|
|
Post by glosexile on Apr 24, 2017 14:47:48 GMT
Surely, the simple answer to the few counties who put two fingers up to the long-term survival of county cricket is not to give them their annual £1.3m dividend and instead share their sums out amongst the counties who are not as incredibly selfish as Essex, Middlesex and, perhaps, one or two others. The bottom-line is: The ECB are far too soft on the 18 counties. They should have let Durham go bankrupt. That would have been the necessary reality check needed. At present, a fair number of counties and cricket journalists suffer from a commercial reality bypass! Question: Are the counties actually involved in a democratic vote? We all know the eventual outcome of the vote. Everyone will accept the verdict of the majority and then move on and (as per Alec Stewart's sensible previous comments) will try and make it work as best as possible. Really disappointed to hear suggestions that anyone daring to vote against (according to their beliefs/opinions) should subsequently be victimised and penalised. Finance Am I alone in feeling somewhat worried that according to Scott Smith (ECB Finance Director), the new competition is expected to make a £15 million loss in the first season. Apparently, the ECB do not yet know when the new tournament is expected to be profitable!!! So effectively the initial £1.3 million payment to counties is largely coming out of ECB reserves (around 20 percent of the ECB reserves disappear in the first season). Not sure how this all squares with some of the eye watering amounts suggested that broadcasters are prepared to pay (perhaps they are merely fantasy figures after all). Not entirely sure that I have followed all the ongoing debate and drip feed of information. However, we won't be having a franchise competition. We might have 8 city teams or a mixture of city based and regional teams. Actual locations have been left suitably vague. There is presently no idea when this tournament will start making a profit. Perhaps it it is starting to dawn on me why some commentators are suggesting that this is rather a leap in faith. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Apr 24, 2017 15:59:22 GMT
glosexile,
The debate now appears to be going around in circles.
To answer some of your queries: After speaking to ECB Commercial Director, Sanjay Patel, at last November's County ground Forum
on the proposed CBT, he told me that the £1.3m is coming out of the TV/Media rights money.
Interest has been so strong, in particular from SKYSports and BTSport, the ECB are sufficiently confident to offer a dividend of £117m
over 5 years to the 18 counties + the match hosting fees which are yet to be decided. The TV/Media deal initially is for 5 years, to be
paid up front, so the ECB are NOT paying the dividend out of their present £70m+ reserves. The primary financial gamble comes from
the TV company who win the CBT broadcasting rights.
But, some of the marketing costs of the tournament are coming from the ECB reserves ie. the £15m in the first year. So, the loss, if you
can call it that, is down to their promotional expenditure. 'You have to speculate to accumulate etc..'
As with any new business venture, this tournament is a leap of faith but the ECB have been very sensible, as at least 75% of the financial
gamble comes from the winning TV/Media company and less than 25% on themselves. As gambling goes that is a win-win for county
cricket as the ECB can easily cover the marketing costs from their present financial reserves.
If the tournament fails then county cricket will carry on as before but £117m-£125m richer. If it is successful then the sky's the limit.
|
|
|
|
Post by tigertiger on Apr 25, 2017 12:39:05 GMT
I'm sure that everyone has a different answer to the question as to what about cricket is most important to be saved. Personally, having spent a cold day at a county match recently, have realised that it is the ability on a hot summer day to spend a day locally watching a quality cricket match (whether 50 over (pref) or 4-day or poss 2 T20s). That ability has been slowly eroded with the increase of beautiful days when the local cricket starts at 5:30 or even 7 (media pressure). Whatever the financial benefits, the new tournament will reduce further the potential number of summer days watching top level cricket.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Apr 26, 2017 12:49:52 GMT
The ECB announcement of the change to the Articles of Association by 38 votes to 3. www.ecb.co.uk/news/377208The three were first-class counties: Middlesex and Essex voting against, as already discussed within this thread, plus the abstention of Kent, which by the conventions of this ballot was regarded as a negative vote. The Kentish abstention is a curiously convoluted piece of logic. According to chairman Jeremy Clifford "While Kent Cricket does not wish to be at odds with the ECB, the proposals for the future direction of the game as they stand are such that the club cannot actively endorse them." He then goes on to say that Kent wants to act as a critical friend in the further development of the proposals. A somewhat confusing choice of words as the premise to Clifford's comments seems to be that they do not want the proposals to succeed, whereas the definition of critical friend that most people would support is an advocate for proposals, who retains the right to objectivity and to ask the awkward questions, but is nonetheless a positive proponent of the principles involved. Still, that's a matter for Kentish minds to get their heads around. |
|
nemmo
Captain 2nd XI
Posts: 285
|
Post by nemmo on Apr 26, 2017 15:01:55 GMT
Middlesex's reason for voting against is quite understandable, they lose "their" ground for a period of time but get none of the cash (apparently). Surely Hampshire and Yorkshire are in the same boat? - Though I imagine that one could argue they are in that situation by their own doing and therefore need the £1.3 million.
