Yorkshire have updated their members today October 28th. Interesting way they've guaged members feelings on various aspects of the HPR . It's about as scientific as this sort of thing can get I'd say. Seems a practical stance

— 28 October 2022
Following the Members’ Forum held at Headingley during the final LV= Insurance County Championship game and a subsequent survey to Members, the Club’s Chief Operating Officer Andy Dawson has provided the below update.

“It was fantastic to see so many of our members at the Members’ Forum in September and the passion in the room was clear for all to see. The overwhelming feeling in the room was not a surprise, with a strong desire to retain the integrity of the County Championship, and as such maintain 14 games per season.

“Yorkshire CCC is the most decorated Club in County Championship history, and we continue to see the competition as a real source of competition, skill and enjoyment for many. Added to this, the Club and county game continue to develop fantastic players for England, with Harry Brook the latest example of this.

“Following the Forum, we sent a survey to opted in members and left paper versions in the Long Room. We were absolutely delighted with the level of responses with just short of 600 people having their say, and we’ve summarised the findings to this below.

“We have also received signatures from well over 400 members to requisition an EGM, asking members to vote on two resolutions related to the High Performance Review.

“Whilst the EGM will not take place until Friday 11 November, it is clear from the consultation that we have carried out it is the wish of our members that the Championship must be preserved and that we should not be supporting a reduction in the number of games.

“The ECB have confirmed that there will be no changes to the schedule for 2023 and that they will continue to consult with all stakeholders over the coming months.

“We look forward to hearing from members once again at the EGM in November, and would like to thank everyone who has taken the time to contribute to any of our consultations so far.”

MEMBERS’ SURVEY RESULTS
594 responses

On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate the recommendations from the High Performance Review proposals? (1 = Highly Unsatisfactory, 5 = Neutral, 10 = Highly satisfactory)

Average score – 2

On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate the recommendations from the High Performance Review proposals with regards to the 50-over competition to be played in April, with a knock-out element introduced? (1 = Highly Unsatisfactory, 5 = Neutral, 10 = Highly satisfactory)

Average score – 4

On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate the recommendations from the High Performance Review proposals with regards to the County Championship, with the total number of fixtures reduced to ten? (1 = Highly Unsatisfactory, 5 = Neutral, 10 = Highly satisfactory)

Average score – 1

On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate the recommendations from the High Performance Review proposals with regards to playing First-Class festival games in August, with home games likely to be played at Scarborough? (1 = Highly Unsatisfactory, 5 = Neutral, 10 = Highly satisfactory)

Average score – 3

On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate the recommendations from the High Performance Review proposals with regards to reducing the Vitality Blast to five home group games, all to be played from Thursday to Sunday? (1 = Highly Unsatisfactory, 5 = Neutral, 10 = Highly satisfactory)

Average score – 4

That actually seems a far better way of making sure everyone was able to make their feelings known. Looking at scores and with a mind to our own forums I would imagine we would have scored very similar.

Re an earlier post- I think a summary of our meeting will be made available on Monday.

Headline in The Times for a column by Elizabeth Ammon "Andrew Strauss’s proposals dead in the water after county revolt". A bit thin on definite statements (or named sources) but says we will stay at 14 games in the CC and Blast with most likely change a bit of compression of The Hundred to get a round of the CC in August.

It's been clear for a while that tempting 12 counties into voting for these reductions wasn't going to be realistic. To prevent smaller counties being picked off it was vital members at the big counties stood up and resoundingly said "no!" The mood at Edgbaston's second forum on Wednesday showed the posture of the club had shifted quite markedly in line with many of their fellow counties and reflecting more closely the mood of the members from the first forum.

Well done to all who signed the petition/s those we have will be kept on file in the event these drastic unecessary cuts loom into view again (which of course they will - they'll be back again for sure like vultures) all who lobbied their county representatives and the counties themselves for opening up dialogue and realising the potential gravity of the situation. A big pat on the back for all who reminded the counties why they exist in the first place.

Expect some gnashing of teeth from certain people at the ECB.

It was always about the schedule and not necessarily the overall volume of cricket that is the issue for the players. The schedule has in recent seasons been a pain for the spectator too. Players must realise why they are paid - it is to entertain spectators not to attain high performance in the gym - and as such I think it is the duty of counties to remind players that the best schedule to meet the needs of paying spectators and maximise revenue won't always be blocking all the formats up into nice little windows. Three home Blast games in a week is far from ideal for attracting crowds to the big grounds which is why some of it needs to be alongside some CC cricket. There has to be a certain amount of switching between formats.

