Joined: 13 Jan 2015, 19:59

01 Mar 2017, 15:52 #31

Idle Man
Here are my Demands.....
Have YCCC written to the ECB & told them that they feel taking on more debt to build a new stand is not financially viable & puts the future of the Club at risk?
Publish that & the ECB response.
Do YCCC support the current situation? Counties spend money bidding for International Cricket they might not win. Should they win the bid, they have to pay the ECB to send their team to our ground. In the hope of making enough on ticket & hospitality to cover the cost of bidding & the fee to the ECB. The financial risk is all with the bidding Counties. Do YCCC support that business model? If they do, then say that unequivocally.

If they do not support that business model - then say so, & publish.
If they do not support that business model - practice what they preach & stop using essentially the same model with Scarborough Cricket Club.
If they do not support that business model - then develop & publish alternatives.

.... demands end....

I'm with you... ECB & New T20 Cricket look like the only income generators in town. What we need is a more collaborative, back scratching arrangement.

Income. All revenue from ECB & New T20 Cricket goes into one pot. All money. TV deals, sponsorship, ground advertising, ticket sales, food & drink, hospitality.
Expenditure. All ECB & New T20 promotion, operating & match expenses - including player salaries for those ECB & New T20 games - are paid out of that pot.
Profit. Should be used for a) funding County Cricket & b) developing International Match grounds.

The basic principal should be that the Profit should be shared equally among the 18 Counties to some simple algorithm. (There is a tweak needed to take account of the non-First Class & Recreational game).

The first issue there is that some Counties provide more ECB & New T20 Cricketers than others - so the share algorithm has to take account of that -more players developed, more money.
The second issue is that some Counties provide the Grounds that those games are played on - those Counties should be paid "rent" for loaning their ground to the ECB & New T20 Franchises. How groundbreaking is that? Not very. "Hello, it's the ECB here, we need to play a game, but haven't got a ground. Can we borrow yours? We'll pay a fair whack".

The ECB should take a simple position - "It has never been our intention to drive Counties into Debt, or away from Members into the hands of private individuals. We are calling a Moratorium. Our new approach will be that we all live within our means, but that money made by the game, stays in the game. We will all share the cost of developing grounds & we will all share in the profits made at those grounds."

Sorry - recap - if YCCC agree with the current model - WE pay to see whether WE pay for THEM to play - then let's say so.
If not, then let's hear our alternatives.
And, above , you see the basics of my alternative.

Instead, we're anchored in Arthur's it is what it is, Debt or Die world.

Joined: 03 Sep 2014, 13:34

01 Mar 2017, 18:23 #32

Phil, this is excellent.

We should find a way of constructing it into a serious proposal.

At the moment, there isn't an alternative out there. No-one is putting something like this on the table to be looked at.

Graves isn't a fool, and no reason to suppose rest of ECB are either.

Why wouldn't they look at a Plan B, if it was presented to them courteously, credibly?


Joined: 20 Aug 2013, 11:26

01 Mar 2017, 18:45 #33

The YP article mentions a figure of £38m? Seems very pricey to develop just one stand, even if that means demolishing the existing structure and re-building from scratch. And what about Leeds Rugby`s share, or is the £38m just what we need to find?

It seems to be to be a circle that can never be squared. We borrow money and get ourselves into debt to ensure we get test matches and the revenue, as without it, we can not service the debt. Then we borrow even more to upgrade the stadium to make sure we retain the tests and get ourselves even further into debt. If only we had not started on this path many years ago, but now we have, we have no choice but to continue along the path, but appear to have no chance of ever squaring the circle or ever getting ourselves out of debt. I am not happy that every year ad infinitum that £700,000 of interest charges leaves the clubs accounts. Whoever it is to - CG, Leeds Council or the banks, it is still the same amount.

Phil`s ideas are excellent and definately worth considering and could well be the way out of our dilemma.

Joined: 17 Oct 2013, 18:36

01 Mar 2017, 19:41 #34

Colin Graves has already publicly said that the current system of allocating international matches to grounds (where the counties take all the financial risk) is wrong and has to change. The likelihood is that after 2019 the system will revert back to the old one of counties being asked to bid to stage internationals for a set period (say 5 years) provided they meet a criteria set out by the ECB. This criteria is likely to be weighted towards provision of facilities for players and spectators, quality of pitches etc (not who gives most money to the ECB) as it was before. If Yorkshire wish to continue to stage international matches post 2019 then they are going to have continue to improve Headingley as Mark Arthur has previously said.

