graves still wants Yorkshire to become a private business even though all its debts are paid. What is the private money going to do for county cricket and what does it want in return?

Northants is already privately owned. Arguably they have saved the club and stabilised its business but what can the Hundred money do to help the club when the draw of Jimmy Anderson fails to bring even 500 people to the ground on Easter Saturday? Counties like Derbyshire who have cut their cloth according to their means for decades will no doubt carry on in the same vein. They are looking to upgrade their floodlights with an ECB grant and use some of the Hundred money to upgrade their hospitality marquee. Leicestershire has ambitions and a big site at Grace Road with development potential. The new CEO has paused the plans previously developed.

These counties have some of the lowest membership and fan base despite improving on the field in recent seasons and investing in coaching excellence.
The ECB has some big decisions to make after the next TV rights deal is done. The host counties advantage from hosting international cricket has been boosted by the Hundred sale. Will the ECB give the non-hosts a greater slice of the pie in future? What will the ECB demand in return? The ECB is ultimately answerable to the counties.

These big questions will probably see not only the amount of county cricket being discussed again very soon but whether there is a majority support for 18 counties playing three forms of professional cricket and in what structure.

Members should think very carefully before agreeing to reduce their own ability to hold their Board to account and giving their Board even greater powers to decide who can go onto the Board.
Click to expand...
Utter codswallop. The IPL gets 99% of it's revenue through TV and advertising. Bums on seats mean nothing.

Until we have a broadcasting company that can sell the rights worldwide i.e 190 million worldwide watch the IPL on TV.

In England we get an average of 1.8K watching county cricket. There it's that simple.
 
Iamme said:
Utter codswallop. The IPL gets 99% of it's revenue through TV and advertising. Bums on seats mean nothing.

Until we have a broadcasting company that can sell the rights worldwide i.e 190 million worldwide watch the IPL on TV.

In England we get an average of 1.8K watching county cricket. There it's that simple.
Click to expand...

You’ll be able to reference your sources of course…
 
Jude Bellingham now a 1% owner of Birmingham Phoenix. I wonder if any other sides try and go down that route to try and garner more interest.
 
Iamme said:
Utter codswallop. The IPL gets 99% of it's revenue through TV and advertising. Bums on seats mean nothing.

Until we have a broadcasting company that can sell the rights worldwide i.e 190 million worldwide watch the IPL on TV.

In England we get an average of 1.8K watching county cricket. There it's that simple.
Click to expand...
May be factually correct but wholly irrelevant to the Lancashire article. And @lamme is a master at posting codswallop.
 
columbo70 said:
The Hundred has just ruined cricket in so many ways.......one example is I live in County Durham and have or feel no allegiance to any of the teams.
Click to expand...
Yer the English UK TV figures for the IPL and Big Bash outweigh county cricket by 1000s. Has not ruined cricket it's enhanced it. Sadly if someone from Durham doesn't watch it on TV nobody cares about you TV companies don't care they won't care or miss you. The millions that do watch they embrace. Get used to it. TV runs cricket not you sat with your flask and ham.sandwiches from home watching county cricket at the ground..your worthless to any sport.
 
Iamme said:
Yer the English UK TV figures for the IPL and Big Bash outweigh county cricket by 1000s. Has not ruined cricket it's enhanced it. Sadly if someone from Durham doesn't watch it on TV nobody cares about you TV companies don't care they won't care or miss you. The millions that do watch they embrace. Get used to it. TV runs cricket not you sat with your flask and ham.sandwiches from home watching county cricket at the ground..your worthless to any sport.
Click to expand...

Links?
 
Iamme said:
Yer the English UK TV figures for the IPL and Big Bash outweigh county cricket by 1000s. Has not ruined cricket it's enhanced it. Sadly if someone from Durham doesn't watch it on TV nobody cares about you TV companies don't care they won't care or miss you. The millions that do watch they embrace. Get used to it. TV runs cricket not you sat with your flask and ham.sandwiches from home watching county cricket at the ground..your worthless to any sport.
Click to expand...

IPL viewing figures are dropping like a stone, clearly all is not rosy in their garden.
 