In Australia their state sides will routinely play a 4-day Sheffield Shield game and a day later a Marsh Cup 50-over game and then fly to the next city to do the same a few days later. Their Sheffield Shield and Marsh Cup aren't locked inside neat blocks. We did this in England too until relatively recently.

Why isn't it possible to have a mix of CC and RLODC games in the early part of the season April May, then a mix of CC and Blast games in June and July then some CC in August during the latter stages of the Hundred when most players are back with their counties. Then the final three rounds of CC in September.

I think particularly for competitions with a knockout element you cant really justify having that in a dedicated block because it causes too many teams (the ones who get knocked out) to be inactive for too many weeks in the season.

Kent Cricket’s Chair, Simon Philip, has provided an update (Nov 9th) on the two High Performance Review recommendations which concern the structure & scheduling of county cricket.

Yesterday, I attended a virtual meeting for the 18 First-Class County Chairs to discuss the High-Performance Review.

As previously stated, there are two key areas for our Club – structure & scheduling.

For any changes to be enacted to these, 12 of the 18 First-Class Counties must be in favour. As previously covered in the cricket media, it is clear that there is no requisite majority for a reduction of LV= Insurance County Championship or Vitality Blast cricket or for the One-Day Cup to be played at the start of the season.

We are committed to finding solutions that improve the performance of England Cricket – there are 14 other recommendations in the Review that are non-contentious & may well have a significant positive impact on the performance of our Men’s International teams. However, at this time, there are no proposals or votes on the table concerning the amendment of the domestic schedule & structure.

Until this changes, the status quo prevails.

If any proposals do emerge in future, they will be assessed by the Board & the impact on the Club, our Members, supporters, players and stakeholders will be considered. Members will be consulted in that eventuality.

However, in the absence of any proposals currently, there is nothing on which to consult.

At the Yorkshire Extraordinary General Meeting, the following four resolutions were passed:
Resolution 1 = THAT the Rules of the Club be amended to reflect the adoption of a new Members’ Code of Conduct as set out in the notice of EGM
Resolution 2 = THAT the Rules of the Club be amended to allow Members to have their say on matters relating to the Club at the point of taking out a membership as set out in the notice of EGM
Resolution 3 = THAT the Club’s Chairman is to oppose any permanent reduction in the number of first-class county championship fixtures for future seasons, unless considered by prior ordinary resolution of the membership
Resolution 4 = THAT any specific proposals for reform received from the ECB for a vote of the county chairs will (to the extent practicable) also be put to an ordinary resolution by members
Resolutions 3 and 4 were passed with 99.1% and 97.5% respectively in favour.

How the counties fought back to win cricket's civil war
Sir Andrew Strauss's high-performance review wanted to shake up the County Championship but now the Hundred is set for change instead

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2022/11/25/how-counties-fought-back-win-crickets-civil-war/

By Nick Hoult,

The high-performance review led by Sir Andrew Strauss was supposed to radically shake up the 132-year-old County Championship but it now looks like the Hundred will be the competition set for change after a fightback from the shires.

The counties have rejected out of hand recommendations to split the championship into a top division of six and cut the number of matches from 14 to 10; the idea being to slim down the competition and make it more competitive.

Strauss has recently written to all 18 counties asking to reopen the debate in an effort to salvage the plans but there is little hope of agreement until a review of the England and Wales Cricket Board’s finances, launched by new chair Richard Thompson, is completed next year.

County chairs are demanding to know the full costs of the Hundred and the financial implications of any change to the domestic structure, with many worrying that a reduction in cricket is an “existential threat” to their existence. There has also been a rebellion of county members that stiffened the resolve of clubs against change.

There is now a strong possibility, Telegraph Sport understands, that the Hundred could lose its August school holiday window and be played a few weeks earlier in June-July, which would allow Test cricket and championship matches to once again be played in August from 2024 (the schedule for next year has been decided and circulated to counties with little change).

Telegraph Sport revealed last month the competition could also be cut from four weeks to three by playing more double headers. If the championship remains at 14 matches then it has to be played in August to allow players to recover and the Hundred will need to be squeezed.

A change in leadership at the ECB, with Thompson becoming chairman in September and Richard Gould joining as chief executive in the new year, has already seen a cultural shift away from the Hundred dominating the board’s outlook.

