The thing I don't understand about franchise cricket in general, is the amount of marketing spend required to get people interested in something that only lasts a few weeks.
Support a county, and you can follow it from April to September. Support a 100 franchise, and it's a few weeks, and then what? Once the 100 is over, you won't see the London Spirit for 11 months.
As a Sussex member, the Hundred has had me thinking twice about remaining a member. I never go on holiday in August, which means I’ll have no first class cricket and I refuse to attend any Hundred games. Reducing 4-day fixtures to 7 home games, over half of which are in April or September makes remaining a County member less attractive, especially if the remaining games clash with holidays etc. I just don’t get the 100.
The thing I don't understand about franchise cricket in general, is the amount of marketing spend required to get people interested in something that only lasts a few weeks.
Support a county, and you can follow it from April to September. Support a 100 franchise, and it's a few weeks, and then what? Once the 100 is over, you won't see the London Spirit for 11 months.
I think that's where it is different for the IPL. The pool that they draw from is so much bigger and cricket is a religion. Now, of course, those franchises are also expanding to other comps so the affinity isn't going to be restricted to the couple of months of the IPL. We don't have the money or product to sell to those in numbers at home let alone abroad.
The thing I don't understand about franchise cricket in general, is the amount of marketing spend required to get people interested in something that only lasts a few weeks.
Support a county, and you can follow it from April to September. Support a 100 franchise, and it's a few weeks, and then what? Once the 100 is over, you won't see the London Spirit for 11 months.
I think that's where it is different for the IPL. The pool that they draw from is so much bigger and cricket is a religion. Now, of course, those franchises are also expanding to other comps so the affinity isn't going to be restricted to the couple of months of the IPL. We don't have the money or product to sell to those in numbers at home let alone abroad.
Much as I dislike the power of the IPL, there's a strong logic to expanding the brands to other countries as well. In other sports it wouldn't work - do any Man City fans care about their sister clubs? - but with the Indian supporters, I'm sure many of them will follow sister franchises in S Africa or wherever.
As a Sussex member, the Hundred has had me thinking twice about remaining a member. I never go on holiday in August, which means I’ll have no first class cricket and I refuse to attend any Hundred games. Reducing 4-day fixtures to 7 home games, over half of which are in April or September makes remaining a County member less attractive, especially if the remaining games clash with holidays etc. I just don’t get the 100.
There's the one day cup also on in August. It's a lesser contest now, but the loss of the best white ball players to the 100 does even up the contest, meaning all 18 counties have a chance.
The flaw of the ECB schedule for me, is that while August is the school holidays, it's also the start of the football season, which swamps any tiny interest I might have in watching the Nottingham Quavers or Welsh Monster Munch.
As a Sussex member, the Hundred has had me thinking twice about remaining a member. I never go on holiday in August, which means I’ll have no first class cricket and I refuse to attend any Hundred games. Reducing 4-day fixtures to 7 home games, over half of which are in April or September makes remaining a County member less attractive, especially if the remaining games clash with holidays etc. I just don’t get the 100.
There's the one day cup also on in August. It's a lesser contest now, but the loss of the best white ball players to the 100 does even up the contest, meaning all 18 counties have a chance.
The flaw of the ECB schedule for me, is that while August is the school holidays, it's also the start of the football season, which swamps any tiny interest I might have in watching the Nottingham Quavers or Welsh Monster Munch.
It does and it doesn't. In our case it strengthens our cause because we have more who won't be in the Hundred than will. Last season we had Stevens, Robinson, Denly, Finch, Compton, Evison, Linde, Qadri, Blake, Muyeye, Stewart, Podmore, Gilchrist, Quinn, Saini and even Henry for one game. Yes the loss of Billings, Cox, DBD, Klaassen, Milnes and Leaning made a difference but not as much as it would have done to Surrey for example. The likes of Compton and Robinson might not have got in our 1st XI but are certainly good enough to play in the comp in its best form. Glamorgan didn't lose anyone in the first year and won it.
If you are a Member there is no discount for the fact that you are having to pay for a sub standard competition. Equally, our match day tickets are £30 at Beckenham if not bought in advance. That really is steep when you aren't seeing the best players.