Kent's abstention is a bit bizarre, trying to object while not wanting to annoy the powers that be. It's also interesting to see that Surrey voted for, after all of their bluster and threats about not letting the oval be used and demanding to be in the competition as Surrey, I wonder what caused that change of heart?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Apr 26, 2017 15:53:39 GMT
Perhaps, county cricket and politics is no different to anywhere else. Imho, Middlesex caused a fuss in a bid to place some pressure on the MCC to offer a percentage of the match hosting fees to them which, in my view, is only fair and just. Surrey backed down from their initial bluster because with the Olympic Stadium now offering opportunities to hold major London- based cricket matches in the future, the last thing they want to do is to upset the ECB sufficiently, so they take international games elsewhere. As for Essex, confidence is sky high with the ongoing redevelopment of their Chelmsford ground backed by the finances gained from the club's major property development taking place. And as for Kent, it makes the county look foolish. At least, Essex had the conviction and courage to say no. Abstention is little more than a hollow petty threat. Re: Hampshire and Yorkshire, I would hope they both gain a percentage of the hosting fees from their respective landlords: Eastleigh Borough Council and Leeds City Council. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/39721254 |
|
|
|
Post by glosexile on Apr 27, 2017 9:56:26 GMT
glosexile, The debate now appears to be going around in circles. To answer some of your queries: After speaking to ECB Commercial Director, Sanjay Patel, at last November's County ground Forum on the proposed CBT, he told me that the £1.3m is coming out of the TV/Media rights money. Interest has been so strong, in particular from SKYSports and BTSport, the ECB are sufficiently confident to offer a dividend of £117m over 5 years to the 18 counties + the match hosting fees which are yet to be decided. The TV/Media deal initially is for 5 years, to be paid up front, so the ECB are NOT paying the dividend out of their present £70m+ reserves. The primary financial gamble comes from the TV company who win the CBT broadcasting rights. But, some of the marketing costs of the tournament are coming from the ECB reserves ie. the £15m in the first year. So, the loss, if you can call it that, is down to their promotional expenditure. 'You have to speculate to accumulate etc..' As with any new business venture, this tournament is a leap of faith but the ECB have been very sensible, as at least 75% of the financial gamble comes from the winning TV/Media company and less than 25% on themselves. As gambling goes that is a win-win for county cricket as the ECB can easily cover the marketing costs from their present financial reserves. If the tournament fails then county cricket will carry on as before but £117m-£125m richer. If it is successful then the sky's the limit. "The debate now appears to be going around in circles". Apologies if my previous post resulted in this impression, it was certainly not my intention to do so. Perhaps in future, I need to be more circumspect before joining in on any other considerably lengthy thread. You do seem to have put an intriguing spin on the make up of the projected first season loss. In my humble opinion, a far more sensible approach would have been to limit the first season payment to counties to around £0.46 million each. This eradicates the current £15 million loss, avoids dipping into ECB capital reserves and destroys the allegations repeatedly made by some that the £1.3 payment is merely an ECB bribe. Subsequent annual payments to counties significantly increasing, aligned directly to the success/profitability of the competition. Two important fundamental questions remain. 1) When will the new completion break even? 2) When is it projected to start making a profit? The ECB will undoubtedly employ some expert number crunchers, so estimated profit/loss figures for the first few seasons of the competition must surely have been computed. Pleased to hear your continued optimism regarding broadcasting rights competition. A bidding war and subsequent mega deal will immediately decimate any possibility of a first season loss. On reflection, the current ECB first season financial projection seems incredibly pessimistic. |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Apr 27, 2017 10:15:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Apr 27, 2017 10:27:27 GMT
glosexile,
My initial comment was not aimed at you but the debate in general. It has been especially rife on Twitter.
