I hope folks have had chance to read Barney Ronay's piece this morning;

The problem is the collateral damage to all the other bits. The Hundred is unavoidably parasitic. It requires every other format to be subjugated and run down, although part of this is a deliberate managed decline to ensure its own success. People who have supported the game and kept it alive like the other formats. Test cricket is still the greatest cash cow. It is currently being asked to subsidise the thing that will cut its legs off, a Hundred that provides no players, no pathway, no midsummer stage in return.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/article/2024/may/09/selling-off-summer-why-plans-for-hundred-should-matter-to-all-cricket-lovers

It is obviously something that of all the counties our very own Warwickshire (the hierarchy) along with usual suspects Lancashire are pursuing most strongly - the threats of breakaways etc...
If you are a Warks member and want to avert a future without Worcestershire or Kent or Sussex to play then start getting active now. Tomorrow they will throw county cricket to the wolves it seems and Warks members need to be active and make their voices heard

I don't think this is an emergency right now. Its 100 franchises that are being put up for investment. The ownership of these entities I'm not sure of but I'm pretty sure it doesn't all feed through directly into the respective county clubs, ECB will get some if not all of this cash. In theory it could be ringfenced by the 100 entirely. Birmingham Mumbai Indians Phoenix anyone? Yeah I don't care either.

I do agree with the point Ronay seems to be making overall, that it seems a lot of marginal suffering for what seems like greed. I read reabanks financial analysis in depth and the overall situation in cricket is not that horrifying, nothing like the situation in rugby where 4 of of the top 15 pro teams have recently gone bust.

Go to 2 hours 19 mins here listen to a discussion between Alan Higham and Kevin Howells

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001z1sq

Sorry to sound alarmist but in 2022 county members pulled the emergency stop lever on the dreadful Strauss Review. Some of the circulated chatter from leaks do concern me about the impact of private investment. The horrifying prospect of cricket following the failed model of rugby union and water companies and suffering to the same extent is very real and pressing indeed. We are in this position precisely because of failed policy over 15 years now at ECB level and many of those same people are running the game into the dirt now - you only have to look at the impact on Blast attendances post Covid. Was supposed to be different with the two Dickies but is it really any better than the dreadful Graves and Harrison?

Simple fact in pretty well all sport - the stars are paid far too much. The result of this is two fold. Clubs seek sponsorship/advertising to cover this cost and suddenly the sponsorship ceases and/or advertising reduces. The other is the cost of admission goes up to such an extent that the average supporter stays away leaving behind the prawn sandwich corporate attendees which again starts to reduce when companies feel the financial squeeze.
My local rugby club (purely amateur) has advised they can get tickets for England v All Blacks next November - cost £149 - others are over £100. Similar happenings in cricket. Football pays its players way too much and that bubble will eventually burst.
Until reality is applied to sport's wages bill things will just get worse.

Counties like Worcestershire to get a paltry one off £5 million to lose the whole of August and be silenced forever. It is shameful and it is unclear yet whether the £1.3 million original per annum hush money will continue to be provided by the ECB to Worcestershire. If that is not provided per annum on top of the £5 million they'd be mad to accept this deal

Indeed. This is precisely the affect in Rugby of higher salaries. Its just about mitigated in cricket through central contracts but it could end up going the same way. I don't think any counties are due to go bust in the short term either.

LeicesterExile wrote:

Simple fact in pretty well all sport - the stars are paid far too much. The result of this is two fold. Clubs seek sponsorship/advertising to cover this cost and suddenly the sponsorship ceases and/or advertising reduces. The other is the cost of admission goes up to such an extent that the average supporter stays away leaving behind the prawn sandwich corporate attendees which again starts to reduce when companies feel the financial squeeze.
My local rugby club (purely amateur) has advised they can get tickets for England v All Blacks next November - cost £149 - others are over £100. Similar happenings in cricket. Football pays its players way too much and that bubble will eventually burst.
Until reality is applied to sport's wages bill things will just get worse.

Hi, perhaps time to update this discussion. I think it would be sensible for someone, me at a push, to put a special resolution before the AGM. Not so much in the expectation of success but to remind the board that we are a member's club and "direction of cricket" decisions must be made on the basis of a fair vote of the membership. A special resolution would need to be supported by 250 members & it would be interesting to know if I could expect any support from this forum. More on my concerns below.

