More ‘Hundred’ fuckwittery

[eddyfinn]

I think despite what Eddyfinn is trying to pretend further up, these host counties are set to earn a decent wedge of money, leaving the poorer to get poorer. My understanding was all got 1.3m as well which Dobell and 1 out of 2 of the social media groups have indicated to me.

So your evidence is all hearsay bring me facts

 

[GordonMuchallNo1Fan]

It will be Sri Lanka, Ireland, Zimbabwe for t20s in April with a bit of luck.


before someone pulls me up, iirc the aussies will be here this year. I’m joking a little

see how it all works out. it's why i don't mind the club having to host 3 concerts during the season, ultimately no ideal as we are kicked out the ground for a few weeks, but the club need to make £££ somehow and if the powers to be are hell bent on trying to make the rich richer, then we need to explore alternative sources of income.

So your evidence is all hearsay bring me facts

Just brought you facts. 1.3m or not, the other counties will be making money on tickets, merchandise, booze, food and sponsorship.......... the other counties don't get that luxury........... that's not hearsay, that's solid fact and common sense. the 1.3 million is utterly irrelevant to be honest.

George Dobell reporting
"Costs of The Hundred - including payments to counties - just under £59m a year. Income just over £51m."

Hmmm. I detect what may be a wee problem.

 

[brandon]

Ultimately makes the poorer poor and the rich richer. Worth noting in the cricketer magazine Dobell wrote a piece basically saying the hush money given to the counties was nothing more than a bribe and in time won’t begin to cover the shortfalls of not having meaningful white ball cricket of their own. Take Yorkshire for example, they will get a hosting fee, they will get ticket sales, merchandise, sponsorship deals and then ticket sales for the T20 blast. That will be worth millions more compared to what Durham and Kent for example will receive. Each club gets the 1.3m as well

Below is an extract taken from George Dobell when submitting evidence to parliament about this a few month ago

Meanwhile, the traditional teams – the first-class counties – will be relegated to secondary
competitions. Yes, they will benefit from short-term gain (the £1.3m inducement offered for
their support), but in the medium-term (those payments only last five years), the decision to
bring in eight new team identities threatens to cannibalise the game and could see cricket
disappear from some areas of the country.

The governance of the ECB is probably relevant here. Are we really comfortable with
Yorkshire – a county that disproportionately benefits from the introduction of The Hundred -
owing Colin Graves family trusts circa £20m? Are we comfortable that the decision to strip
Durham of their rights to host Test cricket also benefited Yorkshire disproportionately, as it
reduced competition for such games among the northern grounds? Are we comfortable that
Graves also chairs the ECB’s nominations committee so effectively has a veto on who joins
the board? Are there not reasonable questions here about potential conflicts of interest?

The ‘extra’ money coming into the game is fool’s gold. Look how the ECB’s reserves have
plummeted (from somewhere around £78m a couple of years ago to somewhere around £0
now). Look how the ECB were forced to suspend the introduction of the new central contracts
(for England players) from October to February due to cash-flow issues. The start-up costs of
The Hundred (which have more than trebled since first quoted), the number of new staff (and
consultants) employed to ‘ensure’ its success and inflationary demands from player salaries
will eat up this ‘new money’. And while the ECB will tell you, with some justification, the
counties are benefitting, the total remuneration package for the ECB CEO (salary, pension
and expenses) is now believed to surpass the entire salary bill for several first-class counties.
Disability cricket, for example, is not gaining an extra pound from the new broadcast deal.
Nor is recreational cricket. How can that be termed a success?
There is very little wrong with the game of cricket in England and Wales that could not be
resolved with more of the sport broadcast live on free to air platforms. It was the ECB’s
strategy of selling the game exclusively to a subscription broadcaster that inflicted the
damage. The ECB’s strategy of betting the farm on a new competition no-one wanted could
well compound the issue.
A refreshed T20 competition – and, perhaps, a new FA Cup style knockout T20 competition –
would have been far safer, more appropriate methods by which to grow the game. It may not
be too late to pursue them.