It is the The Hundred's knock on effect to county cricket that is hitting them in the pocket specifically when they usually earn the most i.e. the school hols. Perhaps that would explain Worcester's loss. Payments have, as I've said, always been made to counties principally because they provide the pathway to the England team plus a conduit to the national side for fans. The Hundred franchises provide zero in that respect- no age group cricket, players, coaches, grounds, kit, training facilities, umpires, scorers etc etc.
Harrison agreed a new rights deal without consultation with the counties and without agreeing any ongoing payment. He then ran off to pastures new with his share of that £2.1m bonus. It wouldn't have looked good if he took that and it was demonstrated that The Hundred had made a loss would it? Hence the lies. That loss has been ratified by the current ECB Chairman. And that really isn't pointless.
Well, good luck to Worcestershire if they've sure they can fill a £2.1m deficit to break even (that's £1.9m from The Hundred and a £200k loss) by charging thousands of school kids to watch division two cricket. If they're sure they can do that, then they should campaign hard with all the other counties willing to take on the financial risk.
Could they not have given all the counties a cash injection and focused on promoting the 20/20 area of the game. Having highlights on free to view tv possibly along with free to view games of not just 20/20 but 1 and 5 dayers.
The cash injection given to the counties by the ECB comes from income generated by The Hundred.
What you're suggesting is the ECB should give the counties the money, but take away the ECB's means of generating it in the first place.
From the point of view of the counties, 'free money' would be very welcome. But why would the ECB want to give away funds and not have access to the tournament that creates those funds? It would be like asking a company like Camelot to continue giving monies to good causes, but telling them to stop running the lottery.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with you doing that. But how many other games will go to be it at the Hundred or county cricket or England? Would you have become interested in cricket had the ECB revamped the existing T20 comp, put on games for women on the same day, negotiated free to air coverage etc etc? If you do go to many of the Hundred games then brilliant. Even more so if you go to county or England games having never been to one previously.
The reason I ask is that the ECB have not been able to quantify how many new people they have attracted to cricket via the Hundred or reliable evidence of its commercial success. It has been a loss making gimmick of an idea.
Where the Hundred made total sense is as part of an ECB strategy of centralising its control of the game, and culling the first-class counties or even extinguishing them altogether in favour of a franchise-based system in eight major cities. In doing that it only served to alienate the core of English cricket supporters.
So I suppose the real definition of success is how many more people have been attracted to cricket and become committed to watching the game over those that have been prevented from doing so because of when their games are now being put on? Answers on a postcard because the ECB can't/won't say but what we do know is that the venture is costing the games millions in revenue especially for those counties who are not one of the hosts of the Hundred.
Thing is, I’m probably not one of the ones they’re aiming at tbh. I’ve been going to ‘all forms’ of cricket for years before I moved to Ireland. I go when I can now, to what I can. I have no allegiance to Welsh Fire who are playing Manchester when I happen to be over in Cardiff. But I want my cricket fix (so much we’re even thinking of going to Southampton when we’re down visiting friends there).
I don’t have the answers sorry but I want to watch cricket too.
It is the The Hundred's knock on effect to county cricket that is hitting them in the pocket specifically when they usually earn the most i.e. the school hols. Perhaps that would explain Worcester's loss. Payments have, as I've said, always been made to counties principally because they provide the pathway to the England team plus a conduit to the national side for fans. The Hundred franchises provide zero in that respect- no age group cricket, players, coaches, grounds, kit, training facilities, umpires, scorers etc etc.
Harrison agreed a new rights deal without consultation with the counties and without agreeing any ongoing payment. He then ran off to pastures new with his share of that £2.1m bonus. It wouldn't have looked good if he took that and it was demonstrated that The Hundred had made a loss would it? Hence the lies. That loss has been ratified by the current ECB Chairman. And that really isn't pointless.
Well, good luck to Worcestershire if they've sure they can fill a £2.1m deficit to break even (that's £1.9m from The Hundred and a £200k loss) by charging thousands of school kids to watch division two cricket. If they're sure they can do that, then they should campaign hard with all the other counties willing to take on the financial risk.