As I understand it the ECB is now trying to sell 49% of The Hundred franchises with the proceeds to be split between the 18 first class counties, the MCC and grass roots cricket. The remaining 51% will be gifted to the home franchise county, i.e. Warwickshire end up with a 51% stake in Bham 100. I've two concerns with this, 1. The gift of 51% of the franchises is inappropriate, the franchises are owned by the ECB, effectively, on trust for the whole of cricket so they can't gift 51% of them away to favoured partners. There's also a practical issue here, in the days of the Warwickshire sweep there was an understanding that Warwickshire's windfall wealth needed to be shared out, the county wasn't a profit maximizing business and shouldn't behave like one. I don't believe WCCC's current senior management have that appreciation, they come from business and rugby backgrounds. The members need to ensure the windfall is spent appropriately.
Objection 2 is that if WCCC hold 51% of the Hundred franchise with outside investors holding 49% we will never be sure whether the club is being managed in the interests of its members or the board's new, exciting business friends.
As for what a special resolution would say I think we need to get the board to acknowledge that members have the final say on the board's proposals. So perhaps a resolution could, 1. require the board to sell any 51% Bham 100 holding to the highest reputable bidder and 2 to, at a future special meeting, outline proposals for how it intends to spend its windfall with some proportion going to wider cricket (or maybe just charitable) projects.

I agree that now is the time for members to speak up.
The means is there in the form of a special general meeting invoked by 250 or more members. But I'm not sure if the will is there amongst the membership.
I had forgotten how long had elapsed since I interviewed then-Chairman Norman Gascoigne about the changes in how the Club was to be run - see here:
https://deepextracover.com/2018/02/proposed-changes-at-warwickshire-signal-a-shift-in-how-county-clubs-are-run/
The key bit is:
“What powers will members still have? Let’s suppose, entirely hypothetically,” said Terry, “that the ECB proposed to scrap the County Championship and replace it with a 10 overs a side competition. The members would for sure be up in arms in opposition to this; but what if the word from Edgbaston was that the Club would support the proposals? What could the Members do now (under the existing Club rules) to change the Club’s line; and what will they be able to do if the governance changes go through?”

“There won’t really be any difference,” replied Norman. “In both situations, the higher of 250 members or 5% of the club membership would be needed in order for a Special General Meeting to be convened. At the meeting a proposal could be put forward for a vote of no confidence. Or a resolution could be raised for the Board to vote against the ECB proposals. If the resolution was passed, the Board would be bound by it.”

Saw an interesting update to this on Twiiter from an account called "The Grumbler".

They were at Essex AGM and was announced that Essex had rejected the sale of the 100 franchises in full. Apparently 5 or 6 other counties are similar. It then says it doesnt matter, as the ECB isnt asking for approval, irs just advisory and they will do what they want. They go on to say the sale of the 49% share would net the hosting county (ie Warks) by about 100 times more than the other counties.

Seems an astonishing figure and one that definitely answers that question of whether the wealth will be distributed. Seems anyone who is not the ECB can't really influence anything.

On this thread, Terry and Reabank both articulate what Warks members could do - but all that could produce would be a WCCC recommendation or stated position as far as I can see.

Hi Tayls. The Essex stuff is very interesting. I do struggle to see why the ECB is proposing to gift 51% shares in the Hundred franchises to the host counties + MCC. I would have thought that would be breaking company law because a company can't favour one group of shareholders over another but I'm not a lawyer and maybe there is a loop - hole. My belief is that the 51% gift is inappropriate (I think that's pretty clear) and so Warwickshire members should require the hundred shareholding is sold and the money used for something worthwhile. I suspect that once the board realises they aren't going to be able to use the money to build a hotel - out of gold, they'll cool on the whole sale idea. Sadly there's only been feedback from you and Terry and I suppose most just see the issue as too complicated or don't mind Warwickshire being unjustly enriched.
I did do the numbers for how the proceeds from The Hundred might break down for the 18 counties plus MCC https://substack.com/@richardbentley2/p-147203084
But didn't come up with the 1% Tayls refers, I'd say non - hosts get a third to a quarter of what hosts get.

Another attempt to get the link to work.

Edit: not sure why it doesn’t like the original link but this should work - Exiled Bear

Substack

Ah, some major differences in the wealth distribution. 38% to non-hosts, which is nowhere near as much of an issue as 1%, which would be an outrage. The Grumbler doesn't have a source, presumably it was presented at Essex AGM and they just took a note of it. Could be a mistake, could have been specific to different modelled circumstances in the MCC v Essex sitn. I've tried to link to the tweet below, have to see if it works. Where all this money comes from and what price will be extracted for it I won't get into.