In case anyone was wondering, that strange sound - that was GMN1F dropping the mic on his way off the stage

 

[GordonMuchallNo1Fan]

In case anyone was wondering, that strange sound - that was GMN1F dropping the mic on his way off the stage

Ha. It's just common bloody sense to realise the host counties will earn more money, 1.3m each or not. That information was presented to parliament by a very respected cricket reporter......... hardly what i would describe as "hearsay".

 

[brandon]

So your evidence is all hearsay bring me facts

Come on Eddy, don’t be so obtuse. Dobell’s evidence provides plenty of facts. The main one being the FACT (that nobody in the game disputes) that the counties WITH a franchise will get that same £1.3m figure as the counties WITHOUT a franchise. Add that on top of the revenue they’ll be getting from ticket sales, merchandise, beer, food and the obvious extra interest in the other formats that county plays in - only an idiot can’t see that those WITH will make more money than those WITHOUT.

That’s without mentioning the millions in sponsorship and TV money they’ll all get.

 

[GordonMuchallNo1Fan]

Come on Eddy, don’t be so obtuse. Dobell’s evidence provides plenty of facts. The main one being the FACT (that nobody in the game disputes) that the counties WITH a franchise will get that same £1.3m figure as the counties WITHOUT a franchise. Add that on top of the revenue they’ll be getting from ticket sales, merchandise, beer, food and the obvious extra interest in the other formats that county plays in - only an idiot can’t see that those WITH will make more money than those WITHOUT.

That’s without mentioning the millions in sponsorship and TV money they’ll all get.

Bearing in mind they are already expected to operate at a loss for this competition of approx 8 million. George Dobell reporting "Costs of The Hundred - including payments to counties - just under £59m a year. Income just over £51m.

You then look at their finances in May 2018........... Graves will be absolutely desperate to make sure this works and make the hosting counties richer. The ECB also need to make money on this as they have fucked up in recent years

May 2018

The ECB has played down concerns over their finances after their accounts showed reserves have dropped by around GBP 65 million in just two years.

The accounts, published on the Companies House website on Monday, show that group reserves now stand at GBP 8.6 million. That figure was GBP 35.7 million in 2017 and GBP 73.1 million in 2016.

It reflects a second successive year of significant losses, with a loss of GBP 30.2 million reported for 2017 and a loss of GBP 37.3 million in 2016.

The ECB have previously stated their aim to keep reserves at around 40 percent of turnover;

 

[TheRey]

Better players are tapped up without this anyone decent in the midlands ends up at notts eventually, Surrey pick and choose who they want and Hampshire get the best kolpaks out there. The extra money players recieve feom the hundred will for me actually see players less interested to move around and loyalty/local roots is still a big thing in cricket despite what we see in football.

Surrey produce our own players, thank you.

 

[NorthCountryBoy]

Bearing in mind they are already expected to operate at a loss for this competition of approx 8 million. George Dobell reporting "Costs of The Hundred - including payments to counties - just under £59m a year. Income just over £51m.

You then look at their finances in May 2018........... Graves will be absolutely desperate to make sure this works and make the hosting counties richer. The ECB also need to make money on this as they have fucked up in recent years

May 2018

The ECB has played down concerns over their finances after their accounts showed reserves have dropped by around GBP 65 million in just two years.

The accounts, published on the Companies House website on Monday, show that group reserves now stand at GBP 8.6 million. That figure was GBP 35.7 million in 2017 and GBP 73.1 million in 2016.

It reflects a second successive year of significant losses, with a loss of GBP 30.2 million reported for 2017 and a loss of GBP 37.3 million in 2016.

The ECB have previously stated their aim to keep reserves at around 40 percent of turnover;

The loss is an investment in the game to be fair. They could quite easily have maintained the short termist Giles Clarke model of putting it all to Sky and made a profit but they’ve traded that for extra exposure (BBC).