Could they not have given all the counties a cash injection and focused on promoting the 20/20 area of the game. Having highlights on free to view tv possibly along with free to view games of not just 20/20 but 1 and 5 dayers.
The cash injection given to the counties by the ECB comes from income generated by The Hundred.
What you're suggesting is the ECB should give the counties the money, but take away the ECB's means of generating it in the first place.
From the point of view of the counties, 'free money' would be very welcome. But why would the ECB want to give away funds and not have access to the tournament that creates those funds? It would be like asking a company like Camelot to continue giving monies to good causes, but telling them to stop running the lottery.
the ECB had funds and have now squandered those funds and the television funds on a tournament with no future. one which no other nation plays. They are now losing money when they could of gained money by promoting the 20/20 game one which all counties could participate in instead of random city's and franchises. They could of negotiated for better tv rights with a revamped T20 tournament. They could find sponsorship for the 50 over game which we are champions of. They could at least seem to be in some way trying to protect the sport we love instead of alienating vast swathes of fans with gimmicks to try and entice all these new young fans who are supposedly floating around.
meanwhile the people behind all this swan off into the sunset with millions. millions that could and should of been used to help grass roots cricket, the woman's game and the game in general.
It is the The Hundred's knock on effect to county cricket that is hitting them in the pocket specifically when they usually earn the most i.e. the school hols. Perhaps that would explain Worcester's loss. Payments have, as I've said, always been made to counties principally because they provide the pathway to the England team plus a conduit to the national side for fans. The Hundred franchises provide zero in that respect- no age group cricket, players, coaches, grounds, kit, training facilities, umpires, scorers etc etc.
Harrison agreed a new rights deal without consultation with the counties and without agreeing any ongoing payment. He then ran off to pastures new with his share of that £2.1m bonus. It wouldn't have looked good if he took that and it was demonstrated that The Hundred had made a loss would it? Hence the lies. That loss has been ratified by the current ECB Chairman. And that really isn't pointless.
Well, good luck to Worcestershire if they've sure they can fill a £2.1m deficit to break even (that's £1.9m from The Hundred and a £200k loss) by charging thousands of school kids to watch division two cricket. If they're sure they can do that, then they should campaign hard with all the other counties willing to take on the financial risk.
Could they not have given all the counties a cash injection and focused on promoting the 20/20 area of the game. Having highlights on free to view tv possibly along with free to view games of not just 20/20 but 1 and 5 dayers.
The cash injection given to the counties by the ECB comes from income generated by The Hundred.
What you're suggesting is the ECB should give the counties the money, but take away the ECB's means of generating it in the first place.
From the point of view of the counties, 'free money' would be very welcome. But why would the ECB want to give away funds and not have access to the tournament that creates those funds? It would be like asking a company like Camelot to continue giving monies to good causes, but telling them to stop running the lottery.
the ECB had funds and have now squandered those funds and the television funds on a tournament with no future. one which no other nation plays. They are now losing money when they could of gained money by promoting the 20/20 game one which all counties could participate in instead of random city's and franchises. They could of negotiated for better tv rights with a revamped T20 tournament. They could find sponsorship for the 50 over game which we are champions of. They could at least seem to be in some way trying to protect the sport we love instead of alienating vast swathes of fans with gimmicks to try and entice all these new young fans who are supposedly floating around.
meanwhile the people behind all this swan off into the sunset with millions. millions that could and should of been used to help grass roots cricket, the woman's game and the game in general.
yeah all well and good but who would you pick for the london spirit this coming summer?
(sorry i sounded rather angry/passionate with that post.)
It is the The Hundred's knock on effect to county cricket that is hitting them in the pocket specifically when they usually earn the most i.e. the school hols. Perhaps that would explain Worcester's loss. Payments have, as I've said, always been made to counties principally because they provide the pathway to the England team plus a conduit to the national side for fans. The Hundred franchises provide zero in that respect- no age group cricket, players, coaches, grounds, kit, training facilities, umpires, scorers etc etc.
