Where does the 100 go from here? Cricinfo article

Gould is trying to square the circle, as this appears to be a compromise between keeping supporters of the H*ndred happy whilst staying true to the vision he gave to Surrey members in 2017:

- free ownership of the teams, so Surrey/Lancs can buy Oval/Manchester if they so wish;
- separate contracts which will free up spaces in the salary cap for the County Championship for the counties;
- merge with T20 Blast;

Basically, follow the Australian example.

Just scrap the bloody thing when the contract with Sky expires. It serves no purpose there is no World Cup because all the other countries think its shit and dont play it.

A couple of related pieces from @CCMembersGroup on Twitter.
I don’t see how any county cricket fan can support this. It could be death of county cricket as we know it, especially the non host counties.
Sale of the Hundred - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AmTK5yUffVrvzKIEuT0tvQ9msw6zSss9BkFuyVDsI0M/edit

TEN QUESTIONS FOR ECB REFORMS & SALE OF THE 100

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SuqsiT9ooWvLvNT9FDaYLP7MOVbAzMDz7fcETwJqk-k/edit

Maybe the answer would be if we merged the Hundred with another league abroad that played in the winter and sent our Hundred franchises/teams to play in their tournaments during our winter? IT20 is in Jan/Feb in Dubai, they have a faltering tournament that bisectes the end of the Big Bash and start of SA20 and can't attract the big stars. They have all that oil cash just looking to be spent on any sport! Rather than being sponsored by Hob Nobs or Cheesy puffs we can have Exxon or BP plastered across our shirts like F1 drivers!

Solves the problem that our summer is too short for all these tournaments, why not use a month somewhere else during someone elses summer.

Imagine freeing up our domestic calendar by moving the Hundred totally out of it and having real cricket played in August. Maybe the Metrobank could then be a first team tournament for all counties! Rather than debate about reducing the 14 County matches we could consider having more?

David W’s post with the links sets out the key issues. Despite assurances from “slippery” Slipper I’m afraid I don’t trust him. These are very worrying times for those of us who value county cricket and particularly the County Championship. Unless a stand is made, as David quite correctly points out, this could be the death of county cricket as we know it. I don’t think a lot of county cricket members and supporters realise what is being discussed behind closed doors.

I'd like to see gay quotas introduced.

Vic
Stop stirring!

VicNorth wrote:I'd like to see gay quotas introduced.

Great idea. I’ll stand immediately.

RB wrote:

VicNorth wrote:I'd like to see gay quotas introduced.

Great idea. I’ll stand immediately.

Stand? I think the expression is "enter the auction".

If anyone can actually understand fully how this financial miss mash will work, I'd love to know. It strikes me that it's lost money (no one will give figures), they are committed to this rubbish until 2028, no one overseas has any interest in buying into it, and consequently they are trying to fight their way out of jail. It's a dangerous mess, nobody wants the bloody thing apart from crisp manufacturers, and Sky contract or not it needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history. Stuff the 100, stuff the ECB and Surrey should have killed this trash at birth. Cricket deserves a bloody better deal than this bollox.

Chinaman wrote:If anyone can actually understand fully how this financial miss mash will work, I'd love to know. It strikes me that it's lost money (no one will give figures), they are committed to this rubbish until 2028, no one overseas has any interest in buying into it, and consequently they are trying to fight their way out of jail. It's a dangerous mess, nobody wants the bloody thing apart from crisp manufacturers, and Sky contract or not it needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history. Stuff the 100, stuff the ECB and Surrey should have killed this trash at birth. Cricket deserves a bloody better deal than this bollox.

I love the comment, "we want to be the second best tournament in the world" - so they accept they can never rival the IPL?

Seems the counties with a Test ground will get richer and the grounds without one will go down the drain.

There was suggestion if they increased the number of teams beyond 10 they'd look to a 3rd London franchise, you wonder where they would be based, whether you'd find a ground within the M25 that encompassed Essex or Kent or perhaps it could give Middlesex the opportunity to break away from the MCC and Lords and perhaps build a new ground perhaps out Heathrow way, Uxbridge?

You almost feel its getting to a Premier League type empass where the ECBs incompetence is almost forcing the rich clubs to break away and form their own 6-8 team League and drop the other 10-12 counties.

Peter - Middlesex had plans to build a small ground at Barnet Copthall, next to the Saracens ground but they just ain't got any money! I just can't see it happening and even if it did wherever you put it would hack off half the members, rather like Guildford does for the people who don't really live in proper Surrey at all.

Peter.M.Gardens wrote:

Chinaman wrote:If anyone can actually understand fully how this financial miss mash will work, I'd love to know. It strikes me that it's lost money (no one will give figures), they are committed to this rubbish until 2028, no one overseas has any interest in buying into it, and consequently they are trying to fight their way out of jail. It's a dangerous mess, nobody wants the bloody thing apart from crisp manufacturers, and Sky contract or not it needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history. Stuff the 100, stuff the ECB and Surrey should have killed this trash at birth. Cricket deserves a bloody better deal than this bollox.

I love the comment, "we want to be the second best tournament in the world" - so they accept they can never rival the IPL?

Seems the counties with a Test ground will get richer and the grounds without one will go down the drain.

There was suggestion if they increased the number of teams beyond 10 they'd look to a 3rd London franchise, you wonder where they would be based, whether you'd find a ground within the M25 that encompassed Essex or Kent or perhaps it could give Middlesex the opportunity to break away from the MCC and Lords and perhaps build a new ground perhaps out Heathrow way, Uxbridge?

You almost feel its getting to a Premier League type empass where the ECBs incompetence is almost forcing the rich clubs to break away and form their own 6-8 team League and drop the other 10-12 counties.