Rebalancing the game is one of the core aims of Thompson and Gould, who were ardent critics of the Hundred when they ran Surrey and warned of the implications it would have on the domestic game. Both are good communicators with supporters and accept the division caused by the Hundred is playing out now in the debate over the county structure.

It was believed the school holiday period was essential to attract family audiences. But unlike in Australia, where the Big Bash is played in the school holiday, insiders believe more families in England go overseas for their holidays and it is believed this is going to affect Hundred attendances as life returns to normality after the pandemic.

(Interestingly this is what they found out pretty early on with the T20 Blast so Hundred before the school holidays and / or trying to avoid big summer events like World Cup's clashing. Doesn't strike me as the 100 being very confident of itself.)

The Hundred has existed in a bubble at the ECB with its own budget and staff. It costs around £40m to run, including the payments to the counties, which equals roughly the budget for England men’s cricket.

Is the Hundred justifying its cost?

The questions being asked now is whether the Hundred is giving the returns necessary to justify the cost, not necessarily financially, but how it has complicated and compacted the schedule. Audience figures for the BBC fell by up to 20 percent this summer.

“We know the source of funds at the ECB until 2028 (the Sky deal is worth around £220m annually) but is the application across all cost centres we do not know,” said one county chairman. “How much is spent on the Hundred? How much is spent on ECB overheads and what is the Hundred contributing? Greater income should mean a greater distribution but that doesn’t seem to be happening with some clubs still on the breadline.”

The game is split. In one corner, are those that back the high performance review and believe that investing in the Hundred, and making money from white-ball cricket, while streamlining the championship, will protect the long term future of the first class game. “I know, let’s ignore the best minds in the game and let a bunch of crusty old chairs who have never played cricket come up with an alternative. It makes us a laughing stock,” said one insider.

Then there are those in the other corner, who believe cutting red-ball cricket will weaken it, and worry a reduction in cricket will see clubs go out of business.

Added to this is a determined group of county members who forced their clubs to hold EGMs at the end of the season and pledge to not support any reduction in the amount of red-ball cricket without the agreement of their membership.

There are only around 70,000 members across 18 clubs – the exact figure is a closely guarded secret – and even fewer who are members of the County Cricket Members Group which has galvanised behind this issue.

'It is not the tail wagging the dog but the fleas on the tail wagging the dog'

“I think there is a very good chance that what was recommended by Strauss would have gone through if there had not been pushback from members,” said Alan Higham of the CCMG, who has campaigned for members to have more say in the running of their clubs.

“It was a big wake up call for county supporters to stand up. It jolted the bigger counties. I just hope the ECB now realises that doing things in isolated management teams, and running everything from the centre, is sub-optimal. They could achieve far more by bringing people together.”

But this resistance has frustrated those involved in the review. “It is not the tail wagging the dog but the fleas on the tail wagging the dog,” said one exasperated source. “We now have complete inertia through spineless chairmen and a handful of members. Are the chairmen going to ask their members if Christmas is still on December 25?”

(Dry your eyes)

The game is changing quickly, and the bigger threat for counties is not the changes advocated by its governing body but developments around the world.

Strauss warned the current schedule damages high performances and it will lead players choosing between the treadmill of 14 championship matches or saving themselves for franchise leagues. Will Smeed became the first young player to throw his lot in exclusively with white-ball cricket recently. Others are expected to follow.

'Those defending the status quo are killing it'

A new T20 league starts in the UAE in January and is offering salaries of £300,000 tax free. South Africa launches its T20 league at the same time creating tension in the market and a fight for English talent. Major League Cricket announced last week it will start in the United States in June 2023, offering another payday for white-ball cricketers.

“Look, those defending the status quo do not realise they are killing it,” says a county insider, (many are reluctant to go on the record because of the sensitivity of the issue).

( I call bullshit then if that's the case and anyway the status quo isn't what's being defended here, the structure since 2017 ish (and the absence of weekend/holiday fixtures well beforehand) has been a complete disgrace. What members want is change to the status quo of administrators running the game into the dirt with flawed panicky thinking)

“We are going to have third-tier players playing county cricket. The top tier are centrally contracted and you write off ever seeing them. Now we will have a second tier of players who build their schedule around T20 leagues, the Blast and the Hundred and will make themselves unavailable for most red-ball games. People just do not understand this.”