Harrison agreed a new rights deal without consultation with the counties and without agreeing any ongoing payment. He then ran off to pastures new with his share of that £2.1m bonus. It wouldn't have looked good if he took that and it was demonstrated that The Hundred had made a loss would it? Hence the lies. That loss has been ratified by the current ECB Chairman. And that really isn't pointless.
Well, good luck to Worcestershire if they've sure they can fill a £2.1m deficit to break even (that's £1.9m from The Hundred and a £200k loss) by charging thousands of school kids to watch division two cricket. If they're sure they can do that, then they should campaign hard with all the other counties willing to take on the financial risk.
Could they not have given all the counties a cash injection and focused on promoting the 20/20 area of the game. Having highlights on free to view tv possibly along with free to view games of not just 20/20 but 1 and 5 dayers.
The cash injection given to the counties by the ECB comes from income generated by The Hundred.
What you're suggesting is the ECB should give the counties the money, but take away the ECB's means of generating it in the first place.
From the point of view of the counties, 'free money' would be very welcome. But why would the ECB want to give away funds and not have access to the tournament that creates those funds? It would be like asking a company like Camelot to continue giving monies to good causes, but telling them to stop running the lottery.
The ECB have means of generating money. The Test matches bring in far more than the Hundred ever did. The counties have always been in receipt of money because they provide the pathway to the England team and have to be able to fund age group cricket in order to do that.
It's a £9m loss if we exclude payments to counties & the MCC. If we include them, the Hundred has lost £58m. This was meant to be the competition that made millions not cost millions. And damaged the existing game with it.
It is the The Hundred's knock on effect to county cricket that is hitting them in the pocket specifically when they usually earn the most i.e. the school hols. Perhaps that would explain Worcester's loss. Payments have, as I've said, always been made to counties principally because they provide the pathway to the England team plus a conduit to the national side for fans. The Hundred franchises provide zero in that respect- no age group cricket, players, coaches, grounds, kit, training facilities, umpires, scorers etc etc.
Harrison agreed a new rights deal without consultation with the counties and without agreeing any ongoing payment. He then ran off to pastures new with his share of that £2.1m bonus. It wouldn't have looked good if he took that and it was demonstrated that The Hundred had made a loss would it? Hence the lies. That loss has been ratified by the current ECB Chairman. And that really isn't pointless.
Well, good luck to Worcestershire if they've sure they can fill a £2.1m deficit to break even (that's £1.9m from The Hundred and a £200k loss) by charging thousands of school kids to watch division two cricket. If they're sure they can do that, then they should campaign hard with all the other counties willing to take on the financial risk.
Could they not have given all the counties a cash injection and focused on promoting the 20/20 area of the game. Having highlights on free to view tv possibly along with free to view games of not just 20/20 but 1 and 5 dayers.
The cash injection given to the counties by the ECB comes from income generated by The Hundred.
What you're suggesting is the ECB should give the counties the money, but take away the ECB's means of generating it in the first place.
From the point of view of the counties, 'free money' would be very welcome. But why would the ECB want to give away funds and not have access to the tournament that creates those funds? It would be like asking a company like Camelot to continue giving monies to good causes, but telling them to stop running the lottery.
It is the The Hundred's knock on effect to county cricket that is hitting them in the pocket specifically when they usually earn the most i.e. the school hols. Perhaps that would explain Worcester's loss. Payments have, as I've said, always been made to counties principally because they provide the pathway to the England team plus a conduit to the national side for fans. The Hundred franchises provide zero in that respect- no age group cricket, players, coaches, grounds, kit, training facilities, umpires, scorers etc etc.
Harrison agreed a new rights deal without consultation with the counties and without agreeing any ongoing payment. He then ran off to pastures new with his share of that £2.1m bonus. It wouldn't have looked good if he took that and it was demonstrated that The Hundred had made a loss would it? Hence the lies. That loss has been ratified by the current ECB Chairman. And that really isn't pointless.
