Hundred Corruption

[Raymondo]

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:

It doesn't feel like a lot has changed. It's a great, fortunate position that we are in, but there is jeopardy in getting it right. Twenty million quid, it sounds a lot doesn't it, but it's not necessarily transformational. I could spend that very easily in infrastructure that needs updating around here.

We don't want our focus on the here and now to be distracted but we will try to put ourselves at the top of the pile if and when that opportunity comes along. the great thing about the Hundred expansion criteria is that we tick most boxes, but we don't have enough seating capacity, so there has to be some capital work to increase that.

It's hard. We have access to all this money but the business model hasn't changed. So there is pressure to get these decisions right. There is a feeling that there is a lot more money coming into the game than is actually real. The financial challenges feel just the same.

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.

 

[Parkside]

Excellent informative report that has clearly been carefully researched -yet we'll still have those that will still follow the propaganda that it's the saviour of cricket.

 

[Raymondo]

Excellent informative report that has clearly been carefully researched -yet we'll still have those that will still follow the propaganda that it's the saviour of cricket.

Surprised some of them haven’t popped up on here already to be honest.

 

[Fleagle]

As well as Northants, Hampshire and Durham ourselves have limited company ownership, although Durham has a Community Interest Company somewhere in the structure. Just to give a bit of closer to home info on top of the “Northants is already privately owned” line.

It is possible that the members’ club model is obsolete for a genuinely professional sport. Certainly, with the somewhat random exception of Nottingham Forest, who took until the 1980s, football clubs got out of it in the 19th century.

Don’t disagree with much of the rest though. Although I think that the Hundred exists at all is the reason the Blast has been devalued. It doesn’t matter when you hold your second tier club competition if it is so visibly second tier to your regional franchise stuff. Welsh rugby proved that.

 

[Aidan11]

I've always asked the question - why do these multi billionaire investors want to put money into a tournament nobody wants?

It feels like the ECB has sold its soul (county cricket) to the Devil. We won't know how damaging this is until further down the line. The next TV rights renewal should give us an indication though.

 

[Parkside]

Surprised some of them haven’t popped up on here already to be honest

To be expected. They go completely silent when they see an argument that contradicts their agenda but are unable to counter it. It was much the same with their bazball fantasy.

As well as Northants, Hampshire and Durham ourselves have limited company ownership, although Durham has a Community Interest Company somewhere in the structure. Just to give a bit of closer to home info on top of the “Northants is already privately owned” line.

It is possible that the members’ club model is obsolete for a genuinely professional sport. Certainly, with the somewhat random exception of Nottingham Forest, who took until the 1980s, football clubs got out of it in the 19th century.

Don’t disagree with much of the rest though. Although I think that the Hundred exists at all is the reason the Blast has been devalued. It doesn’t matter when you hold your second tier club competition if it is so visibly second tier to your regional franchise stuff. Welsh rugby proved that.

What you say is factually correct but what is exactly is your point? Lancashire members are presenting a cogent argument as to why the Hundred sale is not the panacea that ECB and some of the host clubs boards claim it to be. Whether they be members,supporters or part of the community interest they are followers without which a club wouldn't exist. They have the right to be heard and listened to.
Presumably they are representatives of a knowledgeable body of cricket followers.

 

[Fleagle]

What you say is factually correct but what is exactly is your point? Lancashire members are presenting a cogent argument as to why the Hundred sale is not the panacea that ECB and some of the host clubs boards claim it to be. Whether they be members,supporters or part of the community interest they are followers without which a club wouldn't exist. They have the right to be heard and listened to.
Presumably they are representatives of a knowledgeable body of cricket followers.

Not really. If you read it, Lancashire members are presenting an argument as to why, in the context created by the Hundred, their membership rights are important (and if you dig deeper still, that the quorum level required for a special resolution is important since that is what their committee is seeking to change).

I am suggesting that many of their bigger picture reasons are sound, but I do not think their membership structure is a necessary feature. We can campaign on this as well. Even if we don’t have that structure.

 

[columbo70]

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.