(Diddums. Let em go. When the bubble of inconsequential cricket finally bursts they'll all come crawling back and in the meantime there are squads and squads of players available to play the cricket people in England actually invest time in and want to watch)

Strauss recommended a 10-game championship split between a top tier of six and two conferences of six teams. His report also called for a reduction from 14 to 10 Blast matches but did not analyse the effect of the Hundred on the schedule.

The review argued England play too much cricket at county level leaving players little time to work on specific skills and for groundsman to prepare good quality pitches that mirror those in Test cricket.

Officials at the ECB involved in high performance are understood to be very frustrated by the reluctance of counties to embrace change but ultimately accept it is their right to decide the level of cricket they play.

Sean Jarvis, chief executive of Leicestershire, estimates the reduction in cricket would cost his club £275,000 in match-day income losses even before the wishes of members were taken into account.

“When we analysed the proposals and put it through our business model at Leicestershire it was apparent the financial impact on our club was quite severe so for us it did not make sense to back the proposals,” he said. “ It would jeopardise our existence.”

County coaches pushed back against a top division of six believing the fear of relegation would prevent them giving younger players a chance – which has always been put forward as an argument for conferences rather than divisions. Most also did not agree with the conclusion that 10 games is enough but conceded that to play 14 matches means the championship has to be held in August.

The fight over the Hundred is complex. It is the ECB’s competition to do with what they like but Sky has bankrolled it and it is part of the broadcast deal until 2028. Broadcasters are as keen to attract younger, more diverse audiences as the ECB. They see the Hundred as that opportunity.

By reducing the Hundred, the ECB would be the only governing body in cricket to prioritise red ball over its franchise competition, which will be welcomed by many but does it make long-term business sense? The competition will only attract the best players through external investment. What message does it send to potential buyers if the governing body does not believe fully in its own product? That external investment will also trickle down to the counties.

No common goal
If the Hundred cannot pay the big salaries then it will become increasingly harder to sign the best players. The game is also close to IPL owners contracting its best players for 12 months a year, seizing more control. The championship, with its roots in Victorian England, is battling very modern forces.

At the moment there is no common goal, and never will be with so many competing interests among the counties and within the ECB.

(The county members are fairly well united on this whether you are Surrey or Derbyshire and well done to them)

England’s success this year has dampened enthusiasm for change too but the goal is to create a system that works regardless of who is leading English cricket so it does not rely on a Michael Vaughan-Duncan Fletcher or Brendon McCullum-Ben Stokes combination to come along and change fortunes. Anyone who has been on an Ashes tour recognises the structure is not doing its job.

(Enthusiasm??? I'd say a realisation that the blessed Hundred draining wads and wads of ECB finance is a bigger factor than waning enthusiam for watching North v South in Abu Dhabi and other such nonsense proposed to replace a 140+ year old institution like the County Championship

“The status quo achieves nothing. This is not about playing 14 games or 10 games. It is actually about whether these counties are still here in 10 years’ time,” says a senior figure in English cricket.

(Stop knee-capping county cricket then idiots and then throwing money at vanity projects then idiots)

Both sides agree on that but are miles apart on how to achieve it.

(I'd suggest it's a major achievement in binning off the folly of the Strauss proposals)

An interesting article. Us county members get it in the neck don't we? Watching cricket, spending money - we're ruining the game. One point, there's a line in the article "There are only around 70,000 members across 18 clubs – the exact figure is a closely guarded secret". This is piffle. County membership numbers are publicly available information and can be accessed by anybody with an internet connection. Or you could look at my blog, http://sideoncricket.blogspot.com/2022/11/county-members.html which sets it all out in a table. Cricket in England has many strengths and a few weaknesses, one of those weaknesses is lazy, ill - informed journalists. (George Dobell and one or two others are obvious exceptions, but overall standard is low.)

I thought Yorkshire had way more members than that. And didn't Notts have over 8000 a few years back?

Yes I was surprised by Yorkshire as they are a well supported county, but only 3k members is correct. And Notts was > 8k as recently as 2018, but has fallen since with a big drop off in 2020, a slight uptick in 2021 but not back to 2019 levels.

Private Investment in Domestic Cricket in England and Wales - We know what is coming over the horizon. The impact on the County game needs proper consideration

Is there any indication as to where Warwickshire's members committee sits on this serious matter? Ownership of the ECB's shiny new toy, as explained below, is likely to impact future schedules more widely so where are the updates from Warwickshire CCC to its owners - the members?

