|
|
Post by flashblade on Apr 17, 2015 11:32:49 GMT
The use of outgrounds has a tendency to increase:
1. interest in cricket throughout the county
2. membership levels
3. attendance levels
Discuss?
|
|
|
|
Post by longhops on Apr 17, 2015 18:10:54 GMT
Flashblade my thoughts.
I have always been confused by Kent spending a lot of money on re-developing Canterbury and then saying they want to play at more outgrounds. 2 years ago the 2nd XI played Essex at Cheriton Folkestone. I believe this one day game was over by mid afternoon as the wicket just was not up to scratch. Roger DeHaan of Saga fame had invested in building a sports centre there and many hoped he would then re develop the cricket ground. That has never happened.
There has been talk of Maidstone Council updating The Mote, but I believe there's a wrangle going on there with the Rugby Club.
At the moment Kent have 3 grounds that they will use this season.
Canterbury- Kent simply have to play most of their games as they have spent lots of money upgrading.
T.Wells is always a popular venue not just for us West-Kenters, but also many friends from Sussex some to watch if Sussex are not at Hove. They are playing a 4 day game and a T20 blast. This should produce big crowds from the West Kent Area.
Beckenham- As BM points out it is possibly going to become Kent's main ground. A lot of money has been invested by Bromley council. This was even mentioned at Kent's AGM. I was not there, but it was reported by members who were there, that the powers that be that Beckenham will become the "19th Ground" in the country. Again as BM points out, that should be Kent's "biggest attendances" this year.
I Think what I'm trying to say is, I believe there is much to be gained from counties using more outgrounds as it gives "new" people the chance to come and watch cricket in their locality.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Apr 17, 2015 18:52:14 GMT
Flashblade my thoughts. I have always been confused by Kent spending a lot of money on re-developing Canterbury and then saying they want to play at more outgrounds. 2 years ago the 2nd XI played Essex at Cheriton Folkestone. I believe this one day game was over by mid afternoon as the wicket just was not up to scratch. Roger DeHaan of Saga fame had invested in building a sports centre there and many hoped he would then re develop the cricket ground. That has never happened. There has been talk of Maidstone Council updating The Mote, but I believe there's a wrangle going on there with the Rugby Club. At the moment Kent have 3 grounds that they will use this season. Canterbury- Kent simply have to play most of their games as they have spent lots of money upgrading. T.Wells is always a popular venue not just for us West-Kenters, but also many friends from Sussex some to watch if Sussex are not at Hove. They are playing a 4 day game and a T20 blast. This should produce big crowds from the West Kent Area. Beckenham- As BM points out it is possibly going to become Kent's main ground. A lot of money has been invested by Bromley council. This was even mentioned at Kent's AGM. I was not there, but it was reported by members who were there, that the powers that be that Beckenham will become the "19th Ground" in the country. Again as BM points out, that should be Kent's "biggest attendances" this year. I Think what I'm trying to say is, I believe there is much to be gained from counties using more outgrounds as it gives "new" people the chance to come and watch cricket in their locality. But is that logical? Surely you should play at the venue that's going to provide the best financial return from the match. The money spent upgrading Canterbury has gone - they're not going to recoup any of it unless a match at Canterbury produces more profit than a match at an outground. |
|
|
|
Post by longhops on Apr 17, 2015 19:38:43 GMT
FB I agree with you entirely! But then again I gave up a long time ago on what Kent CCC committee do. I can remember last year some of the attendances at T20 blasts. The biggest crowd at Canterbury was about 3000 for the Surrey game and guess who was playing? For the rest of the time the gates were about 1500- 2000. All Kent's T20 blast games were played at Canterbury last season. Perhaps that's why Kent have had a rethink for this year. Having said that, there was no game at Beckenham as it was being developed and there was no game at T.Wells due to a disagreement with T. Wells council about the temporary stand!
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Apr 29, 2015 12:57:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Apr 29, 2015 13:30:20 GMT
If you can point me to the annual accounts, I'll have a look at this. |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Apr 30, 2015 7:36:10 GMT
Still not published - even as a News item - on the Lancs CCC website, nor do they seem to publish the Report and Accounts for previous years, which makes analysis difficult. I would be very surprised if this is profit after tax, depreciation, etc, not least because of their complex set of loans and other undertakings which require servicing. For example, the bond they refer to, which raised £3.4 million last autumn, promised 5% annual interest to bondolders over a 5 year period, plus a further 2% discounted on tickets, seats, etc. Depending on the way the accounts are presented this sort of thing would make a big hole in somne of the "profirs" highlighted in the Manchester Evening News article. What it does suggest is that provided, and this is a significant caveat, there is plenty of income being raised annually to oil the wheels of the debt servicing, and that this stream does not falter, then the business can continue to expand and invest in new revenue generators, such as the hotel. The problem comes when the wheels fall off, which in this case, and that of most of the other TMGs, is if there is a significant loss of appetite for Test Match and or One Day International cricket; if Old Trafford ceases to host these matches; if domestic T20 cricket is not maintained at capacity. These are the key drivers for the super-grounds and they are different from the economics of Sussex and some of the smaller counties in that their model is not geared up to such a high level of earnings expectation just to service debt. Clubs who have fallen into the halfway house, like Kent, of low earnings capability but high debt levels are those who have the more serious problem of how they break the spiral. The only chance for financial success for these clubs will be to form partnerships in the future and plough the earnings from joint ventures back into a more modest redevelopment of their assets. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Apr 30, 2015 11:19:50 GMT
hhs,
Many thanks for your most interesting and informative response.