To the wider debate, it's not clear where this split of the 49% ultimately goes, but you strongly suspect it's not going to favour smaller counties. That's where the influencable bit comes though. Looks like the sale we can't stop but where the money goes can be.

You can see a dystopian conclusion where Edgbaston holds 38,000 and is never filled. While Leicestershire and Gloucs have gone bust and the eight franchises fill even more of the calendar.

As to when this happens I guess it's AGM 2025. I'm willing to do something about it, bit I'm not a Warks member and I live in West London, not far from Lords. As a Finance Communications manager I candour stuff though.

https://x.com/The_Grumbler/status/1831075486522372558

Reabank wrote:

Another attempt to get the link to work.
https://substack.com/@richardbentley2/p-147203084

Ah, some major differences in the wealth distribution. 38% to non-hosts, which is nowhere near as much of an issue as 1%, which would be an outrage. The Grumbler doesn't have a source, presumably it was presented at Essex AGM and they just took a note of it. Could be a mistake, could have been specific to different modelled circumstances in the MCC v Essex sitn. I've tried to link to the tweet below, have to see if it works. Where all this money comes from and what price will be extracted for it I won't get into.

To the wider debate, it's not clear where this split of the 49% ultimately goes, but you strongly suspect it's not going to favour smaller counties. That's where the influencable bit comes though. Looks like the sale we can't stop but where the money goes can be.

You can see a dystopian conclusion where Edgbaston holds 38,000 and is never filled. While Leicestershire and Gloucs have gone bust and the eight franchises fill even more of the calendar.

As to when this happens I guess it's AGM 2025. I'm willing to do something about it, bit I'm not a Warks member and I live in West London, not far from Lords. As a Finance Communications manager I can do stuff though.

https://x.com/The_Grumbler/status/1831075486522372558

Reabank wrote:

Another attempt to get the link to work.
https://substack.com/@richardbentley2/p-147203084

I am going to write to the Secretary of State. My opposition is based on the fundamental issue of franchise cricket and creating a capitalist vehicle which destroys the very fabric of the sport. It is pure greed.

It leaves a bad smell, doesn't it? The competition-that-shall-not-be-named is the tail wagging the dog, disrupting domestic scheduling and attracting all the management attention with the shiny sixpences being dangled in front of them. The unseemly rush to sell makes it unlikely that the ECB have really thought through the implications. I mean, getting money in from vulture funds, billionaires and foreign wealth funds, what could possibly go wrong? (Ask Premiership Rugby.) Do the ECB have an end game in mind for how they would like cricket to look after the dust has settled? Do they think a free for all cash-fest is the best way of achieving it? Or is this being driven by middle-men and vested interests trousering fat fees?

According to The Telegraph, the 87-page document distributed to interested investors sells the Hundred as “dominating the British summer sporting calendar” as the ECB tries to tempt buyers. It also boasts that the Hundred is the “premier destination for men’s and women’s global cricket superstars” despite a less-than-stellar roster of overseas men’s players who appeared this year with stars such as Pat Cummins choosing to play in Major League Cricket in the United States instead and Indian players not available.
The document also highlights W G Grace and Alastair Cook as examples of great English short-format players, despite the former dying nearly 100 years before the invention of T20, and the latter never participating in the Hundred.
Possibly not surprisingly, the ECB declined to comment.

Good paywall breaching Terry. I think George has it in the cricketer too. Before that broke though, I think I saw on BBC that the sale might well be beyond 2025. A delay seems the best route for us as opposition to get organised.

More comment today from Lalit Modi (perhaps not an impartial observer) who believes the financial projections to be "disconnected from reality" and "more like wishful thinking".
If I were a serious investor, I'm not sure whether I would view the ECB as a bunch of chumps who could easily be taken for a ride or as so incompetent that I wouldn't want to touch any business that they had started.

UrsaMinor wrote:

More comment today from Lalit Modi (perhaps not an impartial observer) who believes the financial projections to be "disconnected from reality" and "more like wishful thinking".
If I were a serious investor, I'm not sure whether I would view the ECB as a bunch of chumps who could easily be taken for a ride or as so incompetent that I wouldn't want to touch any business that they had started.

It's just a pity that the ideal investor, Allen Stanford, happens to be serving a 110 year prison sentence.

When I brought the name of Allen Stanford into the discussion, I hadn't realised that Lalit Modi had branded the ECB proposals as "a big fat Ponzi scheme" but Stanford would know all about that.