Well, good luck to Worcestershire if they've sure they can fill a £2.1m deficit to break even (that's £1.9m from The Hundred and a £200k loss) by charging thousands of school kids to watch division two cricket. If they're sure they can do that, then they should campaign hard with all the other counties willing to take on the financial risk.
Could they not have given all the counties a cash injection and focused on promoting the 20/20 area of the game. Having highlights on free to view tv possibly along with free to view games of not just 20/20 but 1 and 5 dayers.
The cash injection given to the counties by the ECB comes from income generated by The Hundred.
What you're suggesting is the ECB should give the counties the money, but take away the ECB's means of generating it in the first place.
From the point of view of the counties, 'free money' would be very welcome. But why would the ECB want to give away funds and not have access to the tournament that creates those funds? It would be like asking a company like Camelot to continue giving monies to good causes, but telling them to stop running the lottery.
I thought the Hundred lost millions though?
It generates revenues and disburses £1.9m to reach county, without which more counties would be in the black. The counties make money from The Hundred.
The question then becomes would the counties make more from a properly promoted Blast + a 50 over competition that actually had the best players available and wasn't competing with the hundred for attention?
And, whilst the counties may be making money from the hundred, the game overall is clearly losing out. It would be cheaper for the ECB to still give the counties the £1.9 each and then not hold the hundred, which is a crazy situation. (Based on the hundred losing £58m whilst £1.9m * 18 counties is £34m).
If you add in the traditional fans being alienated by the hundred, and the knock-on effects to attendances at all types of county matches (one day cup attendances decimated by making it almost a 2nd XI competition, Blast attendances surely lower by making it a secondary competition to the hundred and county championship attendances lower due to the majority of the games being in April and September). It would be very interesting to see a breakdown of county match day income pre and post the hundred.
The question then becomes would the counties make more from a properly promoted Blast + a 50 over competition that actually had the best players available and wasn't competing with the hundred for attention?
And, whilst the counties may be making money from the hundred, the game overall is clearly losing out. It would be cheaper for the ECB to still give the counties the £1.9 each and then not hold the hundred, which is a crazy situation. (Based on the hundred losing £58m whilst £1.9m * 18 counties is £34m).
If you add in the traditional fans being alienated by the hundred, and the knock-on effects to attendances at all types of county matches (one day cup attendances decimated by making it almost a 2nd XI competition, Blast attendances surely lower by making it a secondary competition to the hundred and county championship attendances lower due to the majority of the games being in April and September). It would be very interesting to see a breakdown of county match day income pre and post the hundred.
Again, why would the ECB continue to fund the losses of the counties to the tune of £1.9m each, per year, *and* not have the revenues generated by The Hundred?
In my view, if the counties could fund and promote a competition - say, the Blast - to the extent that it made each county a significant profit, then they should be encouraged to do so. But I don't think there's a hope in hell that they could do that. One look at the losses the counties are making, despite the £1.9m - which goes straight to the bottom line - should tell you that the expertise in County Cricket Clubs does not lie in the areas of business development and marketing.
The question then becomes would the counties make more from a properly promoted Blast + a 50 over competition that actually had the best players available and wasn't competing with the hundred for attention?
And, whilst the counties may be making money from the hundred, the game overall is clearly losing out. It would be cheaper for the ECB to still give the counties the £1.9 each and then not hold the hundred, which is a crazy situation. (Based on the hundred losing £58m whilst £1.9m * 18 counties is £34m).
If you add in the traditional fans being alienated by the hundred, and the knock-on effects to attendances at all types of county matches (one day cup attendances decimated by making it almost a 2nd XI competition, Blast attendances surely lower by making it a secondary competition to the hundred and county championship attendances lower due to the majority of the games being in April and September). It would be very interesting to see a breakdown of county match day income pre and post the hundred.
Again, why would the ECB continue to fund the losses of the counties to the tune of £1.9m each, per year, *and* not have the revenues generated by The Hundred?
In my view, if the counties could fund and promote a competition - say, the Blast - to the extent that it made each county a significant profit, then they should be encouraged to do so. But I don't think there's a hope in hell that they could do that. One look at the losses the counties are making, despite the £1.9m - which goes straight to the bottom line - should tell you that the expertise in County Cricket Clubs does not lie in the areas of business development and marketing.
