Sta£e of the Nation - County Cricket Finances

Essex have announced pre-tax losses of £82,000 for 2014, having lost £65,256
before tax in the previous year.

So, is this EBITDA? Does this include ground depreciation? Has the chairman borrowed money for a holiday?
Where does this accounting reside in the county cricket financial smoke and mirrors?

This news hasn't appeared yet on the Essex 'official' county website. Things must be fractious at the
club if an 'unofficial' county website has been set up too! 

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/32146517

It will be very interesting to see them published. In the above-linked BBC report Acfield, former spinner and Olympic fencer turned county Treasurer, says " "In financial terms, 2014 turned out to be very similar to the previous year. This is despite the team reaching two quarter-finals and the efforts of our highly efficient and highly regarded commercial team."

Funnily enough he commented on the previous year's dire results that “ It is always disappointing to report an operating loss but it can be accounted for, almost entirely, by the attempts to strengthen the team both during the season and in the winter and it is well covered by the profits from our investments.” The club then went on to say that Early indications of income for 2014 are encouraging . www.essexcricket.org.uk/2014/03/14/essex-county-cricket-club-announce-financial-loss-for-2013/

In 2012 another Treasurer stated that "An operating loss of £ 65,627 must, therefore,be viewed in the context of the impact on our income from the poor weather. In comparison we made an operating profit of £ 13,355 in 2011, excluding £ 300,000 of exceptional income. " www.essexcricket.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ARA.pdf

It seems that Essex are another county that, however they dress it up, just can't make the books balance, whether it is because of poor weather, stronger team, highly efficient and regarded commercial team. Their AGM might be quite interesting if their own members turn on them - and if they don't they must be very long suffering. I see there is an Unofficial Essex Forum (www.essexoutfielder.co.uk/) but this requires direct registration to enter. Should any of those forum posters also be members here, or if they spot this discussion in a Google search, do come and chat with us.

hhs,

I joined the unofficial Essex Forum late last year. I awaited to be contacted by the moderator to be approved but gained no response. The same thing happened after contacting the unofficial Lancashire forum. There are some unfriendly critters out there!

From the Kentish Gazette:-

 "Development talk was top of the bill as scores of Kent members turned out for the annual meeting, St Lawrence on Tuesday evening. In his opening address, chairman George Kennedy told supporters the club had suffered a ''mortal blow'' with Canterbury City Council's rejection on December 9 of planning permission for the McCarthy & Stone development on the Old Dover Road side of the ground."

Wow. Not just a serious blow that's knocked them back a bit, but a life-threatening mortal one?  Kent are appealing against the refusal of planning permission, so I guess he means it's only mortal if the appeal fails. But that's scary language.

Whether it really would be the end of the road for Kent or whether they're just upping the ante in order to increase the pressure to get the planning refusal overturned, I don't know...

No friends on the council at all,  it seems. When Kent defaulted last month on the short-term loan (loan 2 for £1.5 m), the council punished them by tightening the schedule on repayment of the long-term loan (loan one for £4m). Not sure exactly how  loan one was structured over the 30 year term in interest/capital repayments, but  the new conditions  now require that they repay a capital sum of £500k in 2018 and a further £500k in 2020. The tightening of the repayment terms can only be because the council fears further defaults. These payments are in addition to the £1.5m on loan two, on which they have a 12 month extension, and so which falls due in March 2016. In other words, £2.5 million in repayments to the council falls due over the five seasons from 2016-20, which is crippling.

And I don't think there will be any further repayment 'holidays', for the brought-forward repayment dates on loan one suggests that the council has lost all patience with Kent's shenanigans. I can't imagine the position is helped  by a section of the Kent membership now agitating that the loans should be written-off in the style of Glamorgan and Cardiff City Council.

Because I was convinced  that (a) the Canterbury debt was ill-advised and unsustainable and (b)  there isn't the demographic in east Kent to support f/c cricket, I predicted five years ago that by 2020 Kent would have left Canterbury and made Beckenham their base. The odds have since shortened considerably on that as the likely outcome.

Kent's best crowds this season are likely to come at Tunbridge Wells and at Beckenham, where they entertain KP and Surrey. The Beckenham ground -  on which they have a peppercorn rent for the next 20 years - is 20 mins by train from Victoria or Charing Cross.

But I'm still not  clear what the Kent chairman meant about the "mortal blow" dealt by the council in refusing planning permission for it is also reported in the Kentish Gazette :

"Mr Kennedy insisted should the planning appeal fail, the club would not be left high and dry, and reiterated there is an existing planning permission in place for a hotel development.

He said: "It's important that we realise the value of that asset. We are in negotiations with other parties in case the appeal fails. There is a plan B and I hope  before next March we are able to realise something from that."

These statements appear  contradictory.  If there is a 'plan b' then the planning refusal was not a "mortal blow", was it?   And if 'plan b' is to build a hotel for which they have planning approval, why didn't they do that in the first place instead of wasting three years trying to build an old people's home, on which they don't have approval ? (The answer, of course, is that nobody wanted to build a hotel. At least that's what KCCC told the city council.)

Frankly, it's a complete balls-up and handing over the Canterbury ground to the council and moving lock, stock and wicket to Beckenham grows more likely by the day.

What an awful shambles at Canterbury.


Quote: "If there is a 'plan b' then the planning refusal was not a "mortal blow", was it?"


I sympathise, BM, but I think this is just another example of the sort of hyperbole that gets trotted out these days. Like the misuse of the word "literally" as, for example "I was literally blown away . . .". This would be correct if one has been swept away by a tornado, but folks think its more emphatic to say literally when they mean figuratively.