Sale of the 16.4/The Death of County Cricket



Parkside said:
Again you're totally ignoring the reality that they're not bail outs from ECB.It's the counties money held by ECB. Given that Durham regularly supply players to the England team and so arguably should receive a higher than average share of profits gained by England team revenue. It''s Bostock and his like who are the real Luddites.
Click to expand...
It’s true that the ECB could not make money from the international cricket which is the principal source of the revenue it feeds back to the counties and to the grassroots without a domestic game including both the first class level and the club level. It’s quite possible that without both Cockermouth and Durham, there is no Ben Stokes. Or he’s someone you’ve not heard of who played a handful of rugby league games for Workington Town or something.

I still think it’s an over simplification though to say that therefore the revenue England generates belongs to Durham, or to Cockermouth for that matter. The revenue was generated by England because that’s what people watch. It’s not generated by the few of us who go along to the county red ball or even by the slightly greater numbers who watch the white ball. Not in sufficient numbers to support the domestic game.

There needs to be a partnership. We need a domestic game, but we need to be realistic that it is catastrophically unprofitable in itself because it is just not popular enough. The counties are not the strong partners in this partnership.
 
Just to clarify a point. All county chief executives are board members of hundred teams. Each hundred team board consists of the chief execs of the host county plus one other and an independent chair.

Also clubs do receive more money the more england internationals they produce.
 
signifthetimes said:
Just to clarify a point. All county chief executives are board members of hundred teams. Each hundred team board consists of the chief execs of the host county plus one other and an independent chair.

Also clubs do receive more money the more england internationals they produce.
Click to expand...
So Bostock is " the one other" on Northern Supercharger board?How do they define an independent chair?
Fleagle said:
It’s true that the ECB could not make money from the international cricket which is the principal source of the revenue it feeds back to the counties and to the grassroots without a domestic game including both the first class level and the club level. It’s quite possible that without both Cockermouth and Durham, there is no Ben Stokes. Or he’s someone you’ve not heard of who played a handful of rugby league games for Workington Town or something.

I still think it’s an over simplification though to say that therefore the revenue England generates belongs to Durham, or to Cockermouth for that matter. The revenue was generated by England because that’s what people watch. It’s not generated by the few of us who go along to the county red ball or even by the slightly greater numbers who watch the white ball. Not in sufficient numbers to support the domestic game.

There needs to be a partnership. We need a domestic game, but we need to be realistic that it is catastrophically unprofitable in itself because it is just not popular enough. The counties are not the strong partners in this partnership.
Click to expand...
Totally agree.The point I was making was the monies does not belong to ECB,they're not some sort of benefactor to cricket.They seem to be a case of the tail wagging the dog.
 
Last edited:
An independent chair is someone not affiliated with either of the aligned counties. Anyone can apply when a vacancy becomes available. Most seem to have business/board level backgrounds
 
MustardAndOnions said:
Maybe, its not as clear cut as that tho


Yeah, again, I dont agree with the 100, or investing money in it. And I am not saying it will sustain counties either, I am just saying people have rose tinted glasses to how things actually were.
Click to expand...

There’s nothing rose tinted about the millions of pounds of reserves the counties had. It’s fact.
 
Parkside said:
Yes,through subsidising the Hundred.That's why reserves are dwindling.Fact.
Click to expand...

but they’d have gone anyway. There is an issue with smaller counties producing no players and racking up loads of debts.

I wish you’d stop throwing the 100 at me like, I hate it and don’t want it. Not sure why keep referencing it in my points.

The money would not have lasted forever before this is my point, that’s what I mean by burying our heads in sands a bit that everything was rosy before 100, it isn’t

English cricket is under threat from all sorts of things even before the 100 was made
 
MustardAndOnions said:
but they’d have gone anyway. There is an issue with smaller counties producing no players and racking up loads of debts.

I wish you’d stop throwing the 100 at me like, I hate it and don’t want it. Not sure why keep referencing it in my points.

The money would not have lasted forever before this is my point, that’s what I mean by burying our heads in sands a bit that everything was rosy before 100, it isn’t

English cricket is under threat from all sorts of things even before the 100 was made
Click to expand...
I'm not throwing the Hundred at you. Year on year professional cricket was showing a profit and the Hundred is Haemmoraging money. These are facts.Obviously there's always a need to seek new revenue streams. Promote the successful domestic T20 but it's test cricket in England that still remains a massive and main revenue stream.
Some counties struggle because central income i.e. test match isn't distributed fairly.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top