 

[Fleagle]

Oh, and on the subject of knowledgeable followers, if you’re a county cricket traditionalist, I remember an argument I had with a Lancashire member when I was at Old Trafford. He was whingeing about having to go to Southport for an ODC game and suggesting he preferred Sedbergh School. I commented that at least Southport was in Lancashire. He “corrected me” (and he was my age) that it was in Merseyside. I couldn’t even be bothered to point out that on that basis Old Trafford was in Greater Manchester. This is why I say the county cricket battle is gone. We are not fighting a losing battle. We are fighting a lost battle. Even amongst our own.

 

[Parkside]

Not really. If you read it, Lancashire members are presenting an argument as to why, in the context created by the Hundred, their membership rights are important (and if you dig deeper still, that the quorum level required for a special resolution is important since that is what their committee is seeking to change).

I am suggesting that many of their bigger picture reasons are sound, but I do not think their membership structure is a necessary feature. We can campaign on this as well. Even if we don’t have that structure.

I have read it, thank you, and am fully aware of the reasons for the members disenchantment. I was simply curious as to exactly what point you were trying to make. However,not important.

Oh, and on the subject of knowledgeable followers, if you’re a county cricket traditionalist, I remember an argument I had with a Lancashire member when I was at Old Trafford. He was whingeing about having to go to Southport for an ODC game and suggesting he preferred Sedbergh School. I commented that at least Southport was in Lancashire. He “corrected me” (and he was my age) that it was in Merseyside. I couldn’t even be bothered to point out that on that basis Old Trafford was in Greater Manchester. This is why I say the county cricket battle is gone. We are not fighting a losing battle. We are fighting a lost battle. Even amongst our own.

I like both Southport and Sedburgh, both grounds with great character. You're far too pedantic for me,however, on an issue of Merseyside or Lancashire.

 

[Turner the Cat]

The ECB already misled the public by claiming the 16.4 made a profit when it made a loss.

They've done everything possible to make the hundred a success at the expense of county and international cricket. Giving the 16.4 prime scheduling over anything else. Free and subsidised tickets. England players coming to international games off the back of playing a format that no one else plays.

I'd bet the 16.4 business case doesn't include the lost county revenues from reduced gate receipts especially for T20 games.

I'd not heard about lower ECB revenue going forward.

All in all, I fear this could be doing huge damage to the game when promoting the Blast seemed a good sensible option in the first place.

 

[Parkside]

The ECB already misled the public by claiming the 16.4 made a profit when it made a loss.

They've done everything possible to make the hundred a success at the expense of county and international cricket. Giving the 16.4 prime scheduling over anything else. Free and subsidised tickets. England players coming to international games off the back of playing a format that no one else plays.

I'd bet the 16.4 business case doesn't include the lost county revenues from reduced gate receipts especially for T20 games.

I'd not heard about lower ECB revenue going forward.

All in all, I fear this could be doing huge damage to the game when promoting the Blast seemed a good sensible option in the first place.

100%. ECB, or more specifically,Graves committed totally to the 16.4 then, despite it haemorrhaging money, wouldn't admit to the fact. Classic case of ignoring the precept if you find yourself in a whole,stop digging.
hole

 

[Turner the Cat]

England were world champions when the 16.4 was introduced. Since then, the 50 over competition has been relegated to a second XI competition and England were hopeless at the last WC. How exactly has the 16.4 helped deliver the ECB's plan of making England the best team in the world at all formats?

 

[TheRey]

I really, really fear for the future of cricket- not just County cricket, but all cricket in this country. One of the major reasons is this:-

As we all know, when the 16.4 was in its infancy as an idea right the way through until now, Surrey - despite being arguably the best placed of the very small number of counties for whom the 16.4 could be beneficial - have always been staunchly, staunchly against it. This staunch anti Hundred stance has been the case since the idea for a franchise tournament was first floated, through the various stages of proposals, changes, plans, right through to implementation. Messers Gould and Thompson - both now of the ECB - were almost chief ringleaders in Surrey's opposal to the 16.4. I attended many Members forums at the Oval where they were outright against it - their messaging being consistent: "yes, Surrey CCC probably stands to benefit from it - but what's the point in being an even more successful County Cricket Club, if this sees the death of County Cricket?"

