|
|
Post by sussexabroad141 on Aug 15, 2022 11:48:23 GMT
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 revenueAre 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-fundTake 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 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. Need some definitions for what are Admin expenses and what are Operations expenses here. Admin expenses going up is crazy, but it is really the operations, which i expect includes players salaries that is the biggest concern although this might be driven by the fact that we did reduce the playing staff in 2021, and you will not see that benefit coming through until 2022, although I suspect the T20 side is still expensive. I would love to see operations broken down by format |
|
|
|
Post by sussexabroad141 on Aug 15, 2022 11:50:33 GMT
Actually apologies - missed the squad expenses line..... So Admin, Operations and Match Costs have all gone up whereas Squads has stayed flat? More explaining for the Sussex Executive team to explain
|
|
|
|
Post by sussexman on Aug 15, 2022 20:30:45 GMT
Well done for pointing out the significance of the ECB contributions to Sussex’ finances Wicked. Further review of the accounts suggest the ECB’s influence may be even greater in 2021 than suggested. Commercial contributed £655k in income, but incurred £412k in costs, so only contributed a net £243k net. If shown like that, as was catering due to it being outsourced, the reliance on ECB for meeting the bills is even greater. Also do you know what Pro Cricket Income at £499k represents. As Match Income and membership is shown separately, could this be another contribution from the ECB, perhaps for providing players for England? The other ECB contribution is shown as a Grant.
In fairness, Sussex’ ability to earn income from match income, concerts etc was reduced in 2021 due to covid, so this works in the other direction.
|
|
|
|
Post by ashingtonmartlet on Aug 17, 2022 12:26:37 GMT
I'd expect match income, the club shop and hospitality etc were significantly impacted by the lack of crowds during the Blast as a result of covid restrictions. For large parts of last summer the ground was still closed to spectators, and I think the majority if not all of the Blast? A better assessment will be in the next set of accounts which we might be able to call a 'normal' year (if those actually exist anymore!!). Comparing Sussex with the 'big' counties who have Test match/international grounds is not a fair comparison either. Those sides may well keep the revenue for hospitality for hosting international matches plus the Hundred, or a large chunk with ECB taking a cut - I do not know the ins and outs but it would make sense. They were able to get crowds in for the new comp last summer. These counties can also facilitate larger events, conferences etc. Comparing to Somerset and the rest without such large venues is fair game. Very true, not really a typical year to analyse. |
|
|
|
Post by liquidskin on Aug 17, 2022 18:37:52 GMT
At the end of the day, all the lines go up, so everyone is happy. Except the trads. But they'll be dead soon so it doesn't matter. I'm somewhere in the middle, a tradfuturist.
|
|
|
|
Post by joe on Aug 22, 2022 19:44:43 GMT
George Garton just bowled the best opening spell in the 100. 10 balls, 1 run and 3 top order wickets.
|
|
|
|
Post by joe on Aug 22, 2022 20:23:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Aug 31, 2022 9:52:56 GMT
George Dobell's loathing for the 100 continues as he slates the competition in his most recent damning article for The Cricketer Magazine. Thank God you have to pay to read it. This saves me time and bother. To repeat, the doom-sayers have no choice, but to accept the competition as Sky Sports will be covering it until at least 2028. The tournament is nearing completion with the Men's and Women's Eliminator at the Ageas Bowl on September 2nd and the Final at Lords the following day. So fast and sweet. Undefeated local Women's side, Southern Brave, is automatically in the Final. Unfortunately, the Men's team has had a torrid time this season after winning the inaugural Trophy last year. We have seen some incredible batting and fielding along with exciting close games, while the Women's game continues to prosper. It is unclear how the competition has faired, public-wise, but hearsay suggests it has been more successful than last year, with higher attendances at the games and strong TV viewing figures, where the BBC continues to support the tournament helped, of course, by a sizzling summer. Cricinfo wrote two weeks ago that... "Attendances for Monday's double-header between Birmingham
Phoenix and Trent Rockets (August 15th) were impressive. 9,859 for the women's game (on a weekday
afternoon) and 15,800 for the men's - not least given the numbers of events Edgbaston has hosted this
year: a Test, a T20I, seven Blast group games, Finals Day, and the Commonwealth Games. The swathe
of bright-orange merchandise in the crowd suggested an affinity with Phoenix, even at an early stage of
their existence. Having a large cricket-loving Asian population has helped the cause. www.espncricinfo.com/story/the-hundred-2022-birmingham-embraces-the-hundred-as-new-tournament-finds-its-poise-1329383Last year, the ECB said it had made £10 million profit from the 100. This year, hopefully, that profit figure will at least double, where a majority of the money is to be ploughed back in to county cricket. The hope is that at the competition's zenith (perhaps, by 2027), the ECB could be making as much as £100 million profit per season. Fingers-crossed. If you wish to remain embittered by the 100, so be it. That is your choice. Yet, this tournament's profits will not only assist in saving the Championship format, but keep all the 18 clubs alive. Dobell's Rant (If you want to pay 30p to read it!)www.thecricketer.com/Topics/premium/ignoring_the_hundred_andrew_strauss_high_performance_review_deeply_flawed.html |
|
|
|
Post by sussexforever on Sept 1, 2022 9:59:42 GMT
