An open message to those voting on ECB City T20 Plans

As a lifelong cricket lover I fully recognise that our administrators face enormous challenges, and are doing their best, and doubtless achieve a great deal for which they receive little or no thanks or recognition. Their commitment, generosity with money and time, passion is not in doubt, and the game would not be as successful as it is without their efforts.

Criticism is obviously best when it's constructive and proposes better solutions, but nothing is more important than avoiding strategic structural errors that may irreversibly damage the fabric of what should be a great national pleasure, appealing to all segments of society, and it is in that spirit that these direct observations are offered.

Twenty questions about City T20

1. What happened to "supporters and players value Counties as the future of our game and of sport in the UK", the core of ECB's 2013-17 Strategic Plan, "Champion Counties"?

2. Why was the outcome of the September meeting misrepresented, resulting in a totally compromised consultation process?

3. Why isn't there a simple term sheet setting out what is proposed, dealing with the pros and cons?

4. How has the idea of playing a ludicrous 190 T20 games got any traction at all, when it is very likely the Blast will be, indeed perhaps already has been, "Ratnerised"?

5. Why is the revenue split (estimated at 64/36%) so favourable to Host grounds, while pretending to be equal?

6. What governance improvements will be made if the ECB Articles are changed to ensure it remains even theoretically accountable to cricket lovers?

7. How would the IPL do without Indian Players? Or the BBL without FTA TV and tickets less than half the price of ours?

8. Mr Bransgrove used to say Cricket’s problem was blaming people for not liking what they were given. Why does anyone imagine giving people something they hav'n't asked for at places they can't get to played by teams they don't care about is going to work any better?

9. What evidence is there the audience the ECB claims it can reach exists anywhere other than in their imagination?

10. Isn't it clear this is only about the TV money, which would still generate 65% of total revenue even if 60 matches achieved average attendance of 17,500, rather unlikely for a totally unproven event?

11. If matchday revenues aren't crucial financially, what's the point of playing everything on big grounds, all that justifies the "City" element of the project?

12. Will City T20 continue to aim at the same Friday evening "Appointment" audience, rather than the original T20 aim of attracting Women and children?

13. How will introducing the hurdle of the Leeds/Sheffield Liverpool/Manchester Southampton/Portsmouth Taunton/Bristol etc dilemma not discourage much of a potential fanbase before it even exists? Will it encourage participation, when half of them will "hate" the team they're supposed to aspire to play for?

14. If the £33m uplift in (alleged) TV value of City T20 vs Blast comes from playing in a block, and having 24 stars (some of whom make cameo appearance in the Blast now, which will presumably cease), exactly what part of the value uplift comes from the City "Rebranding" part of the exercise?

15. Do knockers of "Traditionalists" appreciate that if honestly presented the ECB data suggests Members probably account for around 30% of the Customer base, rather than the "less than 80,000" that's compared with the present 9.4m fantasy figure?

16. The recent presentation of participation data seems to be a "Project Fear". On Sport England data, Cricket is nothing like 11th most popular, and ALL team sports face challenges.

17. As the already agreed Championship reduction could reduce the season by 30%, how long are those who now propose to play games with teams massively weakened by City T20 calls going to claim their actions are driven by a love of the game and a desire to preserve all its forms?

18. If £1.3m helps so much, the £70m reserve (what’s it for? whose money do they think it is?) pays the bills for 3 years, when we can find out what the market value of split TV packages are. Lets not forget, Cricket has more money than ever, and most of the debts result from previous wrong ECB strategies.

19. Why are the PCA apparently in favour of a plan which could conceivably halve the number of full time professional cricketers in a decade?

20. If Cricket starts, amazingly misguidedly, comparing itself with WWE (which doesn't pretend to be anything other than a Music Hall giggle), how will any public body, who have supported many counties, justify ever using public money to help again?

Since when did the ECB become visionaries at imagining, creating, packaging, executing and marketing a mass market product for which there is no obvious demand, while facing massive barriers to entry? Is lamely copying others formats really the best we can do? Could this be a bigger cock up than Stanford?

A longer format discussion follows for those who are interested in a (slightly) more measured and detailed discussion of these points. This whole exercise was originally intended to be just 15 paragraphs in response to Rod Bransgrove’s statement on T20, but it just grew and grew, and ceased to be just about his statement. 

Sorry about that. 

