• 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.

County Championship Reduction For 2026?

You can argue about the rights and wrongs of how the vote went, personally I’m on the side of status quo.

What is the most disturbing aspect of the whole affair, in my opinion, is how a number of County ‘leaderships’ have acted. Not presenting the options correctly to members, not even asking members their views and displaying a ‘we know best’ attitude are all indicative of the contempt with which members are held. Some Counties just see them a hindrance preventing them getting their noses in the trough.

Lancashire members group deserve huge credit for holding their committee’s feet to the fire. This is my first year as a Durham member and I know realise how pointless my ‘status’ is. It just appears to entitle me to cheaper cricket with no stake in the present or future. We know that our future as a county is in the hands of people that are not trusted.

No doubt any Ashes 2025 failure will be attributed to the format of County Cricket rather than the multitude of other reasons that we can all identify.
 

Dan..Dan..Dan..Dan said:
You can argue about the rights and wrongs of how the vote went, personally I’m on the side of status quo.

What is the most disturbing aspect of the whole affair, in my opinion, is how a number of County ‘leaderships’ have acted. Not presenting the options correctly to members, not even asking members their views and displaying a ‘we know best’ attitude are all indicative of the contempt with which members are held. Some Counties just see them a hindrance preventing them getting their noses in the trough.

Lancashire members group deserve huge credit for holding their committee’s feet to the fire. This is my first year as a Durham member and I know realise how pointless my ‘status’ is. It just appears to entitle me to cheaper cricket with no stake in the present or future. We know that our future as a county is in the hands of people that are not trusted.

No doubt any Ashes 2025 failure will be attributed to the format of County Cricket rather than the multitude of other reasons that we can all identify.
Click to expand...
In the end, structurally, Durham isn’t a members’ club and hasn’t been since it had first class status. It was the first to be in that position, although I think there are several others now, including Hampshire and one or two other others. You are no more a “member” of a “club” if you support these than you would be if you had a season ticket at a football “club” which have pretty much all been private companies since the 19th century. It doesn’t justify treating us as an irrelevance, but it’s the reality.
 
Fleagle said:
In the end, structurally, Durham isn’t a members’ club and hasn’t been since it had first class status. It was the first to be in that position, although I think there are several others now, including Hampshire and one or two other others. You are no more a “member” of a “club” if you support these than you would be if you had a season ticket at a football “club” which have pretty much all been private companies since the 19th century. It doesn’t justify treating us as an irrelevance, but it’s the reality.
Click to expand...
It was a members' club when it went 1st class,it changed user Leech's tenure.
As usual,keep up at the back!
I think the term is now "a community interest club" or some such term which implies that the interest of the community should be sought on important issues. It was on those terms that Durham Council bailed the club out with the loan.
 
Last edited:
Parkside said:
I think the term is now "a community interest club" or some such term which implies that the interest of the community should be sought on important issues. It was on those terms that Durham Council bailed the club out with the loan.
Click to expand...
I'm going to make it my business over the winter to engage with the Councillor that is a director at Durham CCC. She should be used to accountability.

Amanda Hopgood is her name. Councils email format is firstname.surnameatdurhamdotgovdotuk if you may wish to do the same.
You must be logged on to see external links
 
Last edited:
Parkside said:
It was a members' club when it went 1st class,it changed user Leech's tenure.
As usual,keep up at the back!
I think the term is now "a community interest club" or some such term which implies that the interest of the community should be sought on important issues. It was on those terms that Durham Council bailed the club out with the loan.
Click to expand...
The ownership model has changed over the years, but the core operating entity itself, the one that started in the county championship, was from the start a private Limited Company limited by guarantee. It was not as such a members’ club. This model was unique amongst the 18 at the time. Hampshire and Northants have definitely incorporated since. Most if not all of the other others remain registered societies controlled by their members. Such a corporate entity, even if it is wholly owned by a membership organisation (which Durham isn’t anyway) doesn’t give members the same authority over day-to-day decisions. Which is the key point in answer to the question I was responding to of why members might be ignored these days.
 
Last edited:
Fleagle said:
The ownership model has changed over the years, but the core operating entity itself, the one that started in the county championship, was from the start a private Limited Company limited by guarantee. It was not as such a members’ club. This model was unique amongst the 18 at the time. Hampshire and Northants having incorporated since. Most if not all of the other others remain registered societies controlled by their members. Such a corporate entity, even if it is wholly owned by a membership organisation (which Durham isn’t anyway) doesn’t give members the same authority over day-to-day decisions. Which is the key point in answer to the question I was responding to of why members might be ignored these days.
Click to expand...
I beg to your superior knowledge which is contrary to what members were told on issue of initial 1st class membership and confirmed by Leech at his inaugural meeting asking for the change from membership controlled. Boils down to interpretation of "membership controlled" I suppose.
 