It was the ECB who stated the £15m loss in the first year would be caused by marketing and promotion costs so I am
repeating their comment.
As the two primary aims for the CBT are:
1) Reduce the £150m county debt
2) Attract new people to cricket - especially the youngsters.
The higher the annual dividend the better. I was hoping for £1.5m as first mooted. I very much hope the ECB
places certain criteria on how this money is used. No point spending it on increasing the players' salaries as
county cricket won't benefit at all, only the agents and the top cricketers and why a salary cap is essential.
Why make the same mistake as football? Fortunately, as the ECB are in charge of the whole competition they
can dictate how the money is used.
Therefore, I hope that each county with outstanding loans are strongly encouraged to use a high 'X' percentage to pay
off these debts. Otherwise, again what is the point of the dividend.
And why Sussex are in such a strong position holding no debt.
I would like to see an 'X' percentage used by those counties who require a ground refurbishment. I would hope the
ECB place this also in their criteria of spending.
And again why Sussex are in such a strong position having already redeveloped their Hove ground.
I am hoping the ECB can learn from the errors made by football and rugby, where the £117m over 5 years + hosting
fees is used in such a way that by 2024, county cricket debt has gone and a whole raft of new cricket watchers are
attending Championship, Blast T20 and 40 or 50 over matches. This is a once in a lifetime chance of kickstarting our
great sport again, so that I can take my grandson to a Championship match at Hove in 10 years time where the ground
is heaving with people.
Unless you take a leap of faith, dreams rarely, if ever, materialise: "If You Build It They Will Come."
|
|
|
|
Post by tigertiger on Apr 28, 2017 20:19:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jun 8, 2017 17:40:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jun 8, 2017 19:34:03 GMT
A pittance of a loss if this paragraph is to be believed.
The expected revenue to be pulled in by the next TV deal for the exploding Twenty20 tournament, which
could jump from $20 million a year currently to as much as $60 million a season, is a key driver in predictions
of upwards of $2 billion in revenue for CA over the next five years.
This is the primary reason why CA and the players are at financial loggerheads. $33m is small change in the future
bigger picture.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jun 30, 2017 9:34:44 GMT
Fantastic news emitting from the corridors of the ECB. Not only is the new City-Franchise Tournament (CBT) going to bring in massive amounts of money for County Cricket but terrestrial TV is back in the frame with the BBC to show over 100 hours of cricket each Summer over a 5 year period (2020-2024). Meanwhile, SKY has beaten BTSports to the overall media rights which include the CBT. The ECB claim the overall financial package is worth £1.1bn. WOW!! We live in exciting times. Farewell, the county cricket debt - welcome a new invigorated and cash-rich English sport. As for all those doom-mongerers against the CBT. You got it wrong. This is the best cricketing news I have heard in many a year. Let's go and celebrate. The sport is saved from extinction! Well done the ECB, in particular, Colin Graves and Tom Harrison. Give 'em Knighthoods, I say! www.ecb.co.uk/news/425049www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/40455556Let's Celebratewww.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwjfUFyY6Medit"A game changing deal for English cricket..." (Tom Harrison interview) www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/40459091www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/1107577.html |
|
|
|
Post by liquidskin on Jun 30, 2017 18:48:28 GMT
What the hell's a doom-mongerer?
Nobody was wrong. Lots of people had doubts. Terrestrial TV is a good start.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jun 30, 2017 19:58:40 GMT
|
|
