Joe Root calls for a reduction in county cricker

[Parkside]

They would because short format entertaining cricket is what fans like to watch.

Don't think any rational person would deny that. The point being it's local, superstars and coverage not neceassary which you conveniently ignore.
But you're in favour of 10 teams nationwide, not even spread evenly geographically, rest of the areas just fold.
Hmm,each to his own.

 

[Voice of fair play]

Don't think any rational person would deny that. The point being it's local, superstars and coverage not neceassary which you conveniently ignore.
But you're in favour of 10 teams nationwide, not even spread evenly geographically, rest of the areas just fold.
Hmm,each to his own.

Well not exactly totally agree should be spread more geographically.

I do find quite contradictory mind that when it suits short format cricket is slogging, not proper cricket, too much in favour of the bowlers etc etc.

But when it’s local or a team somebody may support it’s popular and enjoyable

 

[Parkside]

Well not exactly totally agree should be spread more geographically.

I do find quite contradictory mind that when it suits short format cricket is slogging, not proper cricket, too much in favour of the bowlers etc etc.

But when it’s local or a team somebody may support it’s popular and enjoyable

Not contradictory at all,the two points aren't mutually exclusive.

Not contradictory at all,the two points aren't mutually exclusive.

I assume you meant too much in favour of the batters

 

[Fleagle]

Y’know, I’m not so sure that’s true. Now perhaps I’ll concede that Filby isn’t best suited to comment on what it’s like for players fitness and welfare in having to deal with the rigours of a season on the county treadmill, but neither really is Joe Root.

I’ve listened to a few things now over the last 24 hours about it, a lot of people seem absolutely shit scared to mention the obvious (white) elephant in the room that would solve this entire issue in one fell swoop.

Aye I’ll give you that one, because is this is the first year he’s played much in the last 10 or so and I presume no one forced him to do that. Maybe the golf courses were too wet.

With an attitude like that women would never have gained the vote, slavery would never have been abolished and Sunderland would’ve lost the 1973 FA Cup Final.

If there is an attitude that parallels the attitude of the Edwardians that women shouldn’t be given the vote or the attitude of the Georgians that slavery is inevitable, it is the attitude that we must have 16 to 18 first class counties because that’s what we had during the 20th century.

I would like to preserve County Cricket as far as possible. I am a member of a county club. My father was a member of two. But nothing is forever. We have 53 traditional counties in England and Wales. We have 38 cricket county boards. There is nothing magical about having 18 first class teams. If it is not sustainable, it is not sustainable. And it is quite obvious not sustainable.

 

[Parkside]

Ap

If there is an attitude that parallels the attitude of the Edwardians that women shouldn’t be given the vote or the attitude of the Georgians that slavery is inevitable, it is the attitude that we must have 16 to 18 first class counties because that’s what we had during the 20th century.

I would like to preserve County Cricket as far as possible. I am a member of a county club. My father was a member of two. But nothing is forever. We have 53 traditional counties in England and Wales. We have 38 cricket county boards. There is nothing magical about having 18 first class teams. If it is not sustainable, it is not sustainable. And it is quite obvious not sustainable.

But the attitude is that ideally we should have 1st class cricket accessible live to as much of the country as possible. This probably necessitates that there be 16-20 clubs,the term counties is a misnomer because some of the so called counties no longer exist. Overall cricket finances held centrally by ECB are healthy. Some counties are richer than others,mainly because they receive a far greater proportion of test match revenue by being a host venue.I'd argue that with a fairer share of this revenue the status quo is sustainable

 

[Fleagle]

But the attitude is that ideally we should have 1st class cricket accessible live to as much of the country as possible. This probably necessitates that there be 16-20 clubs,the term counties is a misnomer because some of the so called counties no longer exist. Overall cricket finances held centrally by ECB are healthy. Some counties are richer than others,mainly because they receive a far greater proportion of test match revenue by being a host venue.I'd argue that with a fairer share of this revenue the status quo is sustainable.

I would’ve thought that doing away with counties altogether is an even bigger heresy on here than merely pruning those credited with first class status down again from their current highest ever level.

But maybe that’s a conversation we need to have too. How many kids in Handsworth think they live in Warwickshire? How many kids in Tower Hamlets think they live in Middlesex? Dare I say it, but how many kids in Sunderland think they live in Durham?

English cricket backed the wrong horse when it went for counties. English football backed the right horse when it went for cities and towns. We have that issue to sort out as well. It is a somewhat alarming fact that only six of the 18 first class counties pay business rates to a county council of the same name, and two of those only do so because they are not in the city we think they are in.

