Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => World Cricket => Topic started by: Buzz on November 08, 2011, 12:31:34 PM
-
We are into accounting season for the counties and this is from Lancashire (the county champions no less)
A £2.1mln loss.
there a few things to say about this - firstly that without Sky TV now we would have only about half the number of counties that we do, secondly how long is it until one of the counties goes bankrupt - because this kind of loss is unsustainable when you consider their revenues - in fact they predict anther £2+mln loss for 2011 as well. But Lancashire are by no means the only ones.
The Impact of the next 5 years could be interesting as although on the pitch the county and the national sides are doing well - if the breeding grounds for the players is removed in 10-15 years we will be in trouble - plus with the global fall in interest in test cricket the lasting impact could be siesmic.
Although I doubt it will be that bad it is clear that having all these counties and all these test match ground is unsustainable - something will have to give...
Lancashire post £2.1m loss for 2010 – the worst result in their history• Investment leave us well-placed, says finance director
• Lancashire relying on revenue from 2013 Ashes Test
Lancashire have revealed that they lost £2.1m in 2010 – the worst financial result in their history and among the grimmest figures recorded by a county cricket club – to underline how much they are relying on staging a Test in the next Ashes series during 2013.
They may be the county champions for the first time since 1934 but Lancashire ended 2010 with debts of £14m and expect that figure to grow considerably by the end of this year as they continue the redevelopment of Old Trafford.
The £32m project suffered substantial and expensive delays and was threatened by legal challenges from a rival developer. But since they were seen off in the high court last summer and Lancashire were then awarded a 2013 Ashes Test by the ECB, the county have been able to plan confidently for the future.
Their previous record loss of £546,000 was announced for 2009 and last year they completed construction of The Point, the conference and events facility which last week staged the celebration of Sir Alex Ferguson's 25 years as the manager at the other Old Trafford. They have not staged an England Test against top-tier opposition since 2008, with only a less-lucrative match against Bangladesh in 2010, and no Test at all either this year or next as major building work continues at the ground.
Lee Morgan, Lancashire's finance and operations director, said: "The transitional period in building the new stadium was always going to create huge challenges, although the investment will result in the club being well-placed for the long term in ensuring international cricket remains at Old Trafford in a competitive and tough market. "The majority of the club's current debt has been raised to fund the building of The Point, which has already, and will continually prove to be, an important revenue generator for the business. It is important to note that the club will not take on any further debt to fund the rest of redevelopment of Old Trafford which is scheduled for completion in early 2013.
"Although challenging times do remain for all county cricket clubs, with the certainty provided by our international match-staging agreement and also the redevelopment of the stadium into one of the best in world cricket, we have every reason to be optimistic for a successful future of Lancashire."
Only one of the 18 first-class counties recorded a profit in 2010, and Lancashire follow Yorkshire and Warwickshire in announcing losses in excess of £2m.
-
which county made money?
-
After spending some time watching Somerset this season I do wonder how on earth county cricket is supposed to survive. The gates were pretty poor and consisted mostly of OAP's, who are undoubtedly long term season ticket holders. The T20 games had good crowds as expected but I think this may be part of the problem.
We are now seeing a football-style wage influence on cricket in the T20 games - big money being paid to players who aren't guaranteed to perform to their monetary value - see Kieron Pollard this season…
I think sky has certainly helped contribute towards this situation, as clubs feel the need to invest heavily to guarantee future investment from sky themselves, but I'm not sure where the answer lies. Quite a lot of the county clubs have well and truly gobbled the carrot dangled in front of them.
-
The test grounds should always do ok (in the end) but have a look at Leics last year. Something like 70-80% of their revenue was from Sky, without it they couldn't even come close to breaking even. The arguement all counties trot out is they are grooming future england players - do you need 18 counties though?
Worth remembering that the Sky money is supposed to be aiding grass roots cricket, yet I see very few clubs,outside big ECB Premier League teams, benefitting. Maybe losing a few first class counties and benefitting hundreds of local clubs should be looked at instead.
-
which county made money?
I thought it was Kent
-
which county made money?
I thought it was Kent
I am not sure - typically Surrey is the only county to make money but I know they didn't this season.
And if it was Kent - at what cost - they have one of the worst county teams in the counrty and all their leading players have been leaving
-
http://www.kentcricket.co.uk/news-blogs/news/kent-county-cricket-club-ltd-releases-2010-financial-results
-
so in fact they made an opperating loss of £500,000 but this was offset by selling some land...
