County cricket is getting a seismic opportunity – it must not blow it

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 seen in English cricket and seize control over the Hundred.

Are they equipped to handle either? Two weeks ago Telegraph Sport revealed three things: the counties had a deadline of this Friday to agree to a proposed split of the cash from sale of Hundred equity, the board now planned to sell up to 49 per cent of its share in each of the eight Hundred teams and American bankers Raine Consulting, who handled the Manchester United and Chelsea takeovers, were on board as brokers.

The proposed divvying up of the money is complicated and 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 £275 million will be split equally between 19 clubs, the next £150 million 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 £22 million. A host ground will land £14.5 million but with the power to sell its own 51 per cent stake. If they do that, there is more slicing and dicing of the dosh. The first 10 per cent again goes to the recreational game, the next 10 split between the other 18 clubs and the host keeps the rest. If a club sells its share for £40 million, they would keep £32 million, so could receive a total of £46.5 million.

Raine gave their first presentation this week and it is said global brands are ready to invest (the ECB are reluctant to allow IPL owners too much influence over its competition). Friday’s deadline may well 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 to 2029 by a Sky deal signed in 2017, effective at first from 2020-2024 then extended in 2022 after the pandemic to run until 2029. It provides £205 million annually. The current deal values the Hundred at £36 million, from 2025 it will be £51 million (the £205 remains static).

The cost of living crisis has hit cricket hard along with expenses unforeseen in 2017 – the cost of implementing the ICEC report, gender parity pay, player wage inflation for men and women running at around 10 per cent per year and higher energy costs that have crippled some counties. Five clubs have received advance payments from ECB to get them through tough winters over the past two years. One county CEO estimates the ECB’s annual payment is now worth £750,000 less than it was in 2020 because of higher outgoings.

Debt levels in county cricket are close to £200 million, 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 ODI 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 £22 million into a county blackhole 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 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 £1.3 million 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 plans 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?). Lancashire, say, could follow making the Manchester Originals the Lancashire Originals and sources at ECB believe that most host counties, at this stage, will hold on to their stake.

This makes one huge presumption. Namely that Sky, who bankroll English cricket, will be happy to see counties take creeping control of Hundred teams. The current broadcast deal, it can be revealed, specifically states non-county brands in the Hundred. Will Sky accept this change when the next deal from 2028 is negotiated? Deloitte have estimated for the ECB the Hundred will be worth £90m 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 they be willing to pay more for it or will they be put off by talk of expansion, promotion and relegation and turning the Hundred into T20? Are TNT realistic bidders able to create tension in the market and buy the Hundred? They have 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 its Hundred team or its county side when there is a decision to be made over funding? 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 who have different priorities?

In 2003 the counties were handed cricket’s golden ticket with the advent of Twenty20. But the only innovation to the Blast from when it started to now is the counties play far more games and turned it from the original concept as a family friendly 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?