 

[Inside Forward]

Was it last summer or the summer before Somerset barely played a game in August?

Trying to cram proper cricket into a few months whilst the 16.4 sucks up the entirety of August. Then having the temerity to whinge about a congested calendar.

 

[spen666]

Oh the irony. How many games will he play? No problems with the Hundred though eh? That white elephant that pays him a decent wage for a few games.

You must be logged on to see external links

He will be calling for an equivalent reduction in salaries as well then?

 

[brandon]

There is nothing magical about having 18 first class teams. If it is not sustainable, it is not sustainable. And it is quite obvious not sustainable.

The money in the ECB’s reserves prior to the advent of the 16.4 would suggest otherwise. BUT, as John Filby put it so eloquently recently, if you go down the route of a breakaway that risks the existence of the counties - where are you going to get your players?

They would because short format entertaining cricket is what fans like to watch.

Isn’t as popular as England Test Cricket.

No just understand where cricket going and has been for the last 20 years

Every single major cricket country has a short format competition in a designated window.

We already had that, it was called the Blast. IN FACT, it was US that created the concept and gave it to the world.

They is absolutely no reason with the proper investment to attract the top players and have as many available as possible during that window why this country can’t have the second most successful short format competition in the world.

There is no reason why that can’t be the T20 Blast.

HOWEVER, you’re still not going to get the Indians over.

A mere 4 years ago there was no such thing as 'franchise' cricket here, but now you won't even consider any other alternative.

You have to wonder where this hate towards the fans of Durham, Leicestershire, Kent, Worcester etc etc. came from.

Said from day 1 he doesn’t like county cricket - which makes it all the more odd really, when he seems to believe and portray that only HE knows what is best for the domestic game.

I think although respect your view, we fundamentally miles apart.

Well for once you’ve got something right, because yes, fundamentally you are miles apart. @Parkside loves and cares for domestic cricket, whilst you absolutely couldn’t give one single f*ck whether it lives or dies.

One game per day? That's just about the only thing you can hang your hat on. Good job it never rains in Britain or you might be left with days of dead airtime.

As we discussed years ago, every other thing they used to justify franchise cricket, has proven to be bollocks.

I see the latest thing is threatening the 10 other counties with a breakaway if they don't vote to cut their own throats. As predicted.

We won't have 18 first class counties soon, and at that point I'll walk away from the sport. And people like yourself won't even be sorry for what you've done.

Was it last summer or the summer before Somerset barely played a game in August?

Trying to cram proper cricket into a few months whilst the 16.4 sucks up the entirety of August. Then having the temerity to whinge about a congested calendar.

As Jon Filby put it - he’s only got 3 days of cricket to sell to his members in July and 4 in August.

Just 7 (SEVEN) days of the most important two months of the cricketing calendar where there will be cricket to watch at Hove.

That’s an absolute f*cking disgrace and The ECB (FTECB) have caused that with their braindead franchise bullshit.

 

[Steak Pie]

As Jon Filby put it - he’s only got 3 days of cricket to sell to his members in July and 4 in August.

Just 7 (SEVEN) days of the most important two months of the cricketing calendar where there will be cricket to watch at Hove.

That’s an absolute f*cking disgrace and The ECB (FTECB) have caused that with their braindead franchise bullshit.

And, of course, there's no way the 16.4 will expand the number of games once this has gone through. The IPL is famously a short competition which wouldn't dream of going on for two whole months. So there's no need to worry that once the IPL franchise owners have their claws into the English game they will want to expand the competition and block out the whole summer.

Filby might look back at his 7 days of cricket and realise just how lucky he was.

 

[redandwhiterob]

And, of course, there's no way the 16.4 will expand the number of games once this has gone through. The IPL is famously a short competition which wouldn't dream of going on for two whole months. So there's no need to worry that once the IPL franchise owners have their claws into the English game they will want to expand the competition and block out the whole summer.

Filby might look back at his 7 days of cricket and realise just how lucky he was.

I don't know the ins and outs of this but what stopping them just knocking the hundred on the head and rejigging the blast? Surely sky and the BBC can't be happy with the quality of the product

 

[Steak Pie]

I don't know the ins and outs of this but what stopping them just knocking the hundred on the head and rejigging the blast? Surely sky and the BBC can't be happy with the quality of the product

Probably just whatever contracts they've signed with TV companies and facilities providers.

I know that the original deal to hire OT lasted for three seasons, so Lancs could have pulled the plug this summer if they'd wanted and there was nothing the ECB could do. I suspect that's why the plan to hand huge amounts of money to the eight host counties and get them into running the show, has been brought forward.