PCA chief executive Daryl Mitchell has not ruled out the possibility of players taking strike action after proposals to reform the County Championship were rejected.
 
Parkside said:
It's not up to him it's up to the union members the vast majority of whom aren't involved in the crisp circus aren't going to jeopardise their livelihood.
Click to expand...
I already know 2 that will.

So the pca the players that wanted this to happen have been ignored.

Will be nothing more than a 2nd 11 competition from next season.

The counties have buggered up county cricket with this vote.

None of these will play 50/50 now. Disgrace.

The actual players that play the game been ignored.

A massive shock and the people who actually play the game ignored again.

The death of county championship.

Yer people still blame the 100 as they have no idea.
 
Iamme said:
I already know 2 that will.

So the pca the players that wanted this to happen have been ignored.

Will be nothing more than a 2nd 11 competition from next season.

The counties have buggered up county cricket with this vote.

None of these will play 50/50 now. Disgrace.

The actual players that play the game been ignored.

A massive shock and the people who actually play the game ignored again.

The death of county championship.

Yer people still blame the 100 as they have no idea.
Click to expand...
5 out of 18 counties playing staff wanted the reduction.

You've clearly not read the story.
 
Iamme said:
I already know 2 that will.

So the pca the players that wanted this to happen have been ignored.

Will be nothing more than a 2nd 11 competition from next season.

The counties have buggered up county cricket with this vote.

None of these will play 50/50 now. Disgrace.

The actual players that play the game been ignored.

A massive shock and the people who actually play the game ignored again.

The death of county championship.

Yer people still blame the 100 as they have no idea.
Click to expand...
Best wishes,I hope you winter well 👃
 
Iamme said:
I already know 2 that will.

So the pca the players that wanted this to happen have been ignored.

Will be nothing more than a 2nd 11 competition from next season.

The counties have buggered up county cricket with this vote.

None of these will play 50/50 now. Disgrace.

The actual players that play the game been ignored.

A massive shock and the people who actually play the game ignored again.

The death of county championship.

Yer people still blame the 100 as they have no idea.
Click to expand...
People dont like the 100 because its not proper cricket. Its being lauded because it makes money. You know what makes more money?

Football.

Why don't the ECB just start a football competition instead if money is the main objective and not the actual history and traditions of cricket?

I would rather watch Durham v Yorkshire at football than the Manchester Moneygrabbers v the Hampshire Hedgefund Managers at the 100 and I suspect I am not the only one.
 
Last edited:
tynevalleyblackcat said:
People dont like the 100 because its not proper cricket. Its being lauded because it makes money. You know what makes more money?

Football.

Why don't the ECB just start a football competition instead if money is the main objective and not the actual history and traditions of cricket?

I would rather watch Durham v Yorkshire at football than the Manchester Moneygrabbers v the Hampshire Hedgefund Managers at the 100 and I suspect I am not the only one.
Click to expand...
Why does short format cricket make money??

The answer is because people watch it, if they didn’t it would not make the money would it?

So people obviously do like short format cricket and it definitely is ‘ proper cricket’

Just a different format that people enjoy.

The hundred will change to T20 soon enough because it’s a proven successful format

Personally when played positively I prefer long format cricket, but there is far too many games where games on flat wickets are a terrible watch for a neutral.

People twist about 200 play 200 in short format cricket been boring and of course they have a point.

But it’s no where near as boring as 500 plays 500 in a 4 day game when only two or three innings happen in the game with no chance of either side actually winning the game which happens far too often.

When I retire would much rather watch a 4 day game than a T20 or the hundred if teams played long format cricket like the England test team, as they don’t prefer T20 or the hundred.
I have been interested and watched cricket for 45 years and the amount of drawn games with during that time ever year in the county championship is far too many.
 
Last edited:
Voice of fair play said:
Why does short format cricket make money??

The answer is because people watch it, if they didn’t it would not make the money would it?

So people obviously do like short format cricket and it definitely is ‘ proper cricket’

Just a different format that people enjoy.

The hundred will change to T20 soon enough because it’s a proven successful format

Personally when playedtively I prefer long format cricket, but there is far too many games where games on flat wickets are a terrible watch for a neutral.

People twist about 200 play 200 in short format cricket been boring and of course they have a point.

