Here we go again.

Clarke’s lieutenants at the ECB are barking vociferously, and have cost the game nearly half a million pounds in doing so.

Who could the “four” be then?

Will the Taunton pitches bring about the sad demise of their Landlord?

Personally, I think not.


[www.telegraph.co.uk]

A reduction in Counties may be necessary,it's not what I want to see but if that's what it takes then so be it.
A lot of people have been complaining that there is a lot of dead wood about,journeymen cricketers just going through the motions.
If too many Counties are unable to support themselves then is there a place for them in the modern game?
Who would they shake a stick at if that did happen?
Perhaps they could start to dismantle the top heavy management,which also drains resources.

---

Trego for England

Before KT is on with some kind of statement that our pitch makes us a real candidate for being removed from the Championship can I point out that the 4 counties who may struggle will do so on FINANCIAL grounds.

The county that was the runner up in the 20/20 and Pro40, quarter finalist in the 50 over and a contender in the first division of the Championship up to the last game have maintained a solid financial position and will NOT be one of the four.

---

Absolutely right,it can only be on financial grounds.
I have no idea to what tune the Counties are subsidised by the ECB these days.
Perhaps it is time to restructure the game.
It's happened elsewhere.
Why should cricket continue with its closed shop?

---

Trego for England

It may be more of a case of amalgamation rather than 're-structuring BJ. The powers don't particularly want to restructure on county lines (though they'd struggle to get the power to do it any other way).

The counties most people talk about in terms of 'struggling' would probably include poor old Worcestershire and Northants.

Would Hampshire be in there because of their massive debt?

Not sure about the fourth but I'm sure others could suggest possible candidates.

---

Wouldn't an amalgamation be a restructuring then?

---

Trego for England

Actually Grockle, the article suggested it wouldn't be the traditional "poor relations" who would be amongst the four, but rather made cryptic reference to those who had taken on debt to finance major ground redevelopments, with Test-hosting counties among their number. Lancs and Yorks, perhaps?

Nah BJ just less of the same and a few more minor county counties. 'Re-structuring' the way they want to do it would change the very nature of what a representative team was - the end to 'counties' as the focus of that representation.

---

I would hate to see this happen, but if it did, I wonder which four Counties would be the most likely to disappear:

Worcs ? (Ground problems can't help).

Kent ? (Big losses last couple of years).

Gloucs/Glam ?

Maybe Middlesex & Surrey should merge ?!

Grizzzly

If you would like to read this .......

On March 19 2009 the England and Wales Cricket Board submitted its response to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s consultation document on the review of free-to-air listed events following the report of an advisory panel that the Ashes should be listed for free-to-air television and all other cricket removed from the B list that covers terrestrial highlights [www.ecb.co.uk]

I came on especially to post about the story that Mike has just linked.

What hyperbole from Giles and his minions.

"Will destroy the whole fabric of cricket."

Incidentally, I was unaware (until yesterday) that the England team are greedily trying to hold out for improved terms. Apparently, this winter's tours have been played under the terms of the 2008/9 contract and the players are trying to insist on a pay hike. Get real, lads.

"would lead to cuts in the number of central contracts."

Good. I think the above would be a superb place to start if the ECB do end up needing to save money.

I have to say that they look really silly in saying there will be a " 'probable' loss of 137.4 million" (or whatever ludicrously precise figure they came to.) A "probable loss of between £135 million and £140 million," might be a statement with some credibility but everybody knows that estimates by any public body of the cost of almost anything substantial are almost always wildly out.

I strongly suspect the above figure has been deliberately exaggerated. For example they claim it already has 'built,' into it the potential upsides of the move - for example increased sponsorship of the England cricket team due to greater exposure than would be obtained on Sky, but I suspect they've been rather conservative with this figure and over-egged some of the "downside," figures.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 21/03/2010 10:13 by AGod.

Since when were any of "Oliver & Ohlbaum (sports marketing consultancy), NERA (National Economic Research Associates) and Deloitte" a "public body"?
Yes of course there's some hyperbole in the ECB's presentation of the independently determined facts, but if the best answer to that hyperbole is equally hyperbolic and misrepresentative, there won't be much meaningful debate, will there?

Let them be the ones who not only destroyed the "fabric of our game" but also gave us the shameful Stanford saga.
What a legacy that would be for the real kings of spain.
They'd be as welcome at a cricket ground as a fart in a spacesuit.

---

Trego for England

What a difference between two different counties.

Surrey have reported a record annual profit of £752,000 for 2009. Staging last summer's Ashes finale and co-hosting the ICC World Twenty20 were major factors in a 29% pre-tax increase on 2008.
[www.ecb.co.uk]

Essex have announced a £216,000 deficit for 2009. Despite achieving promotion in the LV= County Championship, the county suffered a hefty loss.
[www.ecb.co.uk]

Yes, I read somewhere that Surrey were going on about how much money they had made. I'd suggest that there might not, in the history of County cricket, be a greater contrast in any single county between their current pecuniary riches "at bank," and on-field poverty. Good to see the County has its priorities right.

It simply goes to show that on field success means absolutely rugger all.
Maybe it's not Surrey who have their priorities wrong.

---

Trego for England

Portsmouth to avoid relegation and win the FA Cup, anyone?

---

LoL

Sixty-two Seasons a Somerset Supporter

I'll take that one.(falls over himself rushing to LoL's front door)

---

Trego for England

I shall be in my East Wing today, BJ, but Carruthers will answer the front door knocker.

---

LoL

Sixty-two Seasons a Somerset Supporter