Iamme said:
Yer the English UK TV figures for the IPL and Big Bash outweigh county cricket by 1000s. Has not ruined cricket it's enhanced it. Sadly if someone from Durham doesn't watch it on TV nobody cares about you TV companies don't care they won't care or miss you. The millions that do watch they embrace. Get used to it. TV runs cricket not you sat with your flask and ham.sandwiches from home watching county cricket at the ground..your worthless to any sport.
Click to expand...
Not many people watch the IPL in UK now. I would imagine it's mostly watched by the UKs Indian community. It is absolutely boring since they introduced so many franchises with weeks of game upon game. You say millions watch it, I doubt that very much.

When I said the Hundred has ruined English cricket, I was referring to the County Championship games that were not played in August 2025 and mercenaries just signing up to play for a fee and not for a team. You obviously love the Hundred and it's criteria, but to me and thousands of English cricketers and supporters it's just a money making exercise. It has no appeal to the traditional game or to the county you are attached to.
 
Last edited:
Raymondo said:
You must be logged on to see media items
We are told that the Hundred has saved county cricket. Or rather the £500m raised from selling a month of the summer to billionaires could be a lifeline for counties.

Counties face an uncertain future. They cannot host big games in peak summer with over 100 players missing. Moved to May, June and July the Blast audiences have dwindled. Crowds of 15,000 that used to watch Lancashire play Leicestershire now go to watch the Manchester team after huge marketing spend and cheap tickets aimed at attracting different people.

Counties hosting the Hundred have been asked to play as few games as possible at their home ground during the Hundred. Surrey use 2000 capacity Guildford, Nottinghamshire play three games at Welbeck Colliery and Chesterfield, in Derbyshire, Warwickshire play three games at Rugby school.

One suspects that some host county boards prefer their franchise stake to developing their county brand. Surrey stands out, making a big effort to encourage people to watch county cricket.

Non-host counties have very few days of home cricket to showcase in peak summer. Somerset had sell-out games in the One Day Cup last summer, but only four home games were scheduled.

Even more significantly, TV rights money is being allocated to the Hundred teams without any transparency. Money going to the owners of the Hundred will not be available to the counties. Counties can expect lower ECB distributions in future. But until we see the next TV rights deal, we won't know just how hard the counties are going to be hit.

For this reason the allocation of c £25m of the sale proceeds for each non-host county is being carefully managed by the ECB. Counties have to apply to use the money. Allowable purposes include reducing existing structured debt - but not paying off debts run up by recent operational losses (Sussex).

Investment in revenue generating facilities such as a hotel or hospitality facilities are allowable. Investment in cricket facilities such as indoor nets, upgrades to the ground and possibly even a second ground are potentially possible - but funding operational losses to hire management to formulate plans are not (Middlesex).

Reports suggest the ECB is holding the money in cash and will pay over some interest earned on it to the counties each year, but again details are sparse.

For counties like Middlesex with few revenue generating opportunities open to them (as MCC rather than Middlesex own Lords) and a management/governance crisis on its hands, what can it do with the sale proceeds? £25m is not enough to fund a new ground. Its board wants to explore demutualisation to bring in extra investment. But where are the profits from county cricket going to come from to support a new home away from Lords and the probable loss of membership that will follow? Is it just to chase the dream of another Hundred team?

If counties can only spend the interest on their £25m then focus goes on where the money is actually invested on their behalf.

Stuck in cash paying around £1m a year then this income will reduce year by year in real terms. Around £0.5m a year could be paid to keep pace with inflation each year if invested in government inflation-linked bonds. Another approach is a county cricket wealth fund investing more broadly in the global economy. An income of £1m or more per county could be achievable in real terms if well run at a national level on low costs. However, if the global economy suffers a shock from war, pandemics or AI revolution then this income may need to be scaled back or even paused. Who has the expertise to manage these sums and what would be the governance rules?

Counties like Somerset, Gloucestershire, Durham, Kent and Essex have all shown some ambition to part-own a Hundred team. But they need to expand their grounds/develop a new ground before they could be considered, even if the current Hundred owners agree to an expansion.

Somerset CEO Jamie Cox speaking to Mike Atherton said:



If anything Cox is understating the challenge.

Counties can expect lower ECB payments in future that the interest on their allocation may well not cover. There is a risk in spending money on private investments that may not pay dividends. Chasing the franchise dreams involves even bigger risks. Still Somerset can only host very few days of county cricket in the peak summer holidays.