I’m all for that but uneasy on the franchises and the format.

 

[GordonMuchallNo1Fan]

The loss is an investment in the game to be fair. .

An investment they will make an 8 million loss on this year?

 

[eddyfinn]

Come on Eddy, don’t be so obtuse. Dobell’s evidence provides plenty of facts. The main one being the FACT (that nobody in the game disputes) that the counties WITH a franchise will get that same £1.3m figure as the counties WITHOUT a franchise. Add that on top of the revenue they’ll be getting from ticket sales, merchandise, beer, food and the obvious extra interest in the other formats that county plays in - only an idiot can’t see that those WITH will make more money than those WITHOUT.

That’s without mentioning the millions in sponsorship and TV money they’ll all get.

Beer and food yes cant argue with that not sure what deal each of the grounds have with suppliers or if they contract it out so impossible to guess there, Merchandise is simply what they have in their club shop not the team that plays there, yes they will have more people to sell it to now, sponsorship and TV money all goes to ECB including a very high percentage of the ticket sales. Most people only have a certain amount to spend on entertainment its likely the amounts gained will protect some of the likely drop in attendance at their other games where as imo Durham will have increased attendances on the back of the hundred.

Surrey produce our own players, thank you.

Yeah I mean Surrey have never gone and took the best players from other counties or international teams have they

 

[NorthCountryBoy]

An investment they will make an 8 million loss on this year?

Yes. An investment in growing the base of the game (their view, not yours I know that) which they think will pay off long term. It’ll be loss making for the first five years according to Dobell.

 

[GordonMuchallNo1Fan]

Yes. An investment in growing the base of the game (their view, not yours I know that) which they think will pay off long term. It’ll be loss making for the first five years according to Dobell.

Canny risk when you've lost so much cash in recent years.

Beer and food yes cant argue with that not sure what deal each of the grounds have with suppliers or if they contract it out so impossible to guess there, Merchandise is simply what they have in their club shop not the team that plays there, yes they will have more people to sell it to now, sponsorship and TV money all goes to ECB including a very high percentage of the ticket sales. Most people only have a certain amount to spend on entertainment its likely the amounts gained will protect some of the likely drop in attendance at their other games where as imo Durham will have increased attendances on the back of the hundred.

Yeah I mean Surrey have never gone and took the best players from other counties or international teams have they

40% of ticket sales to the hosting club. £8 based on a £20 sale. Multiply that by 15000 per game roughly = 1.2 million and each ground hosts 4 or 5 games......... Obviously some tickets are cheaper

Straight away looking at a healthy income just on the 40% ticket sale split straight away.

 

[eddyfinn]

Canny risk when you've lost so much cash in recent years.


40% of ticket sales to the hosting club. £8 based on a £20 sale. Multiply that by 15000 per game roughly = 1.2 million and each ground hosts 4 or 5 games......... Obviously some tickets are cheaper

Straight away looking at a healthy income just on the 40% ticket sale split straight away.

40% is a made up figure by some poster online who is probably less in the know than you. If the ECB where giving away so much they wouldnt be getting enough back. Anyway we arent going to agree on it and peoples overall cricketing interests on this board are different

 

[GordonMuchallNo1Fan]

40% is a made up figure by some poster online who is probably less in the know than you. If the ECB where giving away so much they wouldnt be getting enough back. Anyway we arent going to agree on it and peoples overall cricketing interests on this board are different

Aye George Dobell and 2 online groups heavily involved in this format. I take what George says as fairly accurate stuff in all fairness. (I'll have to try and dig out the article at some point, he's done that many lately). Anyone with half a brain will be able to realise the hosting clubs will earn more money than the likes of Durham though, it's merely common sense which I'm astounded some cannot grasp.