-
Spin did a good article on it earlier in the year http://www.spincricket.com/2011/04/30/county-crickets-financial-crisis/
-
Biggest enemy to the counties is playing county cricket, but it's vital to the England setup and why they are subsidised by the ECB. I suspect T20/40 over probably just about makes money. I do wonder if a "lighter" schedule could allow Counties to share players (and wages) with ECB Premier Clubs. Do players get a 12 months a year contract, or just for the cricket season (acknowledging they are contacted for several years at a time).
-
so in fact they made an opperating loss of £500,000 but this was offset by selling some land...
I didn't read the whole article Buzz, it was far too intelligent for me!
-
I'm in favour of following the route the SAffers took, but it'd be hard to get in in place past all the 'tradition'.
-
A few counties have in the past looked at creating regional teams - but this will hurt all the major match grounds - I mean if you had a London Team would they play at the Oval or Lords... It is not an easy place to be
-
A few counties have in the past looked at creating regional teams - but this will hurt all the major match grounds - I mean if you had a London Team would they play at the Oval or Lords... It is not an easy place to be
Neither is losing millions of pounds a year, playing a competition that provides a living for a lot of guys never have been or will be anywhere close to international standard. I'm of the opinion that the FC set up should really only consist of potential, current or previous internationals, and maybe the odd few that were very close but never quite made it. Paying wages to poor county players is just a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere.
-
Neither is losing millions of pounds a year, playing a competition that provides a living for a lot of guys never have been or will be anywhere close to international standard. I'm of the opinion that the FC set up should really only consist of potential, current or previous internationals, and maybe the odd few that were very close but never quite made it. Paying wages to poor county players is just a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere.
Which was my original point.
I think to much "been done like this for 100 years" etc is attached to the county game, compiled with the unwilliness of counties to merge or county chairman to see past their own jobs. If you work on some kind of slimmed, best of the best model then 10-12 counties are required max. Not only would the quality of cricket improve but increased subsides/gate revenue would help balance the books. The first class structure is not a commercial market driven structure, if you were designing it now then many counties would cease to exist. A great example of this is the Thames Valley area - hugely affluent but not one county team amongst bucks,berks,oxon. If you wanted to sell a sporting product, do you go to the South East or Derby first?
-
Thats not entirely the point - there are after all two sets of considerations here - those for the "Test match" counties and those for the non Test counties - the former category being Yorkshire, Lancashire, Middlesex*, Slurry, Notts, Warwickshire, Durham, Hampshire and Glamorgan. For them, the big issue tends to be the redevelopment cost of their grounds to get up to the standards which they perceive will ensure ongoing representation in the international calender; other incomes can vary, but are usually decent within the realm of what could be expected, and they should all do better as the recession eases, building projects reach completion and they can start to increase corporate turnover.
For the other nine counties, the issues are even more directly related to the recession because their revenue streams are so obviously limited to Sky broadcasting rights plus gate takings - this is why they insisted on the preposterous 16 game a side 20/20 and such like. Some are better run and better placed than others (I understand Sussex to be pretty solvent, Northants too) but they all suffer from the limitations of small grounds and no international cricket.
* Middlesex of course being an odd one, because their turnover is technically the smallest of all because they don't own their own ground nor do they make appreciable revenue from it!
-
If the ECB had the balls, they could pay off most if not all the debts or even buy out all the counties as going concerns. Without the Sky/International money most are not viable, therefore the ECB should have the upper hand in restructuring. However, it's clearly an old boys club with no interest in the development of cricket.
-
However, it's clearly an old boys club with no interest in the development of cricket.
I think that is wrong, however the county chairmen who run the ecb have an inherent conflict if interest with their two jobs.
currently the under25 rule means the counties youth development is being subsidized by the ecb.
the real issue is we have a county structure in which none of the participants are a going concern.
-
Not true, I think in the middle term more than half are capable of breaking even or better - its only the very smallest countiues plus possibly one or two of the test clubs that are in any serious danger of implosion. The terms on which the ECB chooses to offer incentie payments are, well, not entirely to my taste but they do sort of make sense in teh current outlook of English cricket, and they have the benefit of offering a steady stream of young but experienced talent to the national set up. Old boys club? Perhaps, though not as much as they were ten years ago - revenue steams have improved, its just channels of communication that can be dominated by the smaller voices.