Beckenham has been mentioned as a third London venue for this county killing tournament.

I'm surprised to hear that. While Beckenham is a pleasant suburban county outground, the location hardly seems to be in keeping with the inner-city image that the marketing geniuses behind the Hundred envision. Plus it's on the Kent/Surrey border so anyone from round those parts inclined to go to the circus would probably go to watch the Oval Invisibles.

The London Stadium, on the other hand, does seem to fit the bill: ready-made large capacity and a catchment area of Eastenders who aren't naturally going to go to Lord's or The Oval for their circus fix. They could call the team the "Pearly Kings" or the "Cockney Rebels". Of course the snag is that West Ham play there, but they are tenants rather than owners so they can't call the shots,  and in any case the Hundred would only need the ground for 3 or 4 evenings in August so it doesn't seem insurmountable.

David W wrote:
Beckenham has been mentioned as a third London venue for this county killing tournament.

Perfect for me

You wonder if Kent CCC would be happy to move from Canterbury if they had a new improved Test standard ground at Beckenham. I understand some of their members are upset that Tunbridge Wells has dropped down the ground pecking order to its current status of next to no Kent cricket at all.

Beckenham is also obviously the home of South East Stars Ladies team, you wonder if it could be that second ground that Surrey are supposedly after?

---

Imagine though if an IPL fanchise wanted to build a ground and club from nothing, Middlesex would probably be the club who would most want to move away to a new ground, and keep more of the money, outside of the control of the MCC.

Lords could then be like Twickenham, just for International matches and Finals, and their Hundred Franchise

Jackers wrote:I'm surprised to hear that. While Beckenham is a pleasant suburban county outground, it hardly seems to be in keeping with the inner-city image that the marketing geniuses behind the Hundred envision. Plus it's on the Kent/Surrey border so anyone from round those parts inclined to go to the circus would probably go to watch the Oval Invisibles.

The London Stadium, on the other hand, does seem to fit the bill: large capacity and a catchment area of Eastenders who aren't naturally going to go to Lord's or The Oval for their circus fix. Of course the snag is that West Ham play there, but they are tenants rather than owners so they can't call the shots,  and in any case the Hundred would only need the ground for 3 or 4 evenings in August so it doesn't seem insurmountable.

You’re right that Beckenham doesn’t fit in the Test ground idea but then we were told that youngsters don’t identify with counties but cities, hence those well known cities Trent, Oval, Southern Northern and Welsh.

Let’s not expect consistency where losses and free tickets constitute a huge success.

I remember Eoin Morgan being part of a cricket visit to the London Stadium and they decided it didn’t work because of the orientation of the stadium with where the sun sets.

Jackers wrote:

The London Stadium, on the other hand, does seem to fit the bill: ready-made large capacity and a catchment area of Eastenders who aren't naturally going to go to Lord's or The Oval for their circus fix. They could call the team the "Pearly Kings" or the "Cockney Rebels". Of course the snag is that West Ham play there...

The Inter City Franchise?

VicNorth wrote:

Jackers wrote:

The London Stadium, on the other hand, does seem to fit the bill: ready-made large capacity and a catchment area of Eastenders who aren't naturally going to go to Lord's or The Oval for their circus fix. They could call the team the "Pearly Kings" or the "Cockney Rebels". Of course the snag is that West Ham play there...

The Inter City Franchise?

or attract the pink pound by calling themselves the Pearly Queens or Dockers. Could wear a rainbow uniform, with multicoloured union jack as their badge.

Peter.M.Gardens wrote:

VicNorth wrote:

Jackers wrote:

The London Stadium, on the other hand, does seem to fit the bill: ready-made large capacity and a catchment area of Eastenders who aren't naturally going to go to Lord's or The Oval for their circus fix. They could call the team the "Pearly Kings" or the "Cockney Rebels". Of course the snag is that West Ham play there...

The Inter City Franchise?

or attract the pink pound by calling themselves the Pearly Queens or Dockers. Could wear a rainbow uniform, with multicoloured union jack as their badge.

Oh yes! The 100 should be promoted as a woke festival. (Go woke go broke)

I would have thought the Oval was ideally located to attract the pink pound?

Chinaman wrote:Stuff the 100, stuff the ECB and Surrey should have killed this trash at birth. Cricket deserves a bloody better deal than this bollox.

Agree 100pc Chinaman. Surrey folded when the ECB threatened them (presumably with loss of Test hosting rights, being locked out of the Hundred, etc - someone closer to the GC than me can fill in the details). Surrey could have & should have stood up to Graves/Harrison.

SimonH wrote:

Chinaman wrote:Stuff the 100, stuff the ECB and Surrey should have killed this trash at birth. Cricket deserves a bloody better deal than this bollox.

Agree 100pc Chinaman. Surrey folded when the ECB threatened them (presumably with loss of Test hosting rights, being locked out of the Hundred, etc - someone closer to the GC than me can fill in the details). Surrey could have & should have stood up to Graves/Harrison.

I had a long audience in Richard Gould's office in November 2017. He claimed it was an explicit threat of removing test hosting rights from The Oval ahead of a round of allocation decisions that had us by the short and curlies, and that The Ageas Bowl were eagerly waiting to inherit our allocation. I countered that we should call the ECB's bluff: the capacity at the Bowl was less than The Oval and  for what they could charge for tickets/drinks etc down there they could not generate anything like the revenue. The ECB would not have cut off their noses to spite their face.

When Surrey eventually folded a few months later and signed the contracts allowing the team to play at our ground, they did not openly admit that they were cowed by the ECB's blackmail, but instead argued that they wanted to be seen as "good partners" to the broadcasters and the game in general. We needed leaders who had the courage of their convictions and put the club and its members above misguided diplomacy.