His statement is here if you missed it:

http://www.ageasbowl.com/cricket/news/a-statement-on-the-proposed-introduction-of-a-city-based-t20-competition/

My first paragraph here was aimed at his last, though it is of course presumably true of all the County Chairmen, and many other CEO's etc, even if remuneration in the executive suite isn't quite as shabby as was once the case. I don’t agree with his views on this, at all, but have no doubt of his good intentions. And I’m personally grateful for what he has done for Hampshire.

But, whilst he absolutely had, and has, every right to insist on being able to protect his financial interests, that should not have resulted in Hampshire members being disenfranchised on Cricket matters, and any changes in the ECB constitution should address that issue, which, sadly, is no longer one unique to us. Unless we want to risk future power and influence being handed to those who aren't "one of the good guys".

=========================================================

City T20 Proposals

Outcome of the September meeting

A City T20 has been proposed by the ECB, who appear to believe there is an untapped reservoir of fans who will support a IPL/BBL copy. The suggestion is this will engage the young, help grow participation, protect the game from rival promoters, and save multiple counties from bankruptcy, while sustaining Long Form Cricket by attracting £40m of TV rights money.

The ECB presented various options to County representatives, which remain "secret". We think the option of a Two division Blast was rejected, apparently because of concerns over losing the revenues from a few occasions that excite traditional passions (especially the Roses match and intra-London games that attract c10% of the total Blast audience).

It was decided to further investigate just one option, City T20. Unfortunately, the "vote" to do so has been wrongly portrayed as if a decision to proceed has been made, an impression the ECB and promoters have deliberately and unwisely not chosen to correct. Most fans are under the impression the deal is a "fait accompli".

Sham Consultation

A somewhat ridiculous consultation period is underway, where officers accountable to members are supposed to see if "we" will approve a tournament whose specifications are set out nowhere, even to the extent of whether or not the England players will be involved, or how the schedule will meld with existing internationals if they aren't, to start in 2018 (RGB), or is it 2020 (Graves)? Perhaps if people don't engage with an invisible target, having been told it's already been decided, that will later be taken as resigned acceptance of Cricket's own "Project fear"? Is this sort of slippery trickery really appropriate for our game's National Governing Body?

"Preposterous Compromise"

"But the notion of marrying the two competitions, which produces a saturation of T20 cricket unprecedented in any other nation, is a preposterous compromise that they would never consider down under." Vic Marks, Observer blog, 17.9.16

The desire to mimic the IPL and BBL confronts the differing opinion that the "Blast" is far from "mediocre", and instead of the issue being resolved, it has been fudged. A very high price to keep some toys in the pram - what makes them that valuable? The reported "back me or sack me" stance isn't appropriate where structural change is concerned. Perhaps there might be some facing saving potential found in claiming an inability to resolve the media rights issue at some major stadiums?

Our experience is that playing more games (nearly 150 games in 2010, 2011) simply spread revenues more thinly; that playing in a block proved too much for fans pockets; the Warwickshire rebranding as Birmingham hasn't worked either. Now it is proposed to play 190 T20 games, 60 in a block, with the added hurdle of 8 teams with no natural fan base, concentrated where only 25% of the population is, and often long journeys at rush hour from half the proven fan base. Genuinely incredible.

Some Financial implications

The estimated £40m TV money and £10m of sponsorship income (possibly the real reason there may be at least some terrestrial TV exposure) will allowing an estimated c£27m to be distributed among the counties (52% to 8 hosting grounds, 48% to the other 10, putting the MCC/Lords issue to one side).

If the present Blast generates a Gross margin of £25 per head in gate and catering, and the City T20 is as successful as hoped, 60 games with attendance averaging 17,500 may generate a further £26m. If this is split 65/35 between ECB/hosts the original "City handout" split 52/48 it becomes 64/36 in favour of "host" grounds, which will further shift power, both on the field and in the boardroom away from the non host clubs. Is the £1.3m price for support enough for permanently diminishing your power?

The "Blast" cannot but be tainted by becoming a second class competition. Will any of the current overseas participants remain interested? The revenue decline will probably be substantial, 25% or more, and will of course disproportionately impact those who have done best with the Blast.

Those who currently can't fill their grounds will lose least, and receive the perhaps substantial benefits of being City T20 Hosts, which could double or triple their hosting fee, leaving them better off than with the Blast. (Of course that assumes the rebranding does miraculously resolve their present inability to attract capacity audiences.)

The £40m v £7m guess at relative TV valuations is interesting. A £33m uplift comes from perhaps just 24 overseas "stars" [assuming 3 at 8 teams]; and from playing in a block, which suits Players and TV, but not ticket buying fans. Exactly what do “Cities” add, if it isn’t just avoiding admitting the ECB wants to focus on the “big” clubs?

