The 100 Tournament 2022 (August 3rd-September 3rd)

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/62454761

God must have told Mo, and Mo told me. God doesn't speak to me since the court case. I dunno which God though. Thor is it, in the East?

The mainstream media continues to poke the wasps' nest and create a rift that is little different to the rifts cricket
has endured since T20 first appeared amidst the county scene on June 13th, 2003.

This time it is former cricketer now media man, Derek Pringle, who attempts to widen the gulf between the sport's
purists and those who realise, for good or bad, that the 100 is essential to keep the Championship format alive.

His first two paragraphs not only sticks the knife in, but for good measure stabs the nest with majestic glee.

A hot August was once prime cricketing weather except that this year, and for the next five to come, it has been
given over to something as yet impersonating this great game – the Hundred.

It is even proposed that next year’s Ashes will be completed by the end of July so this pampered child, a sort of
T20-light with contrivances, can have the stage to itself.

This is such tedious, boring and lazy journalism from a once B-lister cricketer who only played for England because
the standard at the time was so low.



Pringle - Puffed Up Bore

At least, Pringle offers some balance, yet via a disapproving paragraph made to look positive, no doubt prompted
by his editor.

The Hundred has its advocates and, if the premises upon which it was founded prove correct, it will have many more,
mostly new to the game. But that is the issue for its detractors – just where is the evidence showing a strong case for
the Hundred?

The evidence is the encouraging and increasing TV viewing figures, strong attendances at the matches, and general
excitement from the players themselves. They genuinely love and enjoy playing the format.

The rift that the media is forcing down our throats is simply to create a diversion away from the fact that after just
one season and a bit, the 100 is not only proving successful, but bringing in an important new revenue stream to help
allay the financial disaster of the covid pandemic. In fact, the ECB reacted courageously to the crisis, making sure
internationals still went ahead, when others cowered behind closed doors and wore a mask.

The problem being, the English loathe a success story. They prefer underdogs where heroic failure is far more acceptable.
Even now the purists mutter under their breath about the T20 tournament, refuse to attend matches even though the season
ticket covers the format, and generally hark back to the glory days of the 1960s/70s when Boycott took two full days to score
a century. 

Unless you move with the times, you die. And without T20 and now the 100, English county cricket would have been dead
and buried years ago.

metro.co.uk/2022/08/11/the-hundred-cricket-culture-war-threatens-to-overshadow-summer-game-17163289/

The media aren't forcing anything down our throats. I find it refreshing to see the likes of Atherton and Pringle sticking their head above the parapet and taking a view other than that of BBC or Sky that everything about the competition is incredible.

If you put the Blast on FTA and marketed it anything like the Hundred people would watch it and attend. We've seen Ben Stokes step away from ODI cricket due to the schedule in this country and players have long complained about there being too many games. Should the ECB not be criticised for shoehorning a fourth competition into the calendar? The Ashes is the pinnacle of the sport and should not be shunted from prime summertime.

On the revenue stream - when is it expected to make a profit?

How did Sussex & Co survive before Sky?

I was against it, & still would be if I wasn't a devout realist. The players love it, the families love it, & it generates loads a money, it seems. Detach yourself from it maybe but it ain't going nowhere. Something will, & it'll be the 50.

There's too much cricket across all forms Internationally & domestically in my opinion. Less is more.

Counties have always received a share from test match revenue from the ECB or TCCB, for as long as I can remember, and rightly so. It’s only ignoramuses on social media who think that counties are “bailed out” or worse still “funded” by the ECB🙄🤦‍♂️.

Not sure how you can say county cricket would be dead without the 100. It does nothing to benefit counties like ours.

Not in the way the ignoramuses I referred to would like to think. I think they reckon that counties are literally being propped up by the ECB, or that “handouts” from the ECB are the majority of their income…when they’re neither handouts nor the main source of revenue

Are you one of those social media ignoramuses? Your response suggests this.   Below is the Sussex CCC Financial report for the year ended October 31st, 2021.

Total ECB income was £3.42 million. Then add the ECB £367,000 grant to cover street, girls, women’s, disability cricket etc. as well as tackling “green issues”, the total “handout” from the ECB adds up to close on £3.79 million.

www.ecb.co.uk/be-involved/club-support/club-funding/county-grant-fund

Take away this from the £5.94 club income. This leads to Sussex CCC earning £2.15 million v ECB £3.79 million. So what do you mean “nor the main source of income”?



Certainly, the word ‘handout’ is a controversial one. A small part of that ECB money would have covered monies given to Sussex for bringing players through like Chris Jordan, Tymal Mills, George Garton and Tom Haines to be part of an England squad, although it is unclear whether this income comes under the grants revenue. Also, the excellent work the Sussex Cricket Foundation is carrying out to market cricket locally is worth every penny of that ECB grant, yet why is this revenue placed under Sussex Cricket rather than Sussex Cricket Foundation?

What is disturbing is the little money gained from Membership in 2021. Compare this to Yorkshire who have always boasted a high number of Members, where until recently the club had over 6,500. Yet even here, annual income has dropped from £828,000 in 2018 to £569,000 in 2021. Compare this to Sussex’s £115,000 revenue. Apart from Somerset, Membership income, it seems, is on the wane throughout the 18 counties.

Then there is the Club Shop that made a loss of £48,000 during 2021; catering brought in just £27,000 (was a profit made/why so little?); compare this with Warwickshire’s £4.8 million (includes hospitality); with only Sussex’s commercial element attracting any sizeable income (£655,000). Presumably, a fair sum covers the rental from the offices, match hospitality and rent from T20 food outlets. The Estates and other rent receivables (£222,000), perhaps, includes the previous income from the now knocked-down Ember Pub and the couple of local apartments owned by the Club. A majority of this revenue will be missing from near future financial results, although the new and larger pub area, now being constructed under the apartment block, should bring in a reasonable amount come 2024.

The ECB money allows Sussex CCC to make a profit of £118,000, when without this revenue the club would have made a loss of over £2 million.

Is the ECB revenue “a handout?” That’s down to your perspective.