Yet, since moving to the ECB, both have become if not outright champions of the 16.4, they certainly have done a 180 in their public "views" on it.
Under Gould and Thompson, the ECBs stance has changed slightly from - reading between the lines - "The Hundred is a wonderful idea and English crickets saviour that youre all going to love", to basically "listen, we need this to work for the long term future of our game".

So this, for me, raises 3 possibilities:

1. G&T were only ever playing the populists and telling the SCCC members what they wanted to hear, which I dont believe - especially considering how vociferous their opposition to it was while in post at Surrey;
2. Since going into the ECB they've realised how amazing and fantastic the 16.4 is, which is just as unlikely as theory no.1;
Or, 3. Since going into post at the ECB they've seen data, finances, and other information that has spelled out to them that the ECB has bet the entire future of County Cricket on the 16.4 working out, and its failure would be catastrophic for cricket in this country - this would tie in with the messaging changing under their leadership from "this is amazing, youre gonna a love it" to "look lads, we all REALLY need this to work".

Assuming its the most likely theory, which is no.3, that also ties in with why English cricket - for so long a proud, independent and successful institution - has resorted to selling off so much of its family silver for a few Rupees.

So, it would appear we have a huge black hole in the finances and governance of our game, which only 16.4-generated income can generate - a short term fix, that means our game loses out both financially and in every other sense in the future.

It's also created effectively 3 cracks in the cricket fan in this country:
Those who like the 16.4 and use it to bash County Cricket; those who despise the 16.4 and view it with the disgust and contempt it deserves, while clinging to what we know and love of our beautiful sport; and a third segment, which is those who dislike the 16.4, but have reluctantly accepted that its a necessary evil.
Those 3 factions will never be able to find common ground, and thus leaving the dwindling - thanks to the behemoth that is football - cricket loving folk of this country completely divided, meaning money and eyeballs are leaving the game, rather than rallying to return it to where it should be.


All in all its an incredibly sad and distressing mess, and one which needs a rapid answer in order to secure crickets future in this country, as well as strong and decisive leadership. Sadly, we have none of these things, and the only foreseeable outcome is the factions remain at war until there is no more family silver to sell off, and the game - especially at County level - dwindles and fades into obscurity.

 

[Ottery]

I really, really fear for the future of cricket- not just County cricket, but all cricket in this country. One of the major reasons is this:-

As we all know, when the 16.4 was in its infancy as an idea right the way through until now, Surrey - despite being arguably the best placed of the very small number of counties for whom the 16.4 could be beneficial - have always been staunchly, staunchly against it. This staunch anti Hundred stance has been the case since the idea for a franchise tournament was first floated, through the various stages of proposals, changes, plans, right through to implementation. Messers Gould and Thompson - both now of the ECB - were almost chief ringleaders in Surrey's opposal to the 16.4. I attended many Members forums at the Oval where they were outright against it - their messaging being consistent: "yes, Surrey CCC probably stands to benefit from it - but what's the point in being an even more successful County Cricket Club, if this sees the death of County Cricket?"

Yet, since moving to the ECB, both have become if not outright champions of the 16.4, they certainly have done a 180 in their public "views" on it.
Under Gould and Thompson, the ECBs stance has changed slightly from - reading between the lines - "The Hundred is a wonderful idea and English crickets saviour that youre all going to love", to basically "listen, we need this to work for the long term future of our game".

So this, for me, raises 3 possibilities:

1. G&T were only ever playing the populists and telling the SCCC members what they wanted to hear, which I dont believe - especially considering how vociferous their opposition to it was while in post at Surrey;
2. Since going into the ECB they've realised how amazing and fantastic the 16.4 is, which is just as unlikely as theory no.1;
Or, 3. Since going into post at the ECB they've seen data, finances, and other information that has spelled out to them that the ECB has bet the entire future of County Cricket on the 16.4 working out, and its failure would be catastrophic for cricket in this country - this would tie in with the messaging changing under their leadership from "this is amazing, youre gonna a love it" to "look lads, we all REALLY need this to work".

