Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Wonder if Downton got a pay off. And Moores. They were high risk appointments that didn't come off. No one's taken responsibility for them.

It's said executive expenses are rather high.

hearing from someone can't remember where I read it but it seems that Counties have told ECB to reduce the amount of reserves money they need in the bank.
Think ECB are gonna try and work out how much they actually need in the bank just in case WI don't show up to a tour, but with WI already doing it to india everyone knows how much it cost to cancel a series, think the value is around 40M so 70M is too much.

Issue is ECB uses the reserves figure to make it look like the finances are good even though in reality they hardly make any money in a 4 year cycle pretty much goes like this.
year 1 india 40-50M profit
year 2 Ashes small profit
year 3 losses
year 4 losses

think they only really make 10-15M in a cycle and that is purely down to india visit.
They are ****ed if india decides they hate the english folks.

The reason why the ECB needed to build a cash reserve is in the event of a terrorist attack. IIRC had the 2005 Ashes series got cancelled, English cricket would have been struggling financially.

That said I am not sure how the ECB can claim to be making financial losses in 2017 when England are hosting the ICC Champions Trophy and a high profile series against South Africa.

Quite simple really since SA doesn't provide tv money and ICC champions trophy money is kept by ICC and not the ECB.

Think 40M will be enough for a cash reserve and they could give some of the extra 30M to counties.

Also SA might be high profile in terms of Cricketing sense but in financial aspect it is quite low down in the pecking order even lower than a pakistan series.

Its pretty clear to me that the ECB are pushing the counties into a submissive position, so that they have to accept any decree on T20 cricket in the future. Why else would you cut funding while saving more?

sussexpob wrote:Its pretty clear to me that the ECB are pushing the counties into a submissive position, so that they have to accept any decree on T20 cricket in the future. Why else would you cut funding while saving more?

I think that's it. The city franchise idea will be back on the agenda before long and this is an attempt to force the counties to accept it.

captaincolly wrote:

sussexpob wrote:Its pretty clear to me that the ECB are pushing the counties into a submissive position, so that they have to accept any decree on T20 cricket in the future. Why else would you cut funding while saving more?

I think that's it. The city franchise idea will be back on the agenda before long and this is an attempt to force the counties to accept it.

Well indeed. Cut funding to the point that most teams flirt with financial disaster, then offer them the only alternative to get out of it.

captaincolly wrote:

sussexpob wrote:Its pretty clear to me that the ECB are pushing the counties into a submissive position, so that they have to accept any decree on T20 cricket in the future. Why else would you cut funding while saving more?

I think that's it. The city franchise idea will be back on the agenda before long and this is an attempt to force the counties to accept it.

Well indeed. Cut funding to the point that most teams flirt with financial disaster, then offer them the only alternative to get out of it.

captaincolly wrote:

sussexpob wrote:Its pretty clear to me that the ECB are pushing the counties into a submissive position, so that they have to accept any decree on T20 cricket in the future. Why else would you cut funding while saving more?

I think that's it. The city franchise idea will be back on the agenda before long and this is an attempt to force the counties to accept it.

The ECB tend to get what they want in the end if they persist. Just like with the reduction of CC games.

Aidan11 wrote: Just like with the reduction of CC games.

The reduction of games also seems like a measure to import more T20, not only by opening up the gaps in the schedule, but by forcing counties into a cr*p position with the traditional members by de facto making them force members to pay more to get less of what they want. They either cut charges or face losing members, which puts them in the need to fill the scheduling gap with more cricket.... it just so happens, its T20

Will the counties really benefit from a franchised T20, I can't see how? Surely that's one reason why the Counties are against the idea, except the big businessmen who run various counties in big Cities i.e. Leeds.

hopeforthebest wrote:Will the counties really benefit from a franchised T20, I can't see how? Surely that's one reason why the Counties are against the idea, except the big businessmen who run various counties in big Cities i.e. Leeds.

I think that is the main concern. Without a direct link to a county, a city based Franchise system will suck all the profitability out the system, while expecting the county in question to suffer the after effect by having to loan their players for it, and free space up for less matches for them to make money. The counties will get financial reward for it, but only as a token payment for their "services rendered" and not as a major stakeholder of the project. So a T20 entity in complete reliance to the county system to provide its talent will make millions, but the system that feeds into it will be barely kept alive.

This is the problem I have with the IPL. The BCCI and its franchise owners need foreign talent, guys who are trained outside India and use other systems to display their talent int he first place; but IPL becomes so powerful, it takes over and dictates to everything.

Something eventually has to give. Until these "super leagues" are forced to invest adequate and fair money into the track systems that lead to them, all they are doing is stripping the resources that feed them and spit them out the other end. There is no long term sustainability plan to them.

As a continued member of Sussex, I will vote down any measure towards it if my voice is sought in the matter.

westoelad wrote:Conflicting article by Dobell on ESPN.

At a glance ECB expenditure

Turnover: £134m (£174.7m in 2014-15)
Reserves: £73.106m (£70.039m)
Community expenditure: £21m (£24.2 m)
Professional game expenditure: £48.4m (£63.8m)
England teams expenditure: £30.6m (£27.5m in 2014-15)
Support expenditure (governing body plus administration): £14.1m (£12.4m).


1st class grants cut from £64m to £48m according to him.

Reserves may be excessive but admin. expenses at £14.1m, up 15%, seems obscene.

Professional game expenditure was reduced because "exceptional payments" were made to First Class Counties in 2014/15. Looking at past ECB financial reports since 2010, the value of First Class payments varies from season to season.

http://www.ecb.co.uk/sites/default/file ... t_2014.pdf (page 7)

Even at £48.4 Million, the counties are not financially worse off than in previous years.

hopeforthebest wrote:Will the counties really benefit from a franchised T20, I can't see how? Surely that's one reason why the Counties are against the idea, except the big businessmen who run various counties in big Cities i.e. Leeds.

The only people who are mooting for City Franchise T20 are current and ex international players and the usual media propaganda machines are only happy to publicise their views.

Domestic T20 crowds are on the rise (The Roses T20 clash is worth a handsome six figure fee in ticket sales alone), a separate T20 TV rights deal would push the value to £1 Million+. Then you have Middlesex v Surrey which attracts 20k+ crowds without fail. Other derbies (Gloucestershire v Somerset, Essex v Kent, Hampshire v Sussex, Derbyshire v Notts, Warwickshire v Worcestershire), automatically you've got a fanbase right here right now. All the ECB need to do is make minor tweaks - create two dedicated weekends of Derby Day cricket (one beginning of June and the other early July), make all England players available and televise the lot back to back. That alone will enhance the value of Domestic T20 media rights.

Now ECB are saying they need 70M reserves because if the Queen Dies in the Summer it would mean the cricket schedule changes.
Apparently ECB can not host any games within the 2 week mourning period.
Apprently no sporting contest can take place on the day of the funeral and the day of the coronation.