And there you have it, sacrifice the game and its history for business development and marketing. Without The Hundred, the county set up would have continued to exist and deliver the game in its true form, instead of sacrificing it for a short term fad that is the equivalent of the 70's plan of reinvigorating football by moving it to indoor 5 a side and franchising Charlton to Milton Keynes.
The question then becomes would the counties make more from a properly promoted Blast + a 50 over competition that actually had the best players available and wasn't competing with the hundred for attention?
And, whilst the counties may be making money from the hundred, the game overall is clearly losing out. It would be cheaper for the ECB to still give the counties the £1.9 each and then not hold the hundred, which is a crazy situation. (Based on the hundred losing £58m whilst £1.9m * 18 counties is £34m).
If you add in the traditional fans being alienated by the hundred, and the knock-on effects to attendances at all types of county matches (one day cup attendances decimated by making it almost a 2nd XI competition, Blast attendances surely lower by making it a secondary competition to the hundred and county championship attendances lower due to the majority of the games being in April and September). It would be very interesting to see a breakdown of county match day income pre and post the hundred.
Again, why would the ECB continue to fund the losses of the counties to the tune of £1.9m each, per year, *and* not have the revenues generated by The Hundred?
In my view, if the counties could fund and promote a competition - say, the Blast - to the extent that it made each county a significant profit, then they should be encouraged to do so. But I don't think there's a hope in hell that they could do that. One look at the losses the counties are making, despite the £1.9m - which goes straight to the bottom line - should tell you that the expertise in County Cricket Clubs does not lie in the areas of business development and marketing.
There are no revenues, even if there had been no money to the counties it still lost millions upon millions.
You have to separate the two. There was £34m in payments from the ECB to the counties to let them hold The Hundred. Then they held the Hundred and lost in the region of £24m, i.e. it cost £24m more to hold the Hundred than income it actually raised, ergo, there is no revenue from the Hundred full stop.
So the question has to be, given £24m to spend, woild it have been better to spend that promoting/improving the Blast and one day cup, or to create The Hundred.
I think most on here are in agreement, you could spend a fraction of that £24m million to improve those competitions and you then wouldn't need to spend £34m paying off the counties to allow The Hundred to go ahead.
It is the The Hundred's knock on effect to county cricket that is hitting them in the pocket specifically when they usually earn the most i.e. the school hols. Perhaps that would explain Worcester's loss. Payments have, as I've said, always been made to counties principally because they provide the pathway to the England team plus a conduit to the national side for fans. The Hundred franchises provide zero in that respect- no age group cricket, players, coaches, grounds, kit, training facilities, umpires, scorers etc etc.
Harrison agreed a new rights deal without consultation with the counties and without agreeing any ongoing payment. He then ran off to pastures new with his share of that £2.1m bonus. It wouldn't have looked good if he took that and it was demonstrated that The Hundred had made a loss would it? Hence the lies. That loss has been ratified by the current ECB Chairman. And that really isn't pointless.
Well, good luck to Worcestershire if they've sure they can fill a £2.1m deficit to break even (that's £1.9m from The Hundred and a £200k loss) by charging thousands of school kids to watch division two cricket. If they're sure they can do that, then they should campaign hard with all the other counties willing to take on the financial risk.
Could they not have given all the counties a cash injection and focused on promoting the 20/20 area of the game. Having highlights on free to view tv possibly along with free to view games of not just 20/20 but 1 and 5 dayers.
The cash injection given to the counties by the ECB comes from income generated by The Hundred.
What you're suggesting is the ECB should give the counties the money, but take away the ECB's means of generating it in the first place.
From the point of view of the counties, 'free money' would be very welcome. But why would the ECB want to give away funds and not have access to the tournament that creates those funds? It would be like asking a company like Camelot to continue giving monies to good causes, but telling them to stop running the lottery.
I thought the Hundred lost millions though?
It generates revenues and disburses £1.9m to reach county, without which more counties would be in the black. The counties make money from The Hundred.