I have much respect for Lancashire. Compared with other TMGs their business acumen soars
above all else. Apart from their burgeoning hotel, deal with Tescos and securing £10m for
the ground naming rights from 'Arab Emirates' do not forget their hugely successful music
concerts. For example, In 2009, the club made £1m profit alone from five consecutive 'Take
That' concerts which attracted 250,000 people. And the ground's capacity since has increased
from 50,000 to 65,000.
Imho, Lancashire will become by far the most lucrative and profitable TMG within 5 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on May 7, 2015 20:00:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by amatrice on May 8, 2015 3:57:37 GMT
Surrey took the loan. They spent it on new front.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2015 5:35:48 GMT
Yes,I wondered who it could be. Yorkshire, perhaps? I have encountered supporters of Sussex and other counties who thought the term 'soft loan' meant that it doesn't have to be paid back. Others realised it was repayable, but seemed to think it was theoretical and repayment would be waived. It is repayable and is not being waived; my understanding is that the £1 m is being clawed back over four years in installments of £250k, deducted from the routine annual ECB stipend. In other words, you get one year where it has a beneficial effect on the accounts and three or four years where it has a detrimental effect. |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on May 8, 2015 7:12:00 GMT
Yes,I wondered who it could be. Yorkshire, perhaps? I have encountered supporters of Sussex and other counties who thought the term 'soft loan' meant that it doesn't have to be paid back. Others realised it was repayable, but seemed to think it was theoretical and repayment would be waived. It is repayable and is not being waived; my understanding is that the £1 m is being clawed back over four years in installments of £250k, deducted from the routine annual ECB stipend. In other words, you get one year where it has a beneficial effect on the accounts and three or four years where it has a detrimental effect. I think that it is Yorkshire too. The only reason why a loan on those terms would not be taken up is if those repayment conditions breached covenants with other lenders to ensure that interest on their loans were repaid as a priority. Is it possible such a condition was made by the Graves family trust in making it's loans to Yorkshire? |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on May 8, 2015 11:04:02 GMT
I can't agree. When talking to Colin Graves he explained Yorkshire like Kent had used a major part of their £1m to pay off a short term loan. This is confirmed by David Hopps.
During the year the club received a £1m payment from the ECB which was used to repay a short term loan that was taken out in 2013
to repay £500,000 of a long-term loan from Leeds City Council loan and to fund capital projects.www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/842811.htmlAs for this "soft loan" when talking to Gordon Hollins he explained the loan would be converted, up the road, into grants which then may not have to be paid back. Perhaps, Jim May can throw further light on this? There is uncertainty over this issue as the ECB themselves are not sure the best way forward. |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on May 8, 2015 11:27:58 GMT
I can't agree. When talking to Colin Graves he explained Yorkshire like Kent had used a major part of their £1m to pay off a short term loan. This is confirmed by David Hopps.
During the year the club received a £1m payment from the ECB which was used to repay a short term loan that was taken out in 2013
to repay £500,000 of a long-term loan from Leeds City Council loan and to fund capital projects.www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/842811.htmlAs for this "soft loan" when talking to Gordon Hollins he explained the loan would be converted, up the road, into grants which then may not have to be paid back. Perhaps, Jim May can throw further light on this? There is uncertainty over this issue as the ECB themselves are not sure the best way forward. Thanks for the clarification about Yorkshire, s and f. But I'm still in the dark about what is loan and what is grant , and very puzzled now as to who would refuse. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2015 12:41:46 GMT
Repayment has not been waived, so it's a loan not a grant.
I recall Jim May saying on the old site that Sussex had declined to take out the loan, although the club eventually changed its position on that. I think we drew it down in stages; did we eventually drawn down the full £1m?
Just been reading Boycott's (relatively) new book, Corridor Of Certainty, and he has some trenchant things to say about cricket finances, and says it is unsustainable for 18 counties to continue to rely on what he calls "ECB handouts" for their existence. "It will be down to market forces and some (counties) will go out of business," he writes. Which is why Sussex building up its rental income at both ends of the ground is so important. Those who have been flogging off the assets rather than "sweating" them will be the counties that go under.
|
|
