Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 20:12:42 GMT
Bm, Where are those glorious, spreading horse-chestnuts now ?Perhaps, sums up Kent CCCs general plight? One understands the upset and the hankering of the past. The club won 10 trophies in the 1970s - ten! In the noughties a further two and then dropping down to division 2 in 2008 echoed the growing off-field demise. Yet, without the Spen Cama legacy and later the coaching expertise of Mark Robinson, what might have happened to Sussex? Luck and being in the right place can play such a major role with success. So, have Kent been unlucky or are there important questions hanging above the head of your former CEO, Paul Millman? When one looks at the money Kent have proffered during the last 6 years from Bellway Homes, to Chairman 'gifts', to £5.5m loans from Canterbury City Council and then on to the sold painting worth over £600k, what has happened to all that money? Surely, one disastrous music concert didn't swallow this tidy sum up? Paul Millman (who is a regular attender at Hove) or his chairman Carl Openshaw weren't the problem. It went tits up under the parvenus who followed them. The latest Treasury report from Canterbury City Council shows that a sum of £1,109, 930 on the three year loan made in 2012 is repayable in full to the council in eight weeks time on March 12, and if Kent CCC fails to pay they will be in default. That means less than £400k of the £1.5 million short-term 'emergency' loan has been paid off. The second longer-term loan of £4 million made in 2009/10 is listed as showing an outstanding balance of £3,721,242, so only £280k of that has been paid off. But that's a less pressing concern as the default date on repayment of that loan is May 20, 2040. It's pretty clear that Kent doesn't have £1.1 million spare , so between now and March 12 the club can (a) take their begging bowl to the ECB again (one last favour under Clarke's 'no county will be allowed to go under on my watch' policy?) (b) ask chairman George Kennedy to dip into his own deep pockets one more time or (c) plead with the city council for mercy, and beg them not to foreclose. The latter might work for the council's 'risk register' says: "Reputational risk to the council is very high if the authority has to call in the loan and the club goes into administration because of that. The council would deem to be responsible for Canterbury losing its cricket club status." Was this the game Kent were playing all along - believing that they had the council over a barrel if they failed to repay? But they may have miscalcuated as the local political landscape has changed greatly over the past year or so. Their chief ally in council leader John Gilbey is discredited and standing down at the elections in May; UKIP are waiting to pounce and who knows how many seats they may take? Councillors seeking re-election will no doubt be calculating whether there are more votes in bailing out Kent CCC - or more votes in showing that they are not a 'soft touch' and that they are prepared to act tough with bad debtors in defence of council tax payers' interests. I'd say the most likely outcome is that the council will opt to take ownership and control of assets on the ground , as the ''risk register'' also states that in the event of KCCC's default on the loan repayments, "the council would take over assets such as the conference facility" (which means meeting rooms in the existing stands, pavilion and the newly-built admin block, as the dedicated conference centre which was promised has never been built). As part of such a takeover, would the council insist on replacing the club's failed management and putting in their own mangerial team? It's hard to see how Kennedy and the current CEO and treasurer could survive such a humiliating outcome. It's one hell of a mess and it is going to be fascinating and possibly rather painful to watch how it unfolds over the next eight weeks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 20:50:52 GMT
The astonishing thing is that the media has failed to pick up this story - unless £1.1 million is found by March 12, a county cricket club could potentially be placed in administration in just eight weeks time and there would be only 17 counties competing in domestic cricket next summer.
I'm still optimistic that a compromise can be found that will keep Kent CCC in business, but it is still a helluva story.
Perhaps you should put in a phone call to your mate Dobell, s&f!