Look at it another way - if counties were to merge or be made non First class, which should go?
-
Problem I have is the County Chairman get to vote on the structure, so the guys are never going to abolish their own counties in the interest of improving the standard or financial health of cricket, are they? From that point of view they looking after themselves and potential holding back cricketing standards in this country.
Good question regarding structure - do you draw it along county/region lines or start from scratch
If it's country/region - then Lancs/Yorks clearly have to stay, they constitute a huge geographical and commercial area. Do you need Leics/Derby/Notts or Worcs/Warwick, Gloucs/Somerset, Hants/Sussex, Essex/Northants, 2 teams for the capital or Surrey/Kent merge, Essex/Middlesex. Does Durham stay on it's own or merge with Scotland, Glamorgan on it's own? As I mentioned, I believe the Thames Valley should have a team given the population within an hour drive and businesses.
-
All interesting points - I think the problem is that it is hard to see where obvious mergers fall - Leicestershire merging with Notts would seem to make some sense given that Notts already use them as a vitrual feeder club, likewise there would be a case for Gloucestershire and Somerset merging. Derbyshire are financially the smallest but, well, who takes them, whilst Worcestershire could merge with Warwickshire but, well, I like New Road so that should not be allowed to happen!
Perhaps a better model would be to reduce the game to between nine and twelve full time counties - the test clubs plus Sussex, Somerset and Essex? - and run the others as either one day only or semi pro teams in a second competition alongside the stronger minor counties and, to aid the development of the game there, the likes of Ireland and Holland. The resultant drop in the fixture calender would be useful in upping standards, and would also allow for things like a four way regional competition to be played over consecutive weeks at the start of the year as test trials - The North (Yorks, Lancs, Durham, Derby) Midlands (Notts, Warwicks, Leics, Worcs, Northants) South East (Middx, Slurry, Kent, Essex, Sussex) and South West (Gloucs, Somerset, Glam, Hants) each picking their strongest sides.
-
There are some very interesting ideas being put forward here by cricket fans. Is it worth consolidating the ideas and sentiment and feeding it to the ECB as a view from outside the inger circle?
-
I'm sure 1 region could accommodate 2 grounds, after all Middlesex play at Southgate, Yorkshire at Scarborough.
I think reducing the county championship to 12 teams in 2 divisions of 6 would work well. Not only will it make the standards higher but also reduce the number of loss making games. Counties could then revert to a 18/20/24 team setup for t20/40 over cricket - I imagine the real revenue earners for the smaller counties. Coupled with reduced admin and short term contracts, it could even make most of the counties profitable.
I'd love the ECB to listen, but they won't until a county finally goes bankrupt.
-
I'd keep the counties as some sort of part time set up playing a reduced schedule and then have a districts comp of some sort ontop of that.
-
this also has the added advantage of reducing the fixture lists and concentrating the minds of the players to really perform
-
And not killing off some of the counties while leaving the rest.
-
I guess if you create a district/region competition then those setups have to funded by the ECB, because it's the loss making part of cricket. The counties would get less of the pie to fund their 1 day outfits.
-
Having worked at Leics CCC, I have seen the pressure it puts on staff and fans.
Glad they had a great year, India touring was also a blessing for sales.
-
So Gloucestershire ended the year 30 September 2011 with profits of £2000, after being down £400,000 the previous 2years.
-
So Gloucestershire ended the year 30 September 2011 with profits of £2000, after being down £400,000 the previous 2years.
that is great news for them. it might be interesting to see what they used to balance their books...
-
that is great news for them. it might be interesting to see what they used to balance their books...
well look at it this way - they've spent their surplus on an Ad in the Cricketer this coming month:
"Failing county side seek players of any age and ability. No experience required"
-
that is great news for them. it might be interesting to see what they used to balance their books...
They've got and bought in a load of crap players probably as something to do with it (with the exception of murali)! That and the fact my mate has been going all this season and has probably worked up that 2K profit at the bar...
-
Yep, down to bringing in youth, lowering wages, and the England men's-ladies 20-20. Plus peplows mate increasing the footfall thru the gate
-
the Morgan report into county cricket is out today, should be interesting.
the yorkshire chairman has made some pretty sensible statements today. worth looking up
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15977519.stm
Food for thought. Around Leeds I've counted a half dozen new sites with football pitches. At the same time we are crying out for new cricket grounds and pitches. The ECB's contribution - zero.