But it’s no where near as boring as 500 plays 500 in a 4 day game when only two or three innings happen in the game with no chance of either side actually winning the game which happens far too often.

When I retire would much rather watch a 4 day game than a T20 or the hundred if teams played long format cricket like the England test team, as they don’t prefer T20 or the hundred.
I have been interested and watched cricket for 45 years and the amount of drawn games with during that time ever year in the county championship is far too many.
Click to expand...
No rational person would deny that both watching and playing short form cricket is the way to attract youngsters but it's a manufactured simplistic form of the game hence the moniker " hit and giggle cricket".My concern is that massive salaries offered in IPL can be justified because of demand in India can they long term elsewhere? -the Hundred loses money despite marketing costs in excess of £2m. Could an equally marketed domestic T20 with a 2 or 3 overseas stars become very profitable because costs would be far less.
Counties aren't in the financial mess that's portrayed-all would be healthier still if ECB profits were shared fairly i.e. evenly.
The evidence is there if you look for it.
brokencricketdreams.com/2024/05/12/i-read-every-county-cricket-clubs-financials-fascinating-revelations-are-county-cricket
brokencricketdreams.com/2024/06/20/how-much-debt-does-each-county-owe-the-economics-of-county-cricket-part-ii/

Further more only 20% of any ensuing profits from the Hundred go back to the counties,and vast majority of that to the host counties.Imbalances like that will never widen cricket following.
For what it's worth I'm in favour of a reduced County Championship i.e. 3 divisions of 6 with play offs opening room for a 50 over competition including the counties outside the CC.
Mind this stress from an intensive schedule is pap-they spend amost half of a 4 day CC game feet up in the dressing room. Only stress there is if you can't finish the crossword.
 
Last edited:
Parkside said:
No rational person would deny that both watching and playing short form cricket is the way to attract youngsters but it's a manufactured simplistic form of the game hence the moniker " hit and giggle cricket".My concern is that massive salaries offered in IPL can be justified because of demand in India can they long term elsewhere? -the Hundred loses money despite marketing costs in excess of £2m. Could an equally marketed domestic T20 with a 2 or 3 overseas stars become very profitable because costs would be far less.
Counties aren't in the financial mess that's portrayed-all would be healthier still if ECB profits were shared fairly i.e. evenly.
The evidence is there if you look for it.
brokencricketdreams.com/2024/05/12/i-read-every-county-cricket-clubs-financials-fascinating-revelations-are-county-cricket
brokencricketdreams.com/2024/06/20/how-much-debt-does-each-county-owe-the-economics-of-county-cricket-part-ii/

Further more only 20% of any ensuing profits from the Hundred go back to the counties,and vast majority of that to the host counties.Imbalances like that will never widen cricket following.
For what it's worth I'm in favour of a reduced County Championship i.e. 3 divisions of 6 with play offs opening room for a 50 over competition including the counties outside the CC.
Mind this stress from an intensive schedule is pap-they spend amost half of a 4 day CC game feet up in the dressing room. Only stress there is if you can't finish the crossword.
Click to expand...
Thats a separate point, though from what I am making, is that people do watch short format cricket a lot of them young and old.

It would have not have been success if that was not the case.
 
Voice of fair play said:
Thats a separate point, though from what I am making, is that people do watch short format cricket a lot of them young and old.

It would have not have been success if that was not the case.
Click to expand...
Which is what I agree with in my very 1st sentence although I'd question the "old" part. Families certainly -which was why T 20 was introduced,successfully. It's this franchise obsession that I question.It was wholly unnecessary risk as figures in England show.
Probably too late now though.
😀Why do you invariably begin your responses with "that's not my point" or such synonyms? You must be the most misunderstood poster on this forum
 
Last edited:
Parkside said:
Which is what I agree with in my very 1st sentence although I'd question the "old" part. Families certainly -which was why T 20 was introduced,successfully. It's this franchise obsession that I question.It was wholly unnecessary risk as figures in England show.
Probably too late now though.
😀Why do you invariably begin your responses with "that's not my point" or such synonyms? You must be the most misunderstood poster on this forum
Click to expand...
It’s two different debates the poster I quoted said people don’t watch and like the hundred.

The fact that very intelligent people have invested a lot of money and that franchise cricket has took off around this the world very much suggests otherwise.

You also continue to ignore the point that they is too many county championship games that end up as bore draws.

Year on year a lot the majority of the teams draw more games than they win or lose.

If you are anyone else wants to promote it against the competition it’s needs a culture change imo.

The England test team has lead the way to prove red ball cricket can be a great watch when done right
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top