We have seen some incredible batting and fielding along with exciting close games, while the Women's game continues to prosper. It is unclear how the competition has faired, public-wise, but hearsay suggests it has been more successful than last year, with higher attendances at the games and strong TV viewing figures, where the BBC continues to support the tournament helped, of course, by a sizzling summer. Last year, the ECB said it had made £10 million profit from the 100. This year, hopefully, that profit figure will at least double, where a majority of the money is to be ploughed back in to county cricket. The hope is that at the competition's zenith (perhaps, by 2027), the ECB could be making as much as £100 million profit per season. Fingers-crossed. If you wish to remain embittered by the 100, so be it. That is your choice. Yet, this tournament's profits will not only assist in saving the Championship format, but keep all the 18 clubs alive. To counter your continuing love for the 100, viewers have fallen from an average of 615,000 per match last summer to just over 500,000 this year. www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2022/09/01/bbc-viewing-figures-hundred-fall-20-per-cent-serious-blow-competition/As for close games, there haven't been too many of those either. 'Margins of victory have widened in 2022. Teams chasing have won on average by 6.26 wickets and defending by 31.62 runs. In 2021, those figures were 5.55 and 27.18. The chasms have grown.' www.thecricketer.com/Topics/thehundred/the_analysis_crank_up_jeopardy_the_hundred.htmlThat £10m profit isn't reality either when the proposed £1.2m payoff to each county was not factored in despite being a direct cost of putting the tournament on. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Sept 1, 2022 11:47:14 GMT
Sf, To counter your continuing love for the 100,
I do not "love" the 100, I enjoy watching this format as I do all other cricketing formats. ...viewers have fallen from an average of 615,000 per match last summer to just over
500,000 this year. You quote the BBC TV viewing figures and not Sky Sports. Here is a good example of a close game from yesterday. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/scorecard/ECKO52913Manchester Originals harbouring Phil Salt won the game with just one ball to spare, allowing them to reach the Eliminator. To me that is an exciting and very close match. To counteract your Cricketer Magazine info, Nick Howson also writes, "Half a million tickets were sold before the tournament began so some of the most important numbers are heading the right way... particularly given the impressive ticket sales." Re: that Manchester Originals game, Howson writes, "The virtual quarter-final on the last night of group action was certainly a good advert for more knock-out cricket... Fittingly, we got the grandstand finale the contest deserved." Unfortunately, your Telegraph link is subscription only, so I cannot make any further comments. |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Sept 1, 2022 13:53:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sussexforever on Sept 1, 2022 13:54:40 GMT
I was being a bit tongue in cheek with the love comment. The BBC figures are like for like and to have such a large drop does not bode well, particularly given it is the FTA platform. Sky's figures will not offset the drop. Whilst attendance figures are 'good' there remain large sections of empty seats so it will be interesting to see where overall sales end up at and as a percentage of capacity versus last year.
Yesterday's game bucks the trend and demonstrates the tournament has not lived up to its best of the best billing. The statistics back this up. Also why do teams play each other once and then have an additional game tacked on? Whoever has played the worst side twice gets an inflated points total. However, this issue is more of an ECB one given I believe we should play everyone twice in the CC as well. It undermines the integrity of any competition.
|
|
|
|
Post by sponge on Sept 1, 2022 14:30:03 GMT
I was being a bit tongue in cheek with the love comment. The BBC figures are like for like and to have such a large drop does not bode well, particularly given it is the FTA platform. Sky's figures will not offset the drop. Whilst attendance figures are 'good' there remain large sections of empty seats so it will be interesting to see where overall sales end up at and as a percentage of capacity versus last year. Yesterday's game bucks the trend and demonstrates the tournament has not lived up to its best of the best billing. The statistics back this up. Also why do teams play each other once and then have an additional game tacked on? Whoever has played the worst side twice gets an inflated points total. However, this issue is more of an ECB one given I believe we should play everyone twice in the CC as well. It undermines the integrity of any competition. Sussexforever, the brainless ECB. How can a competion be fair if you don't play each other twice home and away. I have never understood this crazy fixture organisation. Also a bug bear of mine is that all sides should play games on the same date or starting on the same day. Current scheduling is a shambles and there are no excuses. |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Sept 1, 2022 19:33:24 GMT
I was being a bit tongue in cheek with the love comment. The BBC figures are like for like and to have such a large drop does not bode well, particularly given it is the FTA platform. Sky's figures will not offset the drop. Whilst attendance figures are 'good' there remain large sections of empty seats so it will be interesting to see where overall sales end up at and as a percentage of capacity versus last year. Yesterday's game bucks the trend and demonstrates the tournament has not lived up to its best of the best billing. The statistics back this up. Also why do teams play each other once and then have an additional game tacked on? Whoever has played the worst side twice gets an inflated points total. However, this issue is more of an ECB one given I believe we should play everyone twice in the CC as well. It undermines the integrity of any competition. That is despite the tickets being given away for virtually nothing. What would the attendances be if they charged £30 like Sussex or £46 like Somerset (as they do with the T20)? They have moved a successful competition at peak time and replaced it with an inferior competition which isn't as popular despite them giving the tickets away. |
|
|
|
Post by liquidskin on Sept 2, 2022 18:20:56 GMT
Good game on tonight, that's all that matters. Shame my team, the Jizz Spitters, fell at the first but what ya gonna do. Now I'm an original. Mad for it, call the cops. You're twisting my melon man. And... that's pretty much it for Manchester.
|
|
Below is the Sussex CCC Financial report for the year ended October 31st, 2021.