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jan 14, 2015 15:28:42 GMT
Bm, I listened to that John Gilbey interview recording again from 2013 and the information he offered about Kent’s £5.5m loan duration and the payment structure is quite different to your report - but he did sound uncertain. So, perhaps, a good thing, he won’t be the Canterbury City Council leader from May. Too many senior moments! Glamorgan were in a similar situation to Kent back in 2012. They owed a similar overall amount - £5.5m - to Cardiff City Council plus money to other ‘investors’ and were facing bankruptcy. The only way to avoid administration was to refinance these loans, by reducing the amount by £300k and paying them off over a longer period thus decreasing the regular repayment amounts. On top of this, the club attracted a new private consortium who lent them £1.3m to “fill in any holes”. Perhaps, Kent shall be forced to do a similar thing? Glamorgan owe a lot more money though - last count was around £15.6m - and why some believe the ECB give ‘The Swalec’ preferential treatment over the other new TMGs, particularly when there is the Board’s ‘Tafia Mafia’ involved (!) For, why would a Council want to take over a county cricket club with all the headaches involved? This makes little sense. www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/Glamorgan-reveal-deal-secure-future/story-15096851-detail/story.htmlA Late Spring Opening
 Eastleigh Borough Council and the ‘Ageas Bowl’ is a unique situation. Eastleigh are a property magnate company in disguise who own many hundreds of commercial properties around the South. It was the 4* Hilton hotel which attracted Council Leader Keith House to bailing out Hampshire. He saw this as the jewel in the magnate’s crown. House’s main aim is to use the hotel for the growing Southampton cruise-liner market whilst tapping into the South’s medium to large-size conference business. Less than 6% of the hotel’s revenue will come from cricket. www.hiltonhotelsouthampton.co.uk/The Hilton is due for completion in May whilst the latest ground proposal is a £40k commissioned piece of artwork at the main entrance. www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/cricket/hampshire_cricket/11717171.__40k_artwork_planned_for_Ageas_Bowl/?ref=macSome viewed the selling of the ‘Ageas Bowl’ in 2011 for £6.5m as a fire sale compared to what Yorkshire CCC had to pay ‘Leeds Cricket, Football and Athletic Company’ in 2005 for ownership of their then tired-looking Headingley - a flattering £12m! That was the beginning of the Tykes financial woes. They borrowed £9m from Leeds City Council to help pay for the purchase; then add all the other loans for renovating the ground. No surprise, then, Yorkshire are in debt to the tune of around £24m-£26m. Old Headingley - Any Takers at £12m?
 And the winners? Rod Bransgrove was facing a financial nightmare after personally investing over £6m into the bottomless pit of the ‘Ageas Bowl’ from his former fortune of £30m gained from merging his hormone replacement company to ‘Shire Pharma’ in 1996 and then later selling his 6.58m shares at a highly inflated price on the Stock Market. By selling the ground, as some consider, at a cheap price, he at least got out with his personal investment intact. The ‘Ageas Bowl’ Fire Sale Song - Rod Bransgrove takes Centre Stage
 www.youtube.com/watch?v=otRAsSmBNhAWhile Colin Graves, the newly appointed ECB Chairman in-waiting, earns an annual interest sum from Yorkshire CCC, as Leedsgull points out, via his personal £7m+ investment in the club, at a rate hard to garner elsewhere. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2015 21:26:57 GMT
Fascinating and well-researched round-up. S&f. The county club/city council link-up you don't mention is the contentious deal between Warwickshire and Birmingham city council, which is the one cited as a model in the documentation prepared by Canterbury City Council when KCCC first applied for a bail-out. It was pressure from Birmingham city council that forced Warwicks to rename themselves 'the Birmingham Bears' last season in return for a 'holiday' on repayment of their £20 million loan. So will Kent CCC's default date be extended in return for becoming the Canterbury Cavaliers? (You might argue that Canterbury Clowns might be more appropriate - I couldn't possibly comment  ). What is noticeable is that there are no county councils bailing out their county cricket clubs - it's all city councils (Leeds, Cardiff, Birmingham, Canterbury, Eastleigh Borough etc). Pace Freddie Wilde's thought-provoking article on cricinfo yesterday, is that 'market forces' voting for city franchises over county clubs, do you think?  |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jan 15, 2015 12:02:16 GMT
Bm, is that 'market forces' voting for city franchises over county clubs, do you think?