The quality of the product doesn't matter, the viewing figures are all that matters. That's why the marketing budget is off the scale, and the commentary is like listening to hostage videos.

 

[brandon]

Excellent article in The Guardian by Barney Ronay:

You must be logged on to see external links

Why should anyone be worried about the England and Wales

You must be logged on to see external links

Board’s plan to sell its stake in the eight Hundred franchise teams to private investors? A deadline for counties to agree to a “direction of travel” on this issue has been set for Friday. The governing body’s preferred direction appears clear enough. The intention seems to be to sell English cricket’s chief domestic revenue levers as quickly as possible. Most likely this will be to the existing owners of Indian Premier League franchises. IPL owners already have teams in the US, the United Arab Emirates and South Africa. So why not here?

To date nobody with any kind of platform in the game seems overly concerned about this prospect. We have seen no breaking of ranks among administrators, no big‑ticket media names pointing to the potential pitfalls, no European Super League-style protests on the streets.

So maybe it’s just fine. County cricket is broke. Private equity is rich. It sounds like a natural fit, like hammers and nails, predator and prey, greed and hubris. This is “money coming into the game”, to use the generically evasive phrase. And who doesn’t like money? So why does it feel like what is happening here is the first step in outsourcing the English cricket summer, in privatising the month of August? Welcome to Selling England By The Pound, Part 74: Domestic Cricket. At the very least, we need to talk about this.

It is a complex process, but one that involves a pretty simple first step. Under the current proposals the

You must be logged on to see external links

would sell its 49% stake in all eight Hundred teams. This was initially advertised as just 30%. Two weeks before Friday’s meeting the ECB upped this to the full stake. It seems potential buyers will want the lot. Investment without control is a much less interesting deal. This is an important detail. Under this arrangement the eight host counties will retain a 51% stake in their in-house franchise. Anti‑alarmists will point to this, rightly, as evidence that control is not being ceded. The counties still have the majority share. It’s all fine.

On the other hand, it is also hard to imagine how this will remain the case. Private equity is rich. County cricket clubs are poor. Venture capitalists don’t really want a 49% share in anything. They want to control the direction of their investment, and to do so without interference from Sir Bufton Ballsack, who may well be a stalwart of the county board but knows very little about harvesting eyeballs. How many counties, outside of Surrey, are in a position to resist the lure of free money in return for conceding the casting vote?

Never mind, though. The ECB still owns the actual competition! At least, in so much as the competition exists outside the teams that play in it. Like the UK government, it still owns the track and points. It’s just the trains that other people get to run. And look how well that’s worked out. Bring on the Avanti West Coast Invincibles.
The Hundred has divided English cricket, requiring every other format to be subjugated and run down. The ECB is not a public body, but privatisation is still a useful model here. The ECB is the keeper of our shared sporting heritage. It also receives public funding. As such it should be open to public scrutiny. When the veteran Labour MP John Spellar says the government should call the ECB in to review this process, he may not be speaking as a cricket man, but he does know where the sale of assets to private equity can lead. will regulate the sale and ownership of football clubs. Cricket has no equivalent oversight. Why not?

It is unsurprising there is already a fracture in consensus among the counties over all this. The word is there may be no agreement by Friday. The non-host counties, also known as first turkeys on the Christmas meat hook, have begun to question the deal being offered. There are windfalls and annual stipends to be divvied up. Money is being grubbed over. The heirs are gathered around the casket, arguing over the silver.

What about future investment, scheduling, facilities, conflicts of interest between national game, pathways, inclusion and the pure profit motives of a private company? Is the ECB not obliged by its basic constitution to provide protection against the takeover of the cricket calendar by franchises with an eye on global dominance? As opposed to acting as a paid facilitator? Who, right now, knows the answer to any of these things (answer: nobody)?

One problem is the obvious impediments to holding any kind of objective discussion. First the Hundred itself is an endlessly divisive entity. The good bits are clear enough. was designed to expand the game’s reach and source newer, younger consumers. These are logical aims. Given the ECB’s own record of failure in growing the game, something had to be done. The Hundred offered the chance of a reset, for women’s teams to be given status, visibility and investment, for the junking of some old restrictive habits.

The problem is the collateral damage to all the other bits. The Hundred is unavoidably parasitic. It requires every other format to be subjugated and run down, although part of this is a deliberate managed decline to ensure its own success. People who have supported the game and kept it alive like the other formats. Test cricket is still the greatest cash cow. It is currently being asked to subsidise the thing that will cut its legs off, a Hundred that provides no players, no pathway, no midsummer stage in return.