Joined: 13 Jan 2015, 19:59

01 Mar 2017, 20:38 #35

I have no facts to back me up.....
Surely ANY County who "must" improve their ground hasn't got the money in the Bank to do that.
So, the only options are Debt, Daddy or Taxpayer.
Counties cannot service Debt
Daddy will Die

Is that what the ECB want?
There is no ICC Requirement on Ground Standards - or if there is, the p**s is being taken.
The last three series I've been to have been in India, South Africa & UAE.
Take it from me. All grounds, in all those countries are falling to bits.
OK, in the UK we have Safety Standards & maybe different expectations.
OK, there need to be acceptable media & player facilities. And the pitches & equipment need to be up to scratch.
But, Grounds should only be "improved" if the Counties can afford to do that - and they can't.

Decisions on which grounds get International Cricket must be criteria based - and one criteria is whether the County will be able to pay for the improvements "needed".
Is this thing switched on?........
If the ECB need a ground to be up to their self created requirements for their team to play on & the County who "own" the ground can't afford the improvements, the ECB should pay.


Joined: 21 Aug 2013, 19:47

01 Mar 2017, 21:55 #36

Outstanding stuff from Phil. Not sure if you're a man for committees but you've got my vote.

Perhaps one for Simon55, however do the headline figures (turnover, costs, profit) compare with similar counties, say Notts, Lancs, Warks? If we exclude debt repayment for these four counties, are we operating as efficiently as the others?


Joined: 04 Jun 2015, 18:32

02 Mar 2017, 08:07 #37

And why can't counties afford to improve their grounds themselves? Because they are constantly deprived of their star players they have developed themselves who would put more bums on seats and who would help generate more cash.

But they are lost to international cricket, rested or doing other duties away from their counties.

True, it might also be the case overseas.

But in football the big teams can get over 50000 punters for a home game as unless it's the FA Cup they will see a team of stars and internationals.

In cricket you get to see the reserves more often than not.

So the teams who end up hogging the star names are the ones who should be footing the bill to raise standards at grounds. England, franchises, etc should look to improve grounds for those counties who continue to develop players for them based on track records. This won't just improve the grounds but also the talent pipeline in my view.

Joined: 20 Oct 2013, 20:03

02 Mar 2017, 09:21 #38

I've a lot of sympathy TU, but I really don't think the presence of Joe Root and JB would turn a crowd of 3,000 into the sort of numbers which bring in big money.

Joined: 04 Jun 2015, 18:32

02 Mar 2017, 11:24 #39

It might if there was far less international cricket for fans to watch them play. The cream rises to the top, they then milk it for all their glory and eventually kill the goose that first laid the golden eggs.

A good ad slogan for a dairy perhaps.....

Joined: 18 Apr 2014, 00:12

11 Mar 2017, 02:07 #40

Referring back to what Phil and Wibsey Simon have said in making an alternative propsoal in the AGM, I have one in mind.

Sell the County Cricket TV, Media and Image Rights as a separate entity (i.e. The Natwest T20 Blast)

When the original TV rights was drawn up in 2005, Domestic Cricket TV rights was included with the England Cricket TV rights to make it an attractive package to bSKYb. Back then Twenty20 was in it's infancy as a competition - IPL and World Twenty20 did not exist for starters.

The ECB offering Counties £1.3 Million per year in exchange for image rights is a poor deal in the current market. I reckon the Natwest T20 Blast is worth more than £23.4 Million per year as a competition.

The T20 Blast is a good product - Friday night cricket for 3 months outside the football season. Not only it has increased attendances at County grounds, but it is a potential broadcasters dream who need something to fill the viewing slots. Surely broadcasters would prefer to have a 3 month long tournament rather than a 6 week one, especially when the British weather is a fickle beast.

BT Sport have paid £80 Million over 5 years to Cricket Australia for Big Bash and Australia Home International TV rights. A similar TV deal would generate £1 Million for Counties just for Domestic TV rights. Then there is the International market, especially when most Test Nations are relatively quiet between May and August, which enhances the TV deal further.

Like the Big Bash, a handful of matches could be shown on free to air television to give Counties additional exposure, increase value of title sponsorships and further increase attendances.

The County image rights themselves are also worth a fair bit - for example fixture lists, results and match statistics which will be of use to companies with an online presence, particularly betting.

Rather than let the ECB elite dictate offerings, County chairmen should get together and realise the marketable value of County Cricket.

No Pyrah, no party