What is extraordinary about the present debate on a UK T20 Franchise is that the most important reason for creating such a tournament and why it is essential for the future of 18 county clubs, is not being discussed. When I started The Financial Crisis Facing County Cricket thread some two Sussex Forums back, there was sound interest but rather like the 2008-2012 recession, readers became ‘crises-fatigued’, and not surprisingly, this growing discomfort led to ‘let’s move on’. Yet, little has changed. Glamorgan are still in debt to around £16m; Warwickshire £20m: Yorkshire £25m: Durham £10m: Kent £4.5m etc.. The only TMGs who have the business acumen and ability to pay off their loans are Nottinghamshire (-£2.5m) and Lancashire (-£12m). No-one knows how a majority of these loans will be paid off, even in the long term, and the only thing which ‘could do that’ is a T20 Franchise. For, county cricket is in deficit to the tune of around £90m. Colin Povey - a Holiday Leadership At present, rather like the growing demise of Western Capitalism and kicking the economic can down the road, Glamorgan had to refinance their debts; Warwickshire were given a ‘payment holiday’ and their loan duration lengthened to 32 years; whilst Colin Graves keeps bailing out Yorkshire via his personal £50m fortune. Therefore, it is not surprising that Cardiff, Durham, Leeds and Birmingham City Councils, in particular, might be keen to encourage a Franchise. For them, it is a major opportunity, perhaps the only one, to get their money back. No council wants to take over and run a cricket county ground, just as no council wants to place their county club into administration. This is little more than political suicide. Neil Foster - Money Matters Also, a Franchise offers the council an opportunity of attracting larger numbers of people to the area, which ticks all their economic boxes. Neil Foster, a member of Durham City Council, explains, “A major Test match like an Ashes can attract an additional £20m to the area, with hotels and restaurants particularly benefiting. Anything which commercially improves the local community and attracts new people to the area is worth an investment.” When the Council lent Durham £2.8m in early 2013 to increase the ground's seating capacity in anticipation of the Ashes Test in August, it was about the stimulation of commercial growth and jobs in the North East. The Fourth Ashes Test was about North-East Growth Stimulation  Using the present BBL attendance figures as an example, a successful Franchise tournament could greatly help the economy of the areas where the matches are held. Therefore, for certain City Councils a franchise is a win-win. Footnote: My present view is the ECB, up the road, could be blackmailed by certain exasperated City Councils who might say: “If a Franchise tournament is not
created, then we will place our TMG into administration.” |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jan 15, 2015 12:24:36 GMT
"Footnote: My present view is the ECB, up the road, could be blackmailed by certain exasperated City Councils who might say: “If a Franchise tournament is not
created, then we will place our TMG into administration.”
"
That's a very sage observation, fluffy. 
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jan 23, 2015 9:20:15 GMT
The Daily Mail (sign of the cross, turn three times and spit) is reporting that salary caps for all county clubs have been reduced by 10% with only 3 months notice given by the ECB. www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2922448/English-county-cricket-clubs-face-left-foreign-money-ECB-slash-salary-cap-10-cent.htmlSurrey are reportedly furious " chief executive Richard Gould said: ‘ We are not at all pleased by the cuts or the short notice given. Budgets were set for 2015 last September. It is artificially dampening down investment in cricket and how can we compete with other T20 competitions around the world with these restrictions?'" What effect will there be at Sussex, where biggish bucks have been paid out for Shahzad and Mills and for a host of contract extensions? Will this force a show-down with Matt Prior whose recent Tweets and interviews have been almost exclusively about his cycling venture? |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jan 23, 2015 10:16:31 GMT
hhs,
A fascinating story but only 'The Daily Mail' are carrying it today. If Nick Hoult and 'The Telegraph' were offering back-up, then
I would believe the info as fact, but I await further news for confirmation.
No surprise wealthy clubs like Surrey are furious.
The 'Daily Mail' says this latest ECBs initiative is to encourage home-grown talent, of which Yorkshire have the most, implying
that the new ECB Chairman is already flexing his 'vested interest' muscle, only adding to the story's, perhaps, speculative nature.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 10:40:08 GMT
Agree it is odd that the only source is the Mail, but Richard Gould is far too savvy to have given them a quote on a speculative story so I'd take his commnents as confirmation that it is true. It doesn't feel right, though, because most (all?) county clubs run their contracts and accounting year to a Sept/Oct end date, so to 'move the goalposts' in January is pretty preposterous.
As for hh's question, the impact on Sussex of £220k being shaved off the salary cap obviously depends on how close we were to the old figure. I believe Sussex were roughly in the middle of the table of county playing budgets, so traditionally well inside the cap. But as hh points out, the loss of Prior's central contract will have added another £100k to the Sussex wage bill, plus other new signings...so who knows?