The other problem is the ECB itself, a governing body run for so many years like a mercurial get-rich scheme, which relies on public wealth, the shared game, to produce its only assets, but still seems intent on chasing growth, eyeballs, fire sales and the most buzzword-laden version of sports capitalism. Is the sale of the Hundred franchises even with the spirit of the ECB’s remit? Its governing articles state that the ECB’s aims are to act as the governing body for cricket, to do so for the benefit of all stakeholders, to balance short‑term consequences with long-term benefit, and to promote “the commercialisation, marketing and promotion of cricket”.

Well, one of these (clue: it’s the last one) is definitely the preferred option. But there are still questions to be asked. What do investors want, and why are they interested in your product? The ECB’s chosen buyer-locator is the Raine Group, whose last job in English football was introducing Chelsea to Todd Boehly. These people are not always benevolent actors. It is also worth considering why English cricket is broke when it has also never been so rich, when it can afford to pay a star player half a million pounds for playing four games a year. Where will the new money actually go, other than into debt, and the servicing of more debt?

Hence the need for basic scrutiny. One Labour MP has already suggested this process should take place in daylight. Here are some very obvious questions the ECB would do well to address before speeding ahead. The sale of Hundred franchises has been presented as an obvious net positive for English cricket. Does the ECB accept that this is also a profound existential change for domestic game? Where is the feasibility study on exactly how this could look in 10 years? What indication is there that Hundred host counties won’t instantly sell their controlling vote to the new minority investor? What is the view on the potential effects?


Labour MP John Spellar has called for the government to scrutinise the ECB’s plans to sell its stake in the Hundred teams. If this asset is worth so much money, why is the ECB selling it? Outside investors may have more instant cash. Why isn’t the ECB able to monetise this while retaining control? What study has been made into the medium-term effects on non-host counties? What will be the role of, say Kent CCC, in 10 years’ time? English cricket has a lot of money and a lot of debt. Where will this new money go? Where is the evidence of how it will be spent?

Has the self interest of players, agents, broadcasters and all interested parties with a platform been excluded from consideration of the merits or otherwise of this course of action? What due diligence will be done on prospective new owners? Will you consider the motives of your buyer? Is this a material factor in the sale, or is it just the highest price?

These are all questions the ECB will, it is to be hoped, already be asking itself. A great deal more than the ever-embattled present is at stake.

 

[Provider]

IMO there was too much domestic cricket five years ago. The schedules were all over the shop and it was hard for anyone who wasn't a hardcore fan to keep up with what was going on.

And then the ECB added to that with another competition making the calendar a total shambles.

And it's not just English domestic cricket that has too many games, the international game suffers from that as well.

I've thought this for a while but I honestly think there should only be two forms of the game played going forwards: red ball (so test matches, County Championship, etc) and T20.

I think that the 50 over game has pretty much ran it's course now and has been massively taken over by T20 and losing the format would massively help in freeing up schedules in this country and internationally.

 

[Voice of fair play]

IMO there was too much domestic cricket five years ago. The schedules were all over the shop and it was hard for anyone who wasn't a hardcore fan to keep up with what was going on.

And then the ECB added to that with another competition making the calendar a total shambles.

And it's not just English domestic cricket that has too many games, the international game suffers from that as well.

I've thought this for a while but I honestly think there should only be two forms of the game played going forwards: red ball (so test matches, County Championship, etc) and T20.

I think that the 50 over game has pretty much ran it's course now and has been massively taken over by T20 and losing the format would massively help in freeing up schedules in this country and internationally.

Totally and utterly agree, a one high profile T20 competition in the middle of the summer all games televised in a window, in similar format to IPL, big bash, SA20 etc.

With rest of the summer left for quality red ball cricket would get the balance between the two right.

Hopefully doing that would get more quality in both competitions.

However soo much red tape and politics in the way to get there.

 

[GordonMuchallNo1Fan]

He's sucking off the ECB about the Kookaburra ball today. Wish he would shut up

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

He's sucking off the ECB about the Kookaburra ball today. Wish he would shut up

He deserves respect man

 

[GordonMuchallNo1Fan]

He deserves respect man

Respect works both ways. He shows no respect to the county game. Not that long ago he was on the good course whilst Yorkshire were relegated.

 

[chopsfc007]

Respect works both ways. He shows no respect to the county game. Not that long ago he was on the good course whilst Yorkshire were relegated.

Pretty sure he would have played if it was down to him

 

[Provider]

I wouldn't be taking any notice of anything Joe Root says mind. Outstanding player and seems like a nice bloke but if there were a dictionary definition for "ECB puppet", his picture would be right next to it.