Major Governance implications of shift in Power to the ECB

The Governance implications of changing the ECB constitution to permit this experiment have potential consequences which go far beyond this issue. The [perhaps] unintended consequence could permanently shift control away from those who are motivated by a lifelong passion for cricket into the hands of people who cease to be even theoretically accountable to the grass roots, and are perhaps driven by short term commercial considerations and the narrow interests of industry insiders who earn their livelihood from our game.

T20 "Marmite"

Addressing the desirability or otherwise of how T20 cricket is developing is too "Marmite" in nature to address here (written when this was just intended as a one page note!). That does not mean uncertainty over the durability of its appeal is not a serious commercial consideration: if the appeal of "Branded" T20 proves to be ephemeral, what are we left with? Or that the centrality of the cricket in the appeal of the T20 "offer" is questioned by many, who suggest the "Craic" is the appeal, and the Cricket is merely an incidental part of the overall experience. Nor does it prevent me ending with one or two personal comments on the impact of the proposals on Championship Cricket.

Why will City T20 attract and durably engage a new audience?

The original hope was that T20 would attract Women and children, families, the new audience Cricket craves to diversify the demographic structure of the fan base; and hopefully that they might move onto "classic" cricket in time. Neither of these hopes have been fulfilled, quietly deleted from objectives targeted by promoters. There is precious little evidence of "cross over", and fewer than 15% Blast tickets were for U-16s.

"Mediocre"?

The Blast has been unhelpfully dismissed as "mediocre" by none other than the ECB chairman. Is it good governance, or good judgement for the chairman to be so publicly invested in a particular option? Losing a CEO is no big deal, but putting ourselves in a position where both incumbents positions become simultaneous untenable shouldn’t happen in an organisation that isn’t run as a personal fiefdom.

In fact audiences are on track to quadruple from the original 255,000 in 2003. Prices have also quadrupled, so our T20 tournament is probably a world leader in ticket revenue, not to mention the associated lucrative catering income.

The “preposterous compromise” has the potential to be "Lose Lose" (how many times has the ECB got anything right first time?) but not "Win Win". If City T20 succeeds, it would match the attendance of the Blast in less than half the games, and generate (allegedly) five times the TV revenue. So the Blast would likely wither away, and those counties who depend on it would be left with what would be a real handout (as distinct from the present ECB dividend for the collaborative effort that creates the England teams) and nothing to offer their local fans. 

The estimated value, at £7m or less of the TV value of the Blast seems low relative to the BT bid for the winter Ashes rights. In any event describing a product we have not yet had the nouse to market separately as "mediocre" is hardly going to enhance it's value.

Evidence

Much of the "data" used to bolster the case for the ECB executives desired course of action is derived from ECB "surveys".

The present ECB Strategic Plan 2013-2017, ironically titled "Champion Counties" states: "In 2012 ECB conducted the largest market research project ever undertaken by cricket. One of the key outcomes from that research was that supporters and players value Counties as the future of our game and of sport in the UK. This plan supports that belief and we shall work tirelessly with all partners in the game to deliver 39 Champion Counties during the next four years."

Those survey results are might be perceived by some as somewhat at variance with the proposed CityT20 route. Is there are similarly large comprehensive survey demonstrating an unequivocal demand for City “Franchises”? If a similar volte-face happens with City “brands” the identity of many counties may already have been poisoned for a generation, if they survive at all.

Size of the Market, the importance of Members

The ECB now claims Cricket has 9.4m potential fans. Surely this isn't truly based on C4 2005 peak viewing figures, as has been claimed (Simon Hughes, if I recall)? 6.0m watched the 2002 Winter Olympics Scottish Gold medal Curlers who briefly captured the nation's imagination, but what lasting impact has that had?

9.4m is a number that does not appear in the "Inspired Fans Facts and Figures" section of the 2015-16 ECB Annual review [pgs 28-29], which claims "2.3m people watched professional cricket last summer". Does that actually mean total attendance was 2.3m, unadjusted for multiple visits by individuals? If so the figures are a wild exaggeration of reality - 5,000 core fans attending 50 times would account for more than 10% of the claimed 2.3m, which in reality may mean only 350,000 or so different people going more than once.

These distortions are toxic because they encourage the perception that members, pejoratively characterised as "Traditionalists", are a small reactionary bunch preventing progress, an insignificant number compared with "real" fans. In fact, Members probably comprise around 30% of those who go to Cricket more than just once or twice a year.