In order to access funds then counties need to become private developers and expand their business models if the market opportunity exists. Balancing that challenge whilst remembering that they are still a members' cricket club at heart underlies why Lancashire's board have faced membership complaints for over 10 years.

It is fraught with risk and upfront costs too. Household finances are extremely strained and there is strong competition for leisure spend. Sussex found its business development plans for extra income hard to deliver in the current climate, despite being in a relatively wealthy area. The costs it sustained trying to grow the business model to support cricket investment has seen the ECB step in with funding alongside reprimands and penalties.

Outgoing Hampshire Chair and investor, Rod Bransgrove is clear that counties will have to demutualise to get the investment and expertise needed to transform their grounds and business models. Any club not doing that faces financial disadvantages and irrelevance. Colin Graves still wants Yorkshire to become a private business even though all its debts are paid. What is the private money going to do for county cricket and what does it want in return?

Northants is already privately owned. Arguably they have saved the club and stabilised its business but what can the Hundred money do to help the club when the draw of Jimmy Anderson fails to bring even 500 people to the ground on Easter Saturday? Counties like Derbyshire who have cut their cloth according to their means for decades will no doubt carry on in the same vein. They are looking to upgrade their floodlights with an ECB grant and use some of the Hundred money to upgrade their hospitality marquee. Leicestershire has ambitions and a big site at Grace Road with development potential. The new CEO has paused the plans previously developed.

These counties have some of the lowest membership and fan base despite improving on the field in recent seasons and investing in coaching excellence.
The ECB has some big decisions to make after the next TV rights deal is done. The host counties advantage from hosting international cricket has been boosted by the Hundred sale. Will the ECB give the non-hosts a greater slice of the pie in future? What will the ECB demand in return? The ECB is ultimately answerable to the counties.

These big questions will probably see not only the amount of county cricket being discussed again very soon but whether there is a majority support for 18 counties playing three forms of professional cricket and in what structure.

Members should think very carefully before agreeing to reduce their own ability to hold their Board to account and giving their Board even greater powers to decide who can go onto the Board.
Click to expand...
Get real. 500 499 are members.

Sussex v Warwickshire free cricket day on a Sunday a few weeks ago.

Total free tickets sold was 3 and it was free.

But county cricket is thriving say the 100 haters.

The 100 has saved counties for now.

Get rid of the 100 then so will county cricket.

It will remain in a part time basis i.e cricketers won't be on a wage in or counties won't survive it will all become franchised while counties remain part time like minor counties cricket is and always had been.

We all know what you have said 6 years ago. It's starting to happen and when the next TV deal is made it will decide whether counties still exist. We all knew this 6;years ago.
 
Iamme said:
Yer the English UK TV figures for the IPL and Big Bash outweigh county cricket by 1000s. Has not ruined cricket it's enhanced it. Sadly if someone from Durham doesn't watch it on TV nobody cares about you TV companies don't care they won't care or miss you. The millions that do watch they embrace. Get used to it. TV runs cricket not you sat with your flask and ham.sandwiches from home watching county cricket at the ground..your worthless to any sport.
Click to expand...
IPL is played in India to an Indian audience,BIG bash in Australia to an Australian audience, England don't get any revenue from that. The Hundred is haemorrhaging money with obscene salaries that can't be justified. England international cricket is the money earner with the County Championship the nursery to feed it. Crowds at CC have been insignificant since early post WW2. Reference to flasks and ham sandwiches appears to amuse you but it's wholly irrelevant to England crickets future finances.Harmless,I suppose, but utterly pointless.
A well marketed domestic T20 with its realistic salaries would enhance counties income. Can't see your motive on posting on here if it's solely to deride English cricket.
 
Parkside said:
IPL is played in India to an Indian audience,BIG bash in Australia to an Australian audience, England don't get any revenue from that. The Hundred is haemorrhaging money with obscene salaries that can't be justified. England international cricket is the money earner with the County Championship the nursery to feed it. Crowds at CC have been insignificant since early post WW2. Reference to flasks and ham sandwiches appears to amuse you but it's wholly irrelevant to England crickets future finances.Harmless,I suppose, but utterly pointless.
A well marketed domestic T20 with its realistic salaries would enhance counties income. Can't see your motive on posting on here if it's solely to deride English cricket.
Click to expand...
Wasting your time. He's an absolute buffoon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top