Parliamentary debate on the future of English cricket



redandwhiterob said:
Happened today

The future of English cricket inquiry - publications

Publications for the DCMS Committee inquiry into The future of English cricket
www.parliament.uk

Long reading and that but thought it might interest a few on here
Click to expand...

“I am devastated that the cricket I love is being sacrificed for an unpopular ECB vanity project.”

Very well put by Dr Katy Scott, the standout sentence in an excellent piece. A hard hitting line which reflects perfectly my own feelings on it all.
 
jaxaxe said:
Some interesting and disturbing papers there.
Click to expand...

Incredibly disturbing axe. None more so than this:

  • 3. The ECB’s decision to restructure the English cricket season in 2020 with a competition in a new format, The Hundred, has attracted heavy criticism; and raises issues of governance:
    • 3.1 The Good Governance Institute (GGI) made 11 recommendations on governance to the ECB in 2018; the Committee may wish to enquire if they have been implemented;
    • 3.2 One of the GGI’s recommendations was that the ECB should have strategic engagement with its stakeholders, yet its decision on restructuring the season is opposed by a major group of stakeholders, namely traditional cricket followers; there are also questions on whether the culture at the ECB stifled criticism; and whether there wassufficient challenge to the executive’s proposals from ECB’s independent directors;
    • 3.3 The GGI recommended that the ECB should commit to a regular review of its governance: key points to consider include the effect of changes in the composition of the ECB Board; the changes in the ECB articles of association; and the fact that the majority of ECB members do not represent first-class counties and yet vote on matters where the major effect is on the first-class game;
    • 3.4 Good governance requires decisions to be monitored, and assessing The Hundred should take into account its (expected negative) impact on existing competitions.
Absolutely galling just how badly the ECB ‘look after’ the game. With particular emphasis on their obvious mishandling of the County game.
27. One of the GGI recommendations was that the ECB should have a strategic commitment to stakeholder engagement.[7] Thinking of stakeholders widely, the ECB went ahead despite the opposition of traditional cricket followers. In 2018, 96.3% of readers of The Cricketer said they did not like the ECB’s idea for The Hundred and 66.7% would prefer the new competition to be t20.[8] In 2019, 84% opposed The Hundred, mostly strongly;[9] and around two-thirds had little or no confidence in the corporate governance structure at the ECB.[10]
 
Last edited:
brandon said:
Incredibly disturbing axe. None more so than this:

  • 3. The ECB’s decision to restructure the English cricket season in 2020 with a competition in a new format, The Hundred, has attracted heavy criticism; and raises issues of governance:
    • 3.1 The Good Governance Institute (GGI) made 11 recommendations on governance to the ECB in 2018; the Committee may wish to enquire if they have been implemented;
    • 3.2 One of the GGI’s recommendations was that the ECB should have strategic engagement with its stakeholders, yet its decision on restructuring the season is opposed by a major group of stakeholders, namely traditional cricket followers; there are also questions on whether the culture at the ECB stifled criticism; and whether there wassufficient challenge to the executive’s proposals from ECB’s independent directors;
    • 3.3 The GGI recommended that the ECB should commit to a regular review of its governance: key points to consider include the effect of changes in the composition of the ECB Board; the changes in the ECB articles of association; and the fact that the majority of ECB members do not represent first-class counties and yet vote on matters where the major effect is on the first-class game;
    • 3.4 Good governance requires decisions to be monitored, and assessing The Hundred should take into account its (expected negative) impact on existing competitions.
Absolutely galling just how badly the ECB ‘look after’ the game. With particular emphasis on their obvious mishandling of the County game.
27. One of the GGI recommendations was that the ECB should have a strategic commitment to stakeholder engagement.[7] Thinking of stakeholders widely, the ECB went ahead despite the opposition of traditional cricket followers. In 2018, 96.3% of readers of The Cricketer said they did not like the ECB’s idea for The Hundred and 66.7% would prefer the new competition to be t20.[8] In 2019, 84% opposed The Hundred, mostly strongly;[9] and around two-thirds had little or no confidence in the corporate governance structure at the ECB.[10]
Click to expand...
The financials looked bloody scary as well.
 
30. Culture was another subject considered by the GGI. I here mention Jonathan Liew’s reference to the threat to strip The Oval of its hosting rights because ‘ECB chairman Colin Graves was furious that Surrey were the only county planning to vote against the new playing conditions’. Has the culture at the ECB stifled criticism?

Seen that @TheRey??

Colin Graves should be stripped of his post with f***ing immediate effect. It is CLEAR he is not capable of managing properly if he lets his own pettiness get in the way of the role.
______

And another gem here:

33. Another recommendation of the GGI was that the ECB should commit to a regular review of its governance.[19] In 2017 the ECB arranged a change in its articles of association which, according to Jonathan Liew, ‘has given it an almost unchecked power within the game to silence dissenting voices.’ A review of governance would consider how this has worked out.

FTECB is a corrupt and dangerous organisation, it is clear that their goals are power and greed. They do not give two fucks whether the County game fails. It’s becoming increasingly clear that they are no longer fit for purpose.

I think the Counties should break away and form their own Alliance.
 
Last edited:
Couple of observations from today: the last ECB report into costs of giving up a Test to free to air was in 2008. Before T20I was a big deal. Before most T20 leagues. A different world really. And when Andy Nash said The Hundred would lose £20m in its first year, he meant £7.5m. (Dobell twitter)
 
Still not too late to bin this rubbish off. T20 tournaments around the world have been pulled at late notice. It looks rubbish and the long-term ramifications are frightening.
 
brandon said:
I wonder if @Voice of fair play still thinks this is a good idea :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I don’t know whether you have read my posts, I am sure you have, but I have said countless times that I would prefer a T20 format on free to air telly rather than the hundred.

However any format that could increase participation and on free to air telly.should be at least given a chance.

Of course that is very diffrent from saying it’s a good idea!
 
Last edited:
Voice of fair play said:
I don’t know whether you have read my posts, I am sure you have, but I have said countless times that I would prefer a T20 format on free to air telly rather than the hundred.

However any format that could increase participation and on free to air telly.should be at least given a chance.

Of course that is very diffrent from saying it’s a good idea!
Click to expand...

That's me really. In order of preference.

1. County T20 on BBC
2. Something else franchise related on BBC
.
.
.
100. All county cricket behind a paywall.

Option 100 was far more damaging for the game than Option 2 will be imo, so I see it as an improvement on the last 14 years.
 
I did notice that some witnesses said that The Hundred gone wrong could be an existential threat to cricket but what I didn't know was that the £1.5 million to the counties was only for the first 5 years, thereafter nothing is promised and there could be nothing to distribute if they're having to pay top dollar to attract the 'stars'.
 

Back
Top