They lose money because of the Hundred. Then get paid from a format that is losing millions?
So, the ECB have finally realised that the concept does not work. Shame it took them to waste those millions of pounds on their experiment and directly into the back pockets of the likes of Harrison
that's really unbelievable that they're going to end up doing basically exactly what the wider cricket audience were crying out for before the hundred - invest in and reformat the blast. Imagine having county cricket on terrestrial telly - would be fantastic for the game. All those millions wasted.
So, the ECB have finally realised that the concept does not work. Shame it took them to waste those millions of pounds on their experiment and directly into the back pockets of the likes of Harrison
This sounds like a good idea .. personally, I would like a new 40/45 or 50 over competition as well .. however, it would need a sponsor, and nowadays sponsors are hard to find .. one more point, I dislike the current situation where 'star' players pop in to play a few games and then disappear .. name a squad at the start and stick to it
So, the ECB have finally realised that the concept does not work. Shame it took them to waste those millions of pounds on their experiment and directly into the back pockets of the likes of Harrison
This sounds like a good idea .. personally, I would like a new 40/45 or 50 over competition as well .. however, it would need a sponsor, and nowadays sponsors are hard to find .. one more point, I dislike the current situation where 'star' players pop in to play a few games and then disappear .. name a squad at the start and stick to it
That is a problem and it really isn't going to get any easier because of the internationals and franchises going on at the same time as our competitions. There is now one in the US which will compete with our summer so we either have to take a "lowest common denominator" approach and dilute the quality or suffer the fact that a lot of these star cricketers will be in and out. I yearn for the days when Kent would have Asif Iqbal, Bernard Julien, Carl Hooper, Aravinda de Silva, Andrew Symonds etc etc for the duration and in all comps too but those days are sadly gone. Even the ECB have seen to that with their disastrous competition.
The international fixture calendar is so much more crowded as well. In the "old days", unless their country was touring England, which would only be once every 4 years or so), there was basically no other cricket going on other than the English summer, hence the legends of the game played for counties and across the whole season too.
These days, there are more series across the year, and separate white and red ball series so that players are always coming and going.
It is the The Hundred's knock on effect to county cricket that is hitting them in the pocket specifically when they usually earn the most i.e. the school hols. Perhaps that would explain Worcester's loss. Payments have, as I've said, always been made to counties principally because they provide the pathway to the England team plus a conduit to the national side for fans. The Hundred franchises provide zero in that respect- no age group cricket, players, coaches, grounds, kit, training facilities, umpires, scorers etc etc.
Harrison agreed a new rights deal without consultation with the counties and without agreeing any ongoing payment. He then ran off to pastures new with his share of that £2.1m bonus. It wouldn't have looked good if he took that and it was demonstrated that The Hundred had made a loss would it? Hence the lies. That loss has been ratified by the current ECB Chairman. And that really isn't pointless.
Well, good luck to Worcestershire if they've sure they can fill a £2.1m deficit to break even (that's £1.9m from The Hundred and a £200k loss) by charging thousands of school kids to watch division two cricket. If they're sure they can do that, then they should campaign hard with all the other counties willing to take on the financial risk.
Could they not have given all the counties a cash injection and focused on promoting the 20/20 area of the game. Having highlights on free to view tv possibly along with free to view games of not just 20/20 but 1 and 5 dayers.
The cash injection given to the counties by the ECB comes from income generated by The Hundred.
What you're suggesting is the ECB should give the counties the money, but take away the ECB's means of generating it in the first place.
From the point of view of the counties, 'free money' would be very welcome. But why would the ECB want to give away funds and not have access to the tournament that creates those funds? It would be like asking a company like Camelot to continue giving monies to good causes, but telling them to stop running the lottery.
The ECB have means of generating money. The Test matches bring in far more than the Hundred ever did. The counties have always been in receipt of money because they provide the pathway to the England team and have to be able to fund age group cricket in order to do that.
It's a £9m loss if we exclude payments to counties & the MCC. If we include them, the Hundred has lost £58m. This was meant to be the competition that made millions not cost millions. And damaged the existing game with it.
