Notes on yesterday evening's 100 Zoom

This is a combined effort with someone not on here, at a summary of last night’s call.  Once again, I have moved some stuff around under categories to make it more coherent.  I have not repeated what was said at the AGM.

How is the 100 sale going to work?

ECB will sell 20% - 49% of their stake
Hosts will get 51% and can sell as much or as little as they wish alongside ECB.

How are non-hosts compensated for losing their equal share in the 100?

ECB will sell between 20% and 49% of each franchise to third parties.
1st 10% of the proceeds will go to the recreational game.
Other 90% will go to the 19 clubs.  The first £275m, will be split equally between the 19 clubs.  The next £150m will go to the 11 non-hosting clubs.  Any remainder after that will be split equally between the 19.

Say ECB sell 49% for £400m in total.

£40m goes to the Recreational game
£275m is split 19 ways (inc MCC)
£85m is split amongst 11 non hosts.

So a non-host receives £22m in cash.  A host receives £14.5m.

A host county has 51% shares though on top?

Yes, if the host sells their stake then there is a further distribution.

The first 10% of any stake sold by a hosting club will go to the recreational game. The next 10% will be a carry (not explained) split among the other 18 clubs.

Say Glamorgan sold Welsh Fire for £40m.  

The recreational game would receive £4m and the other 18 counties/MCC would receive 1/19th of £4m. Glamorgan would get £32m

Non-hosts: £26m
Glamorgan: £46.5m
Hosts: £14.7m plus 51% share

It is clear that the hosts do much better if they sell their shares?

Yes, but many are not going to sell and are going to take on the running costs to continue the competition for the good of the game. Surrey will keep its 51% and run the team with a strong Surrey core of players and a Surrey brandname.

Any profits Surrey makes from their stake in the competition will be reinvested into the stadium and the team.

Clubs will not be given free rein as to how they spend the money.  Priority likely to be debt reduction.  A new 5-year county partnership agreement has been agreed and this will specify how the money can be used

The non-hosts feel it is inequitable, will you vote for a more even split?

We are neutral. We aren’t pushing for a sale. We are happy to stay as we are but the vast majority of other counties favour a cash injection.  The sale is being driven by the ECB and non-host counties. We feel the current deal is fair because host counties need the income from the competition to reinvest in the teams and grounds otherwise there isn’t a competition to be sold for TV and to invest in.

Host clubs taking on all of the risk.  Don’t want to be lumped with a huge wodge of costs.  Under no circumstances will Surrey CCC have to prop up the 100 team.

Surrey will not support any breakaway of the 8.  Denied that there had been any discussion at all between the 8 about a breakaway threat.  Ascribed to someone doing a mischievous leak, probably as a negotiation position.

What about the risks to the wider game?

We are concerned about standards for investors now and in future, the implications for the schedule and governance.  We want a veto over our initial and future partners at the Oval and we will set out our concerns around protecting the wider game to the ECB as a condition to our ultimate agreement.

Sky don’t want window to grow.  They like the one month as it is.  100 is a very different financial model to the IPL as the former gets its revenues from subscriptions, the latter from ads.

Will 14 championship games be deliverable?

The PGC hasn't formally discussed the schedule beyond noting the PCA concerns that there is too much cricket scheduled. PGC has been busy with issues connected with the Hundred, the women's teams and the new CPA. A new CPA has been agreed which is an improvement on the previous version and been passed to the ECB for approval. Attention will now turn to 2025 schedule which is likely to contain a similar amount of cricket but scheduled differently to address player welfare concerns. Beyond 2025 conversations about what is played alongside the Hundred window will occur. Surrey will prioritise keeping 14 county championship games but there are 18 counties with a voice and 12 counties have to agree to changes. We also want to support non host counties to schedule a Blast competition that allows them to attract an audience.