Assuming its the most likely theory, which is no.3, that also ties in with why English cricket - for so long a proud, independent and successful institution - has resorted to selling off so much of its family silver for a few Rupees.

So, it would appear we have a huge black hole in the finances and governance of our game, which only 16.4-generated income can generate - a short term fix, that means our game loses out both financially and in every other sense in the future.

It's also created effectively 3 cracks in the cricket fan in this country:
Those who like the 16.4 and use it to bash County Cricket; those who despise the 16.4 and view it with the disgust and contempt it deserves, while clinging to what we know and love of our beautiful sport; and a third segment, which is those who dislike the 16.4, but have reluctantly accepted that its a necessary evil.
Those 3 factions will never be able to find common ground, and thus leaving the dwindling - thanks to the behemoth that is football - cricket loving folk of this country completely divided, meaning money and eyeballs are leaving the game, rather than rallying to return it to where it should be.


All in all its an incredibly sad and distressing mess, and one which needs a rapid answer in order to secure crickets future in this country, as well as strong and decisive leadership. Sadly, we have none of these things, and the only foreseeable outcome is the factions remain at war until there is no more family silver to sell off, and the game - especially at County level - dwindles and fades into obscurity.

I work in the university sector, for my sins, and this is (also) a perfect diagnosis of what's going down there (hole in finances that can only be plugged by a failing financial model (International student income) - only even fewer people (rightly or wrongly) care about universities as they go to the wall. Cricket and universities will in the end only be available to Eton, Harrow, Millfield.

Personally, I'm waiting for the fuel crisis to mean that teams can't travel round the country and we revert to a 'Willis' format for the rest of the season.

 

[Struts]

We must be the only country that’s introduced a franchise league & seen it have the opposite effect.

 

[Turner the Cat]

So, it would appear we have a huge black hole in the finances and governance of our game, which only 16.4-generated income can generate - a short term fix, that means our game loses out both financially and in every other sense in the future.

I don't think there is huge black hole in the finances.

To me, there is a lot of scaremongering going on from the ECB and headlines like this...

You must be logged on to see external links

Despite the headline, I've taken a look at the report that the article is based on and the report itself shows that 17 of the 18 counties were financially solvent at the time the report was published.

The report's main gripes seem to be that some counties are highly reliant on ECB revenue and there is a big gap in finances between the big counties and smaller ones. My response is that the ECB are hugely dependent upon the counties for the revenues it generates in the first place and there is a huge gulf in incomes in football as well. The ECB also made a £20m+ profit in their last accounts.

There was an article this weekend about how championship clubs have lost £3 billion in the last decade. Many football clubs have wages above 100% of income but no county team is anywhere near that position and many are turning a profit.

The report itself doesn't help it's credibility by getting Michael Vaughan to write the forward. Not only because he is a tit but because he is paid to commentate on the Hundred and therefore is hardly likely to be objective.

Michael also delightfully says the following in his forward "I like clubs like Sussex. This report shows it is a well-run business but one that also competes on the field, keeping that balance between the bottom line and winning cricket
matches".

oh dear!

And if the ECB wanted teams to be more self-sufficient then introducing the 16.4 has achieved exactly the opposite because it has damaged counties ability to generate more income from T20, CC and One Day through prioritising the 16.4.

 

[Superchamps]

In my opinion the Counties are being slowly squeezed out. It won’t be long until the hundred turns into a T20 competition and the Blast disappears or becomes a second team competition like the 50 over cup.

 

[Waverley]

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.

Sorry, skimmed it, What's the corruption?

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.

Surely this is the same for the (guessing) majority of English counties who don't have a county team either. If you are a cricket follower in Cornwall.....

Has the county championship ruined cricket for the Cornish?

 

[Parkside]

Sorry, skimmed it, What's the corruption?

Surely this is the same for the (guessing) majority of English counties who don't have a county team either. If you are a cricket follower in Cornwall.....

Has the county championship ruined cricket for the Cornish?

The Cornish will identify with their nearest 1st class county, in this instance Somerset. Most 1st class counties are membership owned. In this instance,the claimed corruption is by the Lancashire members regarding not being given a say in the sale of the Hundred Franchise.