Topic: County Finances (Read 15772 times)

Manormanic · « **Reply #15 on:** November 08, 2011, 05:11:57 PM »

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!

uknsaunders · « **Reply #16 on:** November 08, 2011, 05:24:19 PM »

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.

Buzz · « **Reply #17 on:** November 08, 2011, 05:30:10 PM »

Quote from: uknsaunders on November 08, 2011, 05:24:19 PM

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.

Manormanic · « **Reply #18 on:** November 08, 2011, 05:38:24 PM »

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?

uknsaunders · « **Reply #19 on:** November 08, 2011, 06:42:52 PM »

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.

Manormanic · « **Reply #20 on:** November 08, 2011, 07:14:17 PM »

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.

tim2000s · « **Reply #21 on:** November 08, 2011, 07:49:48 PM »

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?

uknsaunders · « **Reply #22 on:** November 08, 2011, 08:27:24 PM »

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.

Kulli · « **Reply #23 on:** November 08, 2011, 09:11:47 PM »

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.

Buzz · « **Reply #24 on:** November 08, 2011, 09:15:41 PM »

this also has the added advantage of reducing the fixture lists and concentrating the minds of the players to really perform

Kulli · « **Reply #25 on:** November 08, 2011, 09:19:38 PM »

And not killing off some of the counties while leaving the rest.

uknsaunders · « **Reply #26 on:** November 08, 2011, 09:46:15 PM »

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.

garethjakebull · « **Reply #27 on:** November 08, 2011, 11:07:04 PM »

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.

Six Sixes Cricket · « **Reply #28 on:** November 10, 2011, 11:13:41 AM »

So Gloucestershire ended the year 30 September 2011 with profits of �2000, after being down �400,000 the previous 2years.

Buzz · « **Reply #29 on:** November 10, 2011, 12:29:12 PM »

Quote from: d7bow on November 10, 2011, 11:13:41 AM

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...

Author Topic: County Finances (Read 15772 times)

Manormanic

Re: County Finances

uknsaunders

Re: County Finances

Buzz

Re: County Finances

Manormanic

Re: County Finances

uknsaunders

Re: County Finances

Manormanic

Re: County Finances

tim2000s

Re: County Finances

uknsaunders

Re: County Finances

Kulli

Re: County Finances

Buzz

Re: County Finances

Kulli

Re: County Finances

uknsaunders

Re: County Finances

garethjakebull

Re: County Finances

Six Sixes Cricket

Re: County Finances

Buzz

Re: County Finances