 

[eddyfinn]

Aye George Dobell and 2 online groups heavily involved in this format. I take what George says as fairly accurate stuff in all fairness. (I'll have to try and dig out the article at some point, he's done that many lately). Anyone with half a brain will be able to realise the hosting clubs will earn more money than the likes of Durham though, it's merely common sense which I'm astounded some cannot grasp.

People never make up stats to suit their agendas do they I mean com on. Of course they will earn more from the competition but they are also likely to see a hit at their gates too, I do agree that overall they will earn more money but not by huge amounts. Durham simply didn't get a team as people don't turn up in numbers to watch games at CLS something Durham should be working on to make the club a bigger success and if the hundred is successful they can put a case for a team, there is no reason why new team can be created or moved it happened in the IPL.

 

[GordonMuchallNo1Fan]

People never make up stats to suit their agendas do they I mean com on. Of course they will earn more from the competition but they are also likely to see a hit at their gates too, I do agree that overall they will earn more money but not by huge amounts. Durham simply didn't get a team as people don't turn up in numbers to watch games at CLS something Durham should be working on to make the club a bigger success and if the hundred is successful they can put a case for a team, there is no reason why new team can be created or moved it happened in the IPL.

It's not a made up stat to suggest hosting clubs of this competition will make more money than those not hosting. It's common bloody sense

 

[Bri]

The loss is an investment in the game to be fair. They could quite easily have maintained the short termist Giles Clarke model of putting it all to Sky and made a profit but they’ve traded that for extra exposure (BBC).

I’m all for that but uneasy on the franchises and the format.

Oh I get that they're taking a punt on recouping the cash after the format is a success. But they are taking a punt, it's a gamble, but there's general agreement this format will harm other formats and that means the takings from RLC, T20 and 1st class will be smaller than they otherwise would be.

I'd be happier (by far) if they would adopt the medical profession's dictum "first, do no harm".

Thius line in the evidence is a shocker "the total remuneration package for the ECB CEO (salary, pension and expenses) is now believed to surpass the entire salary bill for several first-class counties."

 

[Steak Pie]

And there is the main point, while you disagree with it, which is absolutely fair enough, you have the good grace and common sense to hope it ends in success.

It happening now we can’t change it for the longevity of cricket in this country it will be better if it is a success and more people take up the game.

The exact opposite is true IMO, to preserve the integrity and longevity of the game this has to fail. As I've said loads and loads of times (and no-one has been able to dispute) there is nothing the the 16.4 that could not have been done within the Counties framework.

 

[brandon]

Merchandise is simply what they have in their club shop not the team that plays there, yes they will have more people to sell it to now, sponsorship and TV money all goes to ECB including a very high percentage of the ticket sales.

The added footfall to their club shop will be valuable in terms of merchandise.

On the subject of sponsorship, perhaps deals specifically to the Hundred will go to the ECB, but there will be a lot of sponsorship going the way of the club for ‘other’ things which I’m sure if clubs market it right, they can gain extra money from in ground sponsorship off the back of the extra exposure for hundred home games. I know I’d be selling it that way to prospective sponsors.

The exact opposite is true IMO, to preserve the integrity and longevity of the game this has to fail. As I've said loads and loads of times (and no-one has been able to dispute) there is nothing the the 16.4 that could not have been done within the Counties framework.

End of thread.

 

[NorthCountryBoy]

Oh I get that they're taking a punt on recouping the cash after the format is a success. But they are taking a punt, it's a gamble, but there's general agreement this format will harm other formats and that means the takings from RLC, T20 and 1st class will be smaller than they otherwise would be.

I'd be happier (by far) if they would adopt the medical profession's dictum "first, do no harm".

Thius line in the evidence is a shocker "the total remuneration package for the ECB CEO (salary, pension and expenses) is now believed to surpass the entire salary bill for several first-class counties."

Doing nothing and maintaining the current model would be the bigger gamble for me.

2019 was arguably the best year ever so looking at the top level it’s in great health. Those at the grass roots mostly see different though, and what you see there will impact the top eventually.