-
the ecb/yorkshire
wouldnt give us any grants at all for are development..
and we are involved and in the promotion of yorkshire blind cricket as well and dont get nothing from anybody
-
don't understand why the FA/ECB can't join forces and create a multipurpose facility. 4 cricket pitches/8 footy pitches with a clubhouse in the middle would generate enough revenue to maintain the facility year round. Obvious oversight in my book as it would encourage takeup in both sports.
-
the ecb/yorkshire
wouldnt give us any grants at all for are development..
and we are involved and in the promotion of yorkshire blind cricket as well and dont get nothing from anybody
Unfortunately mate, it's all about ticking boxes. We got most of our £300k clubhouse through grants from the ECB, I can assure you they do exist.
-
recently?
we started all this 2 years ago right when ressesion hit.. got no where every since
-
Yes mate, new pavillion opened june last year. Building started end of season I think and it was only 2 years in the making before that I reckon.
http://www.chardandilminsternews.co.uk/news/9112087.Chard_Cricket_Club_ready_to_show_new_clubhouse/
-
makes me bloody sick :(
-
some funding comes from government agencies. Due to the Olympics they cut back on funding elsewhere or set targets for funding. The ECB "last man standing" is supposed to be a franchise initiative to get adults back into cricket - so the ECB can receive the funding they are use to. Might be more to it but that was what I heard.
The other story from 4-5 years ago was that the ECB wanted to fund less clubs and create a structure below first class. The ECB Premier Divisions were born and all clubs had to get "Clubmark" rating to be involved. Clubmark also meant easier access to funding, which in turn meant less for other clubs. I will stress this is hearsay from somebody involved in the admin side at a low level, but to me it rings true as I've sat in numerous league agm's since where the question "who has got some of this sky money" has been met with a big "no".
-
Yes mate, new pavillion opened june last year. Building started end of season I think and it was only 2 years in the making before that I reckon.
[url]http://www.chardandilminsternews.co.uk/news/9112087.Chard_Cricket_Club_ready_to_show_new_clubhouse/[/url]
Didnt know you were from chard mate! Playing footie on that dreadful pitch down there on sat!
-
Didnt know you were from chard mate! Playing footie on that dreadful pitch down there on sat!
Well are you be (No Swearing Please) lol. Who you playing for? The footie facilities are as poor as the cricket clubs are now good.
-
Almondsbury UWE :)
I hate running up that pitch! i'll try get a look at the cricket ground!
-
It's only over the fence lol, so when one of those dirty chard players (of which there are many) kick you up in the air just look east and you'll see it lol.
-
So Essex break the mold - with a £333,368 profit for 2011
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/559137.html
Essex returned to profit in 2011, but they have warned that trying times lie ahead. The club declared a profit of £333,368 for the year ending 31 December 2011, compared to a loss of £22,585 for the same period in 2010.
Despite a disappointing year on the pitch - they were relegated from the first division of the county championship and failed to progress beyond the group stages of either of the limited-overs competitions - Essex were rewarded, along with most other counties, with a large ECB payment for ensuring their ground has been developed to the required standards.
However, Essex say they are more reliant upon gate income from their home Friends Life t20 matches than any other county and fear that this year's reduction from eight home games to five will hit them hard. They are also investing an extra £100,000 into the squad this season in order to improve their on-field fortunes.
"Our significant profit of £333,000 reflects a small operating profit of £13,000 supplemented by £300,000 of exceptional income from the ECB," the club's treasurer, Keith Brown, said. "The exceptional income is in respect of maintaining our ground to a specific standard and has been set aside to meet anticipated expenditure in the future.
"We maintained our contribution from membership but match income was down. Our income from one-day games is 89% of gate income. Our reliance on Twenty20 income is greater than any other county and with the reduction in home games from eight to five in 2012 this represents a real challenge to our income.
Nigel Hilliard, the club's chairman said "Last year's failure in all competitions was especially disappointing as we appeared, on paper at least, to have an excellent squad. "Unfortunately our performances on grass were not impressive and while we continue to be victims of our own success by producing players for England and the IPL, members have been used to better performances.
"The club's main aspiration is to still be successful in the county championship. We do accept that our present group of players are more suited to the shorter formats of the game and it was therefore disappointing that last year results went against us in the limited-over matches as well as the championship."