Counties must not blow one-off Hundred jackpot
Debt-ridden sides could land share of £400m if a sale is agreed but windfall threatens to shake up domestic game
Once the horse-trading ends and the game agrees to privatisation for the first time, the counties will be handed a windfall like no other in English cricket and seize control of the Hundred.
Are they equipped to handle either? Two weeks ago, Telegraph Sport revealed three things: the counties had a deadline of today to agree to a proposed split of the cash from the sale of Hundred equity; the England and Wales Cricket Board planned to sell up to 40 per cent of its share in each of the eight Hundred teams; and American banker Raine Consulting, which handled the Manchester United and Chelsea takeovers, was on board as broker.
The proposed divvying up of the money is still being argued over but will broadly be thus: the first 10 per cent of the ECB’S stake will go to the recreational game, the remaining 90 will be split 19 ways (MCC included with the counties).
The first £275million will be divided equally between 19 clubs, the next £150million will go only to the 11 non-hosts, and anything above that divided between the 19 again.
If, for example, the ECB raises £400 million, a non-host will receive a cash injection of £22million. A host ground will land £14.5million but with the power to sell its own 51 per cent stake. If they do that, there is more slicing and dicing of the money. The first 10 per cent again goes to the recreational game, the next 10 is split between the other 18 clubs and the host keeps the rest. If a club sell their share for £40 million, they would keep £32million, so could receive a total of £46.5million.
Raine gave its first presentation this week and it is said global brands are ready to invest (the ECB is reluctant to allow Indian Premier League owners too much influence over its competition). Today’s deadline may be missed but Telegraph Sport has seen emails between the counties and ECB this week that show there is broad agreement a sale must happen. Why? Because they need the money.
English cricket’s revenue is set until 2028 by a Sky deal signed in 2017, effective at first from 2020 to 2024 then extended in 2022 after the pandemic to run to 2028. It provides £205million annually. The current deal values the Hundred at £36million, from 2025 it will be £51 million (the £205 million remains static).
The cost-of-living crisis has hit cricket hard, along with expenses unforeseen in 2017 – the cost of implementing the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket report, gender-parity pay, playerwage inflation running at around 10 per cent per year, and higher energy costs that have crippled some counties. Five clubs have received advance payments from the ECB to get them through tough winters over the past two years. One county chief executive estimates the ECB’S annual payment is now worth £750,000 less than in 2020 because of higher outgoings.
Debt levels in county cricket are close to £200million, three clubs have recently admitted they may have to fund moves away from their home grounds. Sussex are not turning on the floodlights for County Championship matches to save on energy, other clubs are opening their gates later for the same reason as the penny pinching and belt tightening goes on. International grounds are one rain-affected England one-day match away from making a loss. Blast ticket sales are down (40 per cent at Lord’s).
Those pushing back against the equity sale have not proposed an alternative for solving these problems. But will pouring £22million into a county black hole just delay the inevitable for businesses that have not made profits for decades? What controls will be put in place on spending the new money? Will the host grounds sell their stake or hold on hoping it gains in value? Some will inevitably make the right call and win, others will make the wrong one and lose.
Will county members have a say over how it is spent? There is talk of the ECB putting in controls in the
next County Partnership Agreement with a focus on paying down debt, but that has not been agreed yet and once pound signs flash up in the eyes of county chairs, vanity projects become a possibility. At the moment, the £1.3million from the Hundred each county receives is unfettered cash – it just goes in the club’s pot for the year.
And one of the lesser discussed implications of the current proposals is the ECB’S plan to decentralise the Hundred and hand control to the host counties and new owners. Currently, the ECB pays the players, sells tickets and arranges sponsorships. That will all be handed over. Surrey chair Oli Slipper this week told a meeting of members the club planned to keep its 51 per cent stake and run the Oval Invincibles as another arm of Surrey made up mainly of Surrey players (the Surrey Invincibles?). Sources at the ECB believe that most host counties, at this stage, will hold on to their stake.
This makes one huge presumption. Namely, that Sky, which bankrolls English cricket, will be happy to see counties take creeping control of Hundred teams. The current broadcast deal, it can be revealed, specifically refers to non-county brands in the Hundred. Will Sky accept this change when the next deal from 2028 is negotiated? Deloitte has estimated for the ECB that the Hundred will be worth £90million annually in the next broadcast deal. But the new model for the Hundred is not what Sky bought originally and had such a massive role in planning. Will it be willing to pay more for it or will it be put off by talk of expansion, promotion and relegation and turning the Hundred into T20? Is TNT Sports a realistic bidder, able to create tension in the market and buy the Hundred? It has not made a serious play for cricket in England for more than a decade.
New owners bring new ideas. But how will the partnerships with counties work? Who will have the biggest say? Will a county prioritise their Hundred team or their county side? Will working with counties put off some investors, or lessen the amount they are willing to pay if they think they have to work with county members?
In 2003, the counties were handed cricket’s golden ticket with the advent of Twenty20. But the only change to the Blast from when it started is that the counties play far more games and turned it from the original concept as a familyfriendly occasion with bouncy castles to a boozy Friday night out.
One of the most depressing comments to me in this job was one county chair saying he would rather have groups of lads in than families because they spend more behind the bar. Is this the future for the Hundred?