What The County Cricket members Group are asking in December 2023:

CONCERNS ABOUT PRIVATE INVESTMENT IN THE HUNDRED

The ECB have clearly stated their ambition to bring private investment into domestic cricket. Likely buyers are said to be IPL franchise owners, oil-states and hyper wealthy people looking to own their own franchise cricket team. How it is done is being discussed in private with county bosses with many different options.

At the moment the ECB is answerable to the 18 first class counties, MCC and the national counties. Changes impacting the domestic cricket structure or schedule needs 12 out of 18 counties to agree. Changes to the Hundred are thought to require 14 out of the 18 counties to agree (though some reports say that might only be 12). 15 of the 18 counties are controlled by their members as they have the power to appoint and remove the board.

Why seek private investment?

Funding more women’s cricket with better pay until such time it grows to be commercially viable on its own terms.
Improving access at grassroots to reach more disadvantaged communities
Paying higher wages to compete with global franchise leagues
Paying down debt

It is easy to forget that the ECB had £335m of revenues plus the revenues of the 18 counties and the MCC. There is a lot of money in our game. Just 5 years ago the ECB made only £125m so the money has increased a lot.

Is it about control?

Whatever the motive, the consequence is that control of cricket will pass over to the new owners alongside the ECB. It may take time and several steps but those putting huge sums in will want effective control of key aspects such as

When and for how long the Hundred is played
Who plays in it
Who runs it, decisions on TV rights etc

Is it cynical to think the main motive is actually to transfer control of cricket away from the counties and their members to the ECB and private owners?

He who pays the Piper Calls The Tune!

This summer, there’s no championship cricket from 4 July to 22 August. Last summer there was not a single first class cricket match in the whole of August.

It is easy to see that players contracted to the 100 on new higher pay will be restricted from playing for other teams. Instead of England releasing its players, permission will be needed to play for England. Will there be Test cricket in peak summer?

IPL ownership might bring higher TV revenues from India, Indian superstar players and other world class players. All this will come at a price. As ICC TV rights have increased in value, the Indian board has insisted that the lion share is retained by India because Indian cricket fans are the ones funding it all.

There is talk about expanding the Hundred so that in time there can be a team for every county (except Middlesex???). But TV rights are more valuable if the league is just 8 teams with all the best players. If there is a second division with promotion and relegation then the elite teams are less valuable to investors.

Do we want important decisions being made mainly for profit reasons?

Key questions to ask about these proposals

What do we need the money for?
Why sell for a lump sum now rather than banking all of the future profits?
Can we make better use of our current income?
What control will we lose as a result?
What is the impact for counties especially those who don’t host a Hundred team?
What happens to the £1.3m annual payments to counties
Can an 18 team Hundred exist alongside counties playing the Blast?
What stops further expansion until it consumes and controls all cricket?

Cricket fans deserve honest answers to all these questions before any decision is taken. Selling stakes in teams that are given all the best conditions to flourish must inevitably condemn the counties to a permanent second tier existence if indeed they continue to exist.

Football fans rejected the ESL because competition, history and integrity mattered more than money.

County governance

If the counties were to be bought instead of the Hundred teams then county members would have to vote 75% in favour with at least 50% of members voting amongst the 15 member owned counties.

Far easier to just move all the best parts into the new teams and lean on county chairs dependent on the national team’s money to vote for it.

County members are cricket’s independent guardians. They appoint the boards & chair who in turn oversee professional managers running the game. Before these fundamental & irreversible changes to who controls and benefits from cricket are made, county members must agree to them and not have them imposed against their will just like when the 100 was created.

The County Cricket Members Group is a voluntary group of concerned members who want our counties to grow, thrive and improve. We recognise the need to change as the world changes. We encourage cricket lovers to join their local county and become involved. We say this to our county chiefs.

Talk to your fellow members and supporters openly and honestly about the pros and cons of these proposals. Listen to your members’ concerns and respect their wishes if they are not persuaded.

DO WRITE TO THE CEO and CHAIR to make your concerns heard - if you have them.
IT IS VITAL THAT MEMBERS SCUTINISE THESE PROPOSALS PROPERLY PRIOR TO THESE CHANGES BEING APPROVED
There may very well be well founded reasons for proceding but it shouldn't be bigger counties demanding an ever larger share of the pie and it also should not be smaller clubs being bought off by bribes for short term staving off of liquidation.

I want Warwickshire CCC to continue their superb record since 1989 - that is competing and winning titles in competition with 17 other county teams once every 7 to 10 years or so rather than finishing top against only 7 other sides once every 3 to 5 years.