Sussex Profit (Page 2 of 12)

Would be a better idea than once again casting aspersions all over the place!

IM,

Casting aspersions... Moi? Umm, a good title for a music album.

I am just curious as to know where Sussex spend £5,798,545 in one year. I have sent an email to Dave Brooks asking him this rather delicate question. He is approachable and amenable. Let us see if he responds. Meanwhile, I may well attend the AGM, just out of interest.

Surrey have the highest wage bill but they can well afford it given their average annual income is over £20m. I suspect the Sussex salaries are also very high - perhaps, in the top county 3 or 4 (oops, casting aspersions again!  ) but when your annual income is £15m or more less than Surrey, no wonder you're struggling to make a profit each year.

But then, without this high wage bill, would we have won all our trophies? Probably not. So, come close, you alluring and seductive profligate mistress!

HC,

I agree with you and echo your words in a previous post. There is no solution. Unless you're a Surrey, an ambitious club is going to financially suffer except for Hampshire, who have a wealthy benefactor who payrolls the debts.  Sussex are incredibly fortunate to have the Cama legacy.

Meanwhile, banks or local councils will continue to bale out clubs like Kent, as there is always the juicy prospect of selling the cricket ground to property developers in case of bankruptcy. God alone knows what the Hove ground is worth - ££tens of millions, at least. While, the ECB will do everything possible to keep plugging the gaping financial holes while politically manoeuvring to keep the 'Sky' money.

The status quo remains intact. Long live the status quo!

Last edited by softandfluffy (24-02-2010 22:12:01)

I should think that some of the officers of the club must be wondering why they bother. 9 trophies in 9 years, a stable of excellent players and a much needed ground development underway. All this while trying to battle against the big income earners on an uneven financial footing.
When (some) supporters talk about signing marquee players and going after top paid performers we need to remember that we need to cut our cloth accordingly.

One snippet I remember picking up from the various development presentations was that the write down on the value on the indoor school wasn't nearly enough and the expected life of the building wasn't what was originally forecast. (probably a bit like saying the Gilligan would last 60 years when in reality it was half of that).Therefore perhaps there is an element of catch up being done on the value of some of the buildings.

I do hope that the snipers attend the AGM and put their questions to the officers in the open rather than lobbing in grenades and retreating for cover, never to be seen.
I've never yet seen a set of accounts in any sporting organisation where people don't find a reason to be critical.

I've enjoyed winning all the trophies. I've enjoyed the matchday experience and I look forward to seeing the final ground developments and the improved facilities. After all of that I'm not surprised that we haven't made much profit.

Chris Adams signed for us on a 3 year contract worth £200,000 in 1998, just imagine how these salaries have increased over the last decade. And remember our large backroom staff have to be paid as well. On top of that the club have offered out large bonuses for the one day success last season. Unsustainable. The wage bill is always the highest bill.

Congratulations to Dave and co on making a profit. Winning two trophies and contributing players to England whilst balancing the books - well, what more can you ask for?

The comparison is being made with Derbyshire. Can I take this opportunity to pass on my commiserations on another year of sporting underachievement for them.

lot of guesswork and accusations on this thread.

but a couple of observations.....most county cricket clubs have made a loss over the years. that's why most of its critics believe county cricket is unsustainable.

however, the sky money, sponsorship, twenty20, ECB handouts, even stanford for a year has given the clubs more of a chance of breaking even/making a profit.

i suspect the fact sussex posted this story on their website suggests they are quite pleased not to have made a loss. yes, it's a small figure but better than losing £200,000.

now the challenge for the club is to push on from here.

people talk about radical changes to county cricket and i accept some of the arguments in the other thread in general chat.

i'm not trying to go off topic here but be careful what you wish for. the general consensus is to reduce the number of county championship games. ask yourself what do you hope to achieve from that.

1) Better standard of cricket
2) Reduction in operating costs
3) Make it more attractive to the punters

The first two have credibility but do we really think we will get bigger crowds at county championship matches by reducing the number of games. I don't. If you're the average working man, it's very difficult to attend matches anyway because they start midweek. And if you're looking at the Australian model, well, they're not exactly sellouts and that's a very high standard.

I'll add a fourth reason for reducing the county championship - more Twenty20. That's what a lot of the game's rulers would choose.
And, for most counties, that's their best way of making a profit to answer the sort of questions on this thread.