Transparency of decision-making
Reaffirmed that GC will take decision, no member-wide vote.  The Chair’s “be careful what you wish for” at the AGM was explained: Oli thinks that the 100 has tipped the membership towards white ball and so any vote might weaken red ball.

In answer to a question about the transparency of GC decision-making and whether there would be full minutes published with who said what, they just said that minutes would be published.   I have sent a follow-up email.

No one making the decisions around the 100 stands to gain from the transaction.

Miscellaneous

No thought as to who the Chair might be, but will come from Surrey side.

In response to a question about a 100-free membership, all Steve would say is that pondering a short-form only membership.

100 side will be largely but not completely Surrey.  Given other calls on our players, would not be best-v-best.

Can’t shorten times between men and women games due to need for warm-ups.

VauxhallRey wrote:The PGC hasn't formally discussed the schedule beyond noting the PCA concerns that there is too much cricket scheduled. PGC has been busy with issues connected with the Hundred, the women's teams and the new CPA. A new CPA has been agreed which is an improvement on the previous version and been passed to the ECB for approval. Attention will now turn to 2025 schedule which is likely to contain a similar amount of cricket but scheduled differently to address player welfare concerns. Beyond 2025 conversations about what is played alongside the Hundred window will occur. Surrey will prioritise keeping 14 county championship games but there are 18 counties with a voice and 12 counties have to agree to changes. We also want to support non host counties to schedule a Blast competition that allows them to attract an audience.

Many thanks for the notes.

This reads like the Championship will stay the same amount of games, but at least two will take place during the Hundred.

To be honest, I'm now at the point where I just want red ball cricket. If it's weakened teams, so be it.

I don't think that will happen. The Club has repeatedly said that it doesn't want to play Championship games at the same time as the 100.

Thanks VauxhallRey, that's superhelpful.

VauxhallRey wrote:I don't think that will happen.  The Club has repeatedly said that it doesn't want to play Championship games at the same time as the 100.

It may not be in Surrey's control if 12 other counties want it. Though whether they will really want the costs of staging CC matches when part of the prospective attendance's attention is drawn elsewhere is a moot point.

I suspect the venn diagram between championship attendees and those who are remotely interested in following the "circus" is represented by two circles which barely intersect.

That's in stark contrast with the considerable overlap between championship attendees and those who follow football on Saturday and Sunday. I will be very interested to see whether this Saturday and Sunday's attendance is up with tomorrow's, although at least the lower-league games have concluded (except the play-offs).

Hi folks. I.'m back after a needed short sojourn, in a new incarnation.
Previously, Sir Robert Peel, Surfer Joe and Chinaman.
I think the main problem hasn't changed: you cannot fit 4 competitions into our domestic season. It means the Championship will always continue to bookend the season however many games it is. The sensible answer, as Jackers as outlined many times, is to combine the 100 and Blast into one county based competition. Thus freeing up time. I don't really understand all this finance stuff, but then I don't recognise the 100 as cricket. Sport needs to pay its way, but NOT sell its soul.

Nightwatchman? Is that allowed any more? I thought it was "Night Watcher" now. Or possibly "Night Hawk?"

On the substantive point, there is no room for two white ball competitions without doing substantial damage to all other formats. At the online forum on Tuesday, Elworthy tried to spin the 50 over becoming a development competition as a positive thing. Sorry, if we want to see a team packed with kids and reserves we will go to watch the seconds play.

Jackers wrote:Nightwatchman? Is that allowed any more? I thought it was "Night Watcher" now. Or possibly "Night Hawk?"

On the substantive point, there is no room for two white ball competitions without doing substantial damage to all other formats. At the online forum on Tuesday, Elworthy tried to spin the 50 over becoming a development competition as a positive thing. Sorry, if we want to see a team packed with kids and reserves we will go to watch the seconds play.

No Nightwatchman is definitely not liked by the wokeists, but I'm not a bird or a wokeist, so it stays. Indeed much like my previous incarnation Chinaman.