The key to most successful business is recurring revenues, repeat customers, because the cost of acquiring new customers is so high. The ECB has demonstrably failed repeatedly to do this, yet now proposes to impair its existing customer base while it pursues a new audience that may only exist in its imagination. You really couldn't make it up.

Participation, Popularity concerns

This process has seen some participation data has been presented as negatively as possible, contrary to the ECB upbeat norm. Looking directly at Sport England data (which tends to be more pessimistic than the ECB's), Cricket is the fourth most popular team sport (not 11th), broadly second equal behind Football with Netball and Rugby Union. Participation has been challenging for all Team Sports (including Football) over the past decade, so flatlining on this metric does not stand out as particularly poor. Whether or not other Sports with the same performance have benefited from the £200m or so ECB has spent on this is another question.

If only 2% of 5-15yr olds say Cricket is their favourite sport, an age group never exposed to Cricket on FTA TV, it isn't quite clear how the City T20 project will help the next guys. Lord MacLaurin spoke of a Shop Window, but it's no good if you pull the curtains. The 2005 Ashes winning team had a £12m budget. That's grown to £30m, but it doesn't help if no-one can see it.

Impact on First Class County Cricket

The already agreed reduction in the Championship to 7 home games means that the programme can now be completed in just 14 weeks. This year multiple CC matches were played in twenty segments, so the potential already exists for “proper” cricket to take up 30% less of our summer, a far more dramatic decline than is apparent when spun as “just one fewer home game a season”.

Twelve of the Twenty current 4-day cricket segments come in April, May and September. If the eight segments currently played in “Summer” are reduced to just two, First class county cricket will consist of just one home game in June July and August. County Cricket will have disappeared from Summer days, which at least diminishes the impact of the wanton vandalism of the proposal to further devalue the competition by removing the best players while CityT20 is on. If we have to have CityT20, at least play the now out of favour 50 over comp coincident with it, rather than blighting the premier competition.

If 80,000 members, paying £15-20m in subs finally decide they've had enough of being gratuitously insulted by the governing body, perhaps it will only then become apparent that they also buy tens of thousands of other tickets, introduce youngsters to the game, not to mention drive Corporate sponsorship and entertainment to Cricket. 80% of revenues tend to come from 20% of customers, and they aren't the ones who turn up not knowing who the teams are.

Update: Question 21 – Why isn’t there a secret ballot?

I have been told that the idea is for the City T20 to be structured like a company, with those that voted for it as the shareholders, who receive the "dividends". Which would imply that those who vote against are excluded, meaning as currently reported they would suffer whatever downside to the Blast there is, but no £1.3m offset. That would be like saying to people who, for example, intend to vote against, say, extra funding for the NHS for reasons that make sense to them: "Well, fine, but if the extra money has the benefit we expect, when you turn up to A&E we won't let you in... now are you really sure that's how you want to vote?".

We’ve had “Back me or sack me”. Apparently, Durham were told “Take it or leave it”. Does all of this meet any of the Corporate Governance criteria of any of the multiple public bodies giving funding to cricket, or bailing out many other counties?

Conclusion

This is not only about a late attempt to copy IPL and BBL success with a project for which there is no precedent, promoted by people with no relevant track record of success at anything remotely comparable. Ultimately it is about the Gideon Haigh question, and whether or not the game we are left with is what we set out to save.

Change is fine, Cricket has constantly adapted, and is better for it. First Class Cricket has never been commercially viable, but without it Test Cricket would genuinely become only a Cult sport like Croquet (MacLaurin, 2003). T20's revenues are not enough to make it viable as a stand alone sport, on anything other than a global "Harlem Globetrotters" type travelling Circus model.

Thousands of people overall make a nice living out of the current structure of Professional Cricket; thousands, even millions, of others enjoy it in all its forms. The CityT20 route may lead to a few dozen prospering, but it is a road to oblivion for the majority.

When all is said and done, Cricket is a game for the enjoyment of Players of all abilities, past, present and future. Cricketainment is for the enrichment of the promoters and participants, largely for the amusement of fickle thrill seekers who have no visceral loyalty to the product.

Undermining a structure which has evolved over more than a century is a risk worth taking only if the rewards justify them, and no-one has come remotely close to making that case as yet. This is indeed a cross roads. Look down before you look up. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. And remember Sir John Templeton's dictum that the four most expensive words in history are "This time is different".

"Harry Tate", one very pissed off County Cricket lover

(As this is my first ever, and very probably only blog post, I prefer anonymity. But this note has been circulated to a few of the people to whom it was orignally privately addressed without anonymity, and I imagine normal contact can be arranged in the unlikely event anyone should desire it).