"A move away from the large executive salaries at the ECB. There is now an admission that it lost money, there is now an admission that the TV audience shrunk last year." And those responsible for damaging the game and its finances will not be held accountable for their actions. In fact, they will be the very ones who have profited from it.
Comments
Support a county, and you can follow it from April to September. Support a 100 franchise, and it's a few weeks, and then what? Once the 100 is over, you won't see the London Spirit for 11 months.
The flaw of the ECB schedule for me, is that while August is the school holidays, it's also the start of the football season, which swamps any tiny interest I might have in watching the Nottingham Quavers or Welsh Monster Munch.
If you are a Member there is no discount for the fact that you are having to pay for a sub standard competition. Equally, our match day tickets are £30 at Beckenham if not bought in advance. That really is steep when you aren't seeing the best players.
What you're suggesting is the ECB should give the counties the money, but take away the ECB's means of generating it in the first place.
From the point of view of the counties, 'free money' would be very welcome. But why would the ECB want to give away funds and not have access to the tournament that creates those funds? It would be like asking a company like Camelot to continue giving monies to good causes, but telling them to stop running the lottery.
I’ve been going to ‘all forms’ of cricket for years before I moved to Ireland.
I go when I can now, to what I can.
I have no allegiance to Welsh Fire who are playing Manchester when I happen to be over in Cardiff. But I want my cricket fix (so much we’re even thinking of going to Southampton when we’re down visiting friends there).
I don’t have the answers sorry but I want to watch cricket too.
the ECB had funds and have now squandered those funds and the television funds on a tournament with no future. one which no other nation plays.
They are now losing money when they could of gained money by promoting the 20/20 game one which all counties could participate in instead of random city's and franchises.
They could of negotiated for better tv rights with a revamped T20 tournament.
They could find sponsorship for the 50 over game which we are champions of.
They could at least seem to be in some way trying to protect the sport we love instead of alienating vast swathes of fans with gimmicks to try and entice all these new young fans who are supposedly floating around.
meanwhile the people behind all this swan off into the sunset with millions. millions that could and should of been used to help grass roots cricket, the woman's game and the game in general.
(sorry i sounded rather angry/passionate with that post.)
It's a £9m loss if we exclude payments to counties & the MCC. If we include them, the Hundred has lost £58m. This was meant to be the competition that made millions not cost millions. And damaged the existing game with it.
And, whilst the counties may be making money from the hundred, the game overall is clearly losing out. It would be cheaper for the ECB to still give the counties the £1.9 each and then not hold the hundred, which is a crazy situation. (Based on the hundred losing £58m whilst £1.9m * 18 counties is £34m).
If you add in the traditional fans being alienated by the hundred, and the knock-on effects to attendances at all types of county matches (one day cup attendances decimated by making it almost a 2nd XI competition, Blast attendances surely lower by making it a secondary competition to the hundred and county championship attendances lower due to the majority of the games being in April and September). It would be very interesting to see a breakdown of county match day income pre and post the hundred.
In my view, if the counties could fund and promote a competition - say, the Blast - to the extent that it made each county a significant profit, then they should be encouraged to do so. But I don't think there's a hope in hell that they could do that. One look at the losses the counties are making, despite the £1.9m - which goes straight to the bottom line - should tell you that the expertise in County Cricket Clubs does not lie in the areas of business development and marketing.
I f*cking hate The Hundred.
You have to separate the two. There was £34m in payments from the ECB to the counties to let them hold The Hundred. Then they held the Hundred and lost in the region of £24m, i.e. it cost £24m more to hold the Hundred than income it actually raised, ergo, there is no revenue from the Hundred full stop.
So the question has to be, given £24m to spend, woild it have been better to spend that promoting/improving the Blast and one day cup, or to create The Hundred.
I think most on here are in agreement, you could spend a fraction of that £24m million to improve those competitions and you then wouldn't need to spend £34m paying off the counties to allow The Hundred to go ahead.
These days, there are more series across the year, and separate white and red ball series so that players are always coming and going.
Sounds like it might be curtains for the hundred, it was his brainchild.