• Registered: 01-12-2006
  • Posts: 16

Re: Sussex Profit

Ardcarran  you ask me some questions above, ( sorry I don't know how to reproduce your post).

I was reluctant to draw general conclusions from the comparisons, due to difficulties in ensuring I was comparing like with like. I felt the comparisons were useful in raising questions, however, and hoped it would lead to more detailed data being provided, though certainly not individual salaries.

I believe Sussex have around 3500 members, compared with Somerset's 4500. This would account for most of the different membership revenues raised, but Somerset also had a Premium tier, allowing free entrance to 20/20 group games.  Sussex have introduced a similar tier for this year. I don't know if Somerset  increased membership rates last year, hence their loss of members.

Presumably the bulk of Sussex' increased match income (£1,094k in 2009 from £466k in 2008) is due to the Australian game and to the FPT semi and 20/20 quarter finals. The Somerset report gives match attendance and match receipts individually for each game, but unfortunately the Sussex report does not.

I agree the disparity in commercial expenditure is stark. As Sussex do not provide details we can only guess why. The Somerset expenditure here is shown as salaries and administration costs. Salaries for non players are probably a little higher in Brighton than Taunton, but since there is only a relatively small difference in the total wage and salary expenditure of the two counties, there must be other explanations. Sussex must include other cost items here. The cost of the marquees is presumably one. Sussex may include advertising and website costs here, which Somerset include in administration, but if so this would then impact on the cost comparisons for that item.

The Somerset report claims that an annual ECB report demonstrates that Somerset delivers funds into cricket more efficiently than any other county. I know nothing of this report, nor how valid or meaningful the claim is. Sussex may be second. However, I seem to remember that when Dave Brooks was appointed, we were told we are strong on the cricket side, and wanted someone to improve commercial performance. As Dave only started last January, he would have had little time to improve commercial performance last year (the accounting year ended last October). From what I have seen I have great confidence in his ability, so I would hope/expect Sussex figures to improve in this area in future years, irrespective of the ground development.

  • Registered: 22-05-2006
  • Posts: 938

Re: Sussex Profit

You could open a whole new debate as to whether members and supporters are 'in effect' shareholders. Shareholders stand to lose money if their company goes bust or if its value declines. Members pay an annual fee for the service the club provides i.e. matches therefore providing a trading income. They are not investing in the club, putting bundles of their hard-earned money at risk like shareholders in a public company.

This is realised in the different statutory reporting requirements of public companies, AIM listed companies and non-quoted companies. The burden of disclosure is legally different, not some scam dreamed up by Sussex CCC Board to hide information from S&F.

There may be some value in certain instances for greater disclosure but not one as yet recognised by UK law.

  • From: Hove
  • Registered: 04-12-2009
  • Posts: 2,424

Re: Sussex Profit

IM,

Shareholders of M&S know Stuart Rose's salary along with his fellow Directors. As to the checkout lady, it wouldn't be too hard to find out her salary being a standard wage. I am not referring to Sussex per se, but county cricket in general. So, I am not criticising the club or management. They are having to pay the high wages; to keep their best players; in a bid to maintain success on the field. What other choice do they have?

Meanwhile, Re: Blackwell, I'm sure when Mike Gatting turned up with England or Middlesex, the food bill would soar accordingly. During one Test against Australia, rumour has it he enjoyed for lunch no less than 8 lambchops, followed by three servings of spotted dick and custard!  He was already out and presumably hoped, he could sleep it off in the afternoon, while England batted on.  smile

"Now the stumps have asked for pads!"
(Aussie radio commentator Kerry O'Keeffe as Rahul Dravid, bowled six times in seven innings during the present series, walks out to bat at the Adelaide Oval)
  • From: Hove
  • Registered: 04-12-2009
  • Posts: 2,424

Re: Sussex Profit

IM,

I have just come across your most recent post.

"They are not investing in the club, putting bundles of their hard-earned money at risk like shareholders in a public company."

Members and supporters are investing in the club. Without their money how would the counties survive? Once invested the money is gone. On the other hand, shareholders not only have an opportunity to gain their money back but even make a handsome profit, so Members and supporters have more right to accounts transparency than shareholders. And davidrees points out, each cricket club's transparency is different, so there is no accepted standard.

I agree with davidrees Re: Dave Brooks. Compared to some club CEOs, Brooksy has a proven business track record. The next 3 years, Sussex face difficult financial challenges; not least gaining substantial new revenue streams from the ground refurbishment just to cover the loss of the Cama legacy interest income. Perhaps, as much as £500,000 a year after tax. This won't be easy during a recession but I have faith that Brooks is up to the job.

http://www.ecb.co.uk/news/domestic/coun … 80,EN.html

"Now the stumps have asked for pads!"
(Aussie radio commentator Kerry O'Keeffe as Rahul Dravid, bowled six times in seven innings during the present series, walks out to bat at the Adelaide Oval)
  • Registered: 05-11-2009
  • Posts: 4,297

Re: Sussex Profit

As IM implies the disclosure requirements of public companies are laid down by securities laws to ensure sufficient information is provided to investors so they may decide whether to buy or sell shares in an orderly and transparent market.

The requirements for a members club are different because shares are not traded. However they will wish to judge the performance of management and also determine if they are getting value as a member.Constitutions vary.Some clubs are actually companies in which the members are customers not owners (eg Hampshire I believe)

At the other extreme is QPCC where the members are required to approve any change to the annual subscription and last year declined to do that despite the subs not covering the members expenses(QPCC is open every day ,has a gym,squash courts ,bar and restaurant , satelllite tv ,internet etc,and the sub of 150 pounds includes regional games,tests and ODis. The club pays WICB for the members privileges to watch WICB cricket).I say this is exreme because it would be like asking drinkers to approve the price of beer or turkeys to vote for Christmas.

All this while our new 5 million pound pavilion was paid entirely by sponsors and box holders and not one cent by members.The club pays for the members tickets to Test matches because the members refused as it is their ground and their right.
I had the misfortune to Chair the meeting that voted against the sub increases and found the membership view both selfish and