If the Championship was reduced to 12 games, do you think the ECB would say that's great, the players are better prepared, rested and we've got a better product. Or do you think they would look at a gap in the calendar in the same way a property developer looks at a vacant bit of land.

Even if the Championship does go down to 12 games, there will still be people calling for a further reduction to 8, 6, 4, whatever.

As I say, be careful what you wish for. Sussex may not have released earth-shattering numbers but at least they didn't make a loss.

Maybe staying afloat and winning trophies isn't enough for some people. And maybe they are right. They are perfectly entitled to ask their questions and I agree we should always strive for more.

However, let's face facts, we aren't Surrey and never will be. We may be able to compete on the pitch but we haven't got their financial model off it.

But it's not all doom and gloom. In a month's time, I will settle myself down on a bench and watch my favourite cricket team play my favourite form of the game.

Long may it continue.

Whilst we have made a disappointingly small profit it is still a profit.

Look at the rediculous situation some football clubs are in. Sport needs to take a good hard look at itself especially in respect of players wages. Cricket compared to football is well managed..............................and a much more enjoyable sport! 

Last edited by asdf64 (25-02-2010 12:12:00)

Hello

I would love to reply to softandfluffy's email . . . though I have not as yet recevied any emails on this topic - so perhaps you could re-send

See you all at the AGM (oh, and Message Board Quiz Night on 11th March)

Don't tell me, undermeath the soubriquet Soft & Fluffy you are really...Warm & Woolly. 

Isn't all this conjecture about where the money has gone slightly pointless without seeing the annual accounts (profit and loss account) and then making more astute observations?

One thing I do know is that it would be absolute folly to put the Ashes back on terrestial due to the loss of revenue received by the ECB which would have a knock on effect for the counties. At least the shadow sports minister has recently confirmed he will not return the Ashes to terrestial tv, if he's in gov't.

agree with tiptoes. returning cricket to terrestrial telly is not going to happen unless someone puts their hand in a very large pocket.
and i'm not sure the bbc want it anyway.
people moan about paying for sky but conveniently forget they are also paying for the beeb. and they spend/waste their money on inflated salaries for presenters and all manner of other stuff.
the bbc could dedicate BBC3 or BBC4 to the cricket but they won't because it will cost them too much to win the rights unless the govt step in. and whatever package they do come up with, it won't match Sky's.
Which leaves ITV, C4, C5 and i think they've got even less chance of finding the cash.
The other problem is if the govt steps in and takes the Ashes/home Tests to terrestrial telly, how do you think Sky will react. I can't see them wanting to spend big bucks on county cricket alone.
At the moment they don't mind (and do a very good job in my opinion) because it comes in a package which includes England. Take that away and I fear the counties will suffer.
There are good arguments for terrestrial cricket but whatever side of the moral fence you sit on, I think most people would accept the Sky deal is crucial to the counties.

Last edited by BananaRana (26-02-2010 10:49:15)

langford,

There are two strong arguments for and against the 'Sky' money. Briefly...

FOR:

The £1.5m handout to each county allows a majority to simply survive each season; gives employment to thousands of staff (around 23,000 coaches would lose their jobs if this money was withdrawn); allows grassroots cricket to prosper; Sky airs Womens and other types of cricket which the BBC would not.

AGAINST:

Millions of more people could see the cricket on BBC which might instil an interest in the game from 'newbies'; the high wage culture amongst many clubs would need to be slashed;
the infectious borrowing and high debt within certain clubs would have to be curbed.

I can only say there are more 'FORS' than 'AGAINSTS'.

I believe the vociferous call from certain quarters for terrestrial coverage is mainly down to ignorance. The public do not understand how important the 'Sky' money is for county cricket. Without it, some clubs would go into administration which, ironically, might reduce the number of championship matches. 

Some suggested that after the Ashes victory in 2005, English cricket would enjoy a renaissance. Well, it didn't. These same people are now saying the BBC coverage would be a huge boost to cricket's popularity. I say poppycock.

There is no argument; as there's no alternative but to keep the 'Sky' coverage and its much needed money. Otherwise, English cricket, generally, would go into meltdown. The David Collier interview in the link below, says it all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket … 357194.stm

Last edited by softandfluffy (26-02-2010 12:25:58)