A number of senior county officials believe privatization is inevitable and have hit out at “Luddite” members who are holding the clubs back.
In a new book published this week, some county leaders voiced their support for private investment in struggling clubs but warned the game was at a “fragile period” in its history.
Inside Batting for Time: The Fight to Keep English Cricket AliveA book about the current state of county cricket by the former Telegram Sports Durham chief executive Tim Bostock is leading calls for county members to reduce their influence, says journalist Ben Bloom.
Durham is one of three privately owned counties with approximately 60,000 members nationwide that are not accountable to their members.
While Bostock has talked in the past of lining up Saudi investment in Durham, another privately owned club, Hampshire, has attracted interest from the part-owners of the Delhi Capitals IPL franchise, who are in talks with the club’s former chairman and majority shareholder. , Rod Bransgrove.
This comes at a time when the game is discussing the sale of equity in Hundred franchises, which could lead some counties to consider outside bids and private ownership.
an article cricket player magazine recently revealed that five counties have required urgent financial assistance from the England and Wales Cricket Board over the past two years, with an average of 47 per cent of clubs’ income coming from payments from the governing body. Some smaller counties are higher, Worcestershire (63 per cent), Middlesex (64 per cent), Leicestershire (65 per cent) and Gloucestershire (60 per cent).
A member revolt two years ago was partly responsible for the embedded in the local structure of Andrew Strauss’s review, which recommended reducing the number of championship matches, which was also popular with members who did not generally support the Hundred.
“Members do not realize that what they are trying to say will spoil the game. We run a multi-million pound professional sport and yet the big, long-term decisions are made by a handful of people… I don’t want to call them activists because they’ll ride the high horse, but they are effective activists,” Bostock said.
“Of the millions of people who watch cricket in the English summer, the whole structure is determined by just 10,000 or so people. You have presidents who are threatened with impeachment if they don’t do what a small handful of Luddists say – and they are Luddites. They are passionate Luddites, but they are Luddites. How can there be without radical change?” “I don’t know if they thought it would survive. We’ve run into the lowest common denominator that rules the day.”
Bostock’s view was backed by Gloucestershire chief executive Will Brown, who hopes to secure funding for a move away from Bristol over the next decade.
“You get that passion and heart and love, but I don’t know if that’s a model for the future,” he said of district membership. “If county cricket was run the way members wanted it would not be sustainable; even including the lack of music or replay screens in T20 Blast as it detracts from the performance of cricket. I’m kidding, but there is potential for the connection to break.
“I can see maybe half or more of the districts being privately owned in the next five years. Once the first pair moves beyond what Hampshire, Northants and Durham have done before, the rest will follow because you will have no choice. Maybe 18 districts survive this way. “It’s becoming a much more commercial monster, and that’s scary.”
According to the current proposals under discussion, 51 percent of the shares hosting Hundred franchisees will be given for sale, and 49 percent will remain with the ECB. If the ECB sells its shares, the money will be split across the entire game. If the club sells its shares, it will keep money that could run into hundreds of millions for some.
‘We must find a way to prepare ourselves for the future’
“Can we preserve and sustain this model? I don’t know. The gap between districts is widening, we need to find a way to prepare ourselves for the future. “I don’t think there’s ever been a more fragile time in the whole game,” Worcestershire chief executive Ashley Giles said.
Simon Harmer, who has many years of experience in county cricket at Essex, supports reducing members’ influence. Harmer is South African and the SA T20, which was launched in his home country last year, was a huge success but led to South Africa selecting a third series team for a recent Test tour to New Zealand. “In an ideal world you wouldn’t want member-run clubs. It probably produces an average culture. In an ideal world, you would want your club to be run by cricket people who understand both the cricket and financial aspects of a successful county team. “I don’t think there would be as much politics and it would be better for the game.”
Support for the top membership structure of the ECB remains strong; CEO Richard Gould believes fans should have a say. Gould vastly expanded Surrey’s membership while managing director at the Oval, and while he has spearheaded a plan to buy hundreds, he is wary of ceding too much control to private finance.
“When I see clubs saying their members are asking them to do something they haven’t done, it’s usually clubs that are neglecting their membership base. Some clubs find these difficult to deal with. The problem is that the smaller the number, the more outspoken some are and the smaller the pool they end up with. “More members means more diverse voices, more ideas, and it becomes much easier to reflect the region,” he said.
“While the cricket membership model has been a little slower to respond, the reality is that it provides a much more stable model for clubs in the community.”
Batting for Time: The Fight to Keep English Cricket Alive published this week