The ECB deal could lead to an unprecedented influx of investment into county cricket. Photo: Getty Images/Harry Trump
Once the horse trading ends and the game agrees to privatization for the first time, the counties will reap a windfall unprecedented in English cricket and seize control of the Hundred.
Are they equipped for this? Two weeks ago Telegraph Sport reported three things: The counties had a deadline of this Friday to agree on a proposed split of cash from the sale of Hundred shares, with the board now planning to sell up to 49 per cent of its stake in each. Eight hundred teams and American bankers from Raine Consulting, who were involved in the takeovers of Manchester United and Chelsea, participated as brokers.
The proposed division of money is complex and still under discussion, but in general it will be the same. : The first 10 per cent of the ECB's shares will go to the recreational game, the remaining 90 will be divided into 19 parts (MCC including counties).
The first £275 million will be divided equally between 19 clubs, the next £150 million will go to only 11 to non-host clubs, and anything above this amount will again be divided between the 19 clubs.
If, for example, the ECB raises £400 million, the non-host country will receive a cash injection of £22 million. The host site will receive £14.5 million, but with the right to sell its 51 per cent stake. If they do this, the dosh will be chopped and diced even more. The first 10 percent goes back to recreational games, the next 10 is divided among the remaining 18 clubs, and the rest is kept by the owner. If the club sells its stake for £40 million, it will retain £32 million, meaning it could receive a total of £46.5 million.
Raine held his first presentation this week and global brands are said to be willing to invest (the ECB doesn't want to let IPL owners have too much influence over their competitors). Friday's deadline may well be missed, but Telegraph Sport this week saw emails between countries and the ECB that show there is widespread agreement that a sale should happen. Why? Because they need the money.
English cricket's revenues are set for 2029 under the Sky deal signed in 2017, which runs first from 2020 to 2024 and then extends in 2022 after the pandemic until 2029. It provides £205 million annually. The current deal values the Hundred at £36m, rising to £51m from 2025 (£205 unchanged).
The cost of living crisis has hit cricket hard, with costs unforeseen in 2017 – the cost of implementing the ICEC report, paying for gender parity, wage inflation for men and women running at around 10 percent a year, and higher energy costs. which caused damage to some counties. Five clubs received advance payments from the ECB to help them survive difficult winters over the past two years. One county chief executive estimates that annual ECB payments are now £750,000 less than in 2020 due to higher costs.
County cricket debt levels are approaching £200 million, with three clubs recently admitting they may have to fund moves away from their home grounds. Sussex don't turn on the floodlights at County Championship matches to save energy, other clubs open their gates later for the same reason, the same reason penny-pinching and belt-tightening continue. The international grounds are one ODI away from England's rain-affected loss. Ticket sales for the explosion fell (40 percent at Lord's). Those who oppose the sale of shares have not offered any alternative to solving these problems.
But will pouring £22 million into the county's black hole merely delay the inevitable for businesses that have not turned a profit for decades? What controls will be put in place on how the new money is spent? Will host venues sell their stake or continue to hope that it will increase in value? Some will inevitably make the right choice and win, others will inevitably make the wrong choice and lose. Will district members have a say in how it is spent? There is talk that the ECB will introduce controls in the next County Partnership Agreement with a focus on debt repayment, but this has not yet been agreed and once the pound signs flash in the eyes of the County Chairs, vanity projects will become possible. At the moment, the £1.3 million from The Hundred that each county receives is unrestricted money – it just goes into the club's bank for the whole year.
And one of the less discussed consequences of the current proposals is the ECB's plan to decentralize the Hundred and transfer control to host countries and new owners. The ECB currently pays players, sells tickets and arranges sponsorship. This will all be transferred. Surrey chairman Oli Slipper told a members' meeting this week that the club plans to retain its 51 per cent stake and operate Oval Invincibles as another Surrey division made up largely of Surrey players (Surrey Invincibles?). Lancashire, say, could follow the example of the Manchester Originals: Lancashire Originals, and ECB sources believe most host countries will retain their share at this stage.
The Hundred may not be popular, but it has created a viable source of revenue for the domestic game. Photo: Getty Images/Julian Finney
This makes one huge assumption. Namely, Sky, which funds English cricket, will be happy to see counties take control of Hundred teams. As it turns out, the current broadcast agreement specifically lists non-County brands in the Hundred. Will Sky accept this change when negotiating the next deal from 2028? Deloitte estimates the ECB's next TV deal will cost The Hundred £90m a year. But the new model for The 100 is not the one Sky initially bought and played such a major role in the planning. Will they be willing to pay more for it or will they be put off by the talk of expansion, promotion and relegation and turning the Hundred into T20? Can realistic TNT bidders create tension in the market and buy The 100? They haven't seriously developed cricket in England for over a decade.
New owners bring new ideas. But how will partnerships with counties work? Who will say the biggest word? Will the county give priority to its Hundred team or its county side when funding decisions are made? Will working with districts put off some investors or reduce the amount they are willing to pay if they think they will have to work with district members who have other priorities?
In 2003, districts were given a golden ticket to cricket since the advent of Twenty20. But the only thing new to the Blast since its launch is that counties are playing a lot more games and have taken it from its original concept as a family event with bouncy castles to a boozy Friday night. One of the most disheartening comments I've ever heard in this job was when a district chairman said he would rather have groups of guys around than families because they spend more time behind the bar. Is this the future of The 100?
Recent Comments