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jan 23, 2015 10:46:19 GMT
It is odd, though, that there is nothing on Surrey's website, official twitter, or even their Supporters Club message board about this. Looks as if the Mail have jumped the gun on an embargoed statement - wouldn't be the first time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 15:14:08 GMT
Top exclusive by The Daily Mail, it seems. Dobell has now read his copy of this morning's paper and regurgitated the story on cricinfo with an added quote from the PCA: www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2015/content/story/823343.htmlIt's going to denude the T20 Blast even further of overseas stars and prevent Surrey from engaging Pietersen. Perhaps that's why they did it! on edit: Nothing from Nick Hoult on the Telegraph website, though. Telegraph more interested in the Morgan sex-texts blackmail - four seperate stories on it in little more than 24 hours! |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jan 23, 2015 15:53:11 GMT
The Dobell gloss on the story - perhaps input from the PCA? - suggests that clubs with players coming back from central contracts will not necessarily be penalised as Durham were when Harmison and Collingwood returned to the fold and the club were docked points as well as fined. That will be good news for Sussex if they have to face up to paying Prior a 6-figure sum, though as I've said before, all the evidence suggests that he is done with cricket.
The biggest issue with this seems to be that it is further evidence of the ECB's vacillation and constant changing of the rules that must make county clubs very nervous, especially when they have covenants in place to ensure repayment of debts. As Angus Porter of the PCA says "..there is no reason we cannot work something out which allows everyone greater certainty over their planning in the longer term."
Elsewhere the Northants notice-board on the View From The Boundary website reports this comment from the club's Extraordinary General Meeting "The ECB keep changing the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding by which they reimburse the counties. Basically less money is guaranteed and more is conditional (on meeting various targets)." Needless to say, the EGM for that club after their disastrous season in the top flight resembles a fire sale, and uncertainty is the last thing a club in that state needs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 10:16:59 GMT
Interesting results from Warwickshire in the light of the discussion earlier in this thread about depreciation costs and whether they should be included in the headline figure. Operating profit of £230k at Edgbaston last year, but when recaculated to include an annual depreciation of £1.4m, it inevitably puts them heavily in the red with a pre-tax loss of £1.2 m. Apropos another debate in the thread above about city councils bailing out county clubs, it would have been worse, but for the repayment holiday Birmingham City Council have granted on their £20 m loan, which meant they weren't hit by an extra £1 million in interest charges. www.birminghampost.co.uk/business/business-news/positive-outlook-warwickshire-ccc-turnover-8520739 |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jan 27, 2015 10:45:26 GMT
Bm, An excellent point about the £1.4m depreciation and one which again portrays the smoke and mirrors nature of county club accounting. When this news hit the Twittersphere last night, it was met in a positive light, a light which CEO Colin Povey had hoped for. The Club's operating profit increased from £5,000 to £230,000, which at least is a good sign, but not a huge amount given the stature of the TMG and the £20m debt it resides under. Plus, as you also point out, without the debt 'payment holiday', Warwickshire would have ended up in the red, anyway, so it's all a bit of waffle. Colin Povey talking to his Financial Director The major positive is Edgbaston moving forward from 2015 thus allowing Warwickshire some wriggle room with their creditors. A juicy Ashes Test this summer will stop the Birmingham City Councillors from having heart attacks, followed by a series of, albeit less popular, Tests in 2016 and 2017 and then five ICC World Cup matches in 2019. PS: And let us not forget the Club's rebranding for the T20 which proved successful last season. As Warwickshire's FD Craig Flindall says, "It is also pleasing to note the 34 per cent and 39 per cent increases in domestic t20 ticket sales and commercial partner revenues respectively..." I am sure Birmingham City Council would bite the ECBs hand off if a T20 Franchise tournament was ever mooted. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 17:10:11 GMT
Somerset's accounts are interesting in the light of the debate a few weeks back about why Sussex burdens its accounts every year with a £500,000 paper charge for depreciation (and some counties allow for even larger depreciation sums - £1.4 million per annum in the case of Warwicks). Somerset doesn't quantify depreciation costs in its accounts - which is basically the reason why they post a healthy profit every year: www.somersetcountycc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Annual-Accounts.pdf Their reasoning is set out in their financial report: "The committee rermain of the opinion that the County Ground is an asset that we continue to invest in, and thus do not feel a necessity to provide for depreciation of an appreciating asset." They are currently raising funds for a new pavilion and spend roughly £200,000 on "ground repairs and upkeep" evey year. I've never understood why, when you're spending subsantial sums of money on ground repairs and upkeep every season, it is also necessary to write in huge sums for depreciation on the basis of what might need to be done in 40 years time. It's a form of double counting, surely, and the approach taken by Somerset makes perferct sense to me - the ground is an asset you invest in on an ongoing basis, so why do you also need to allow half a million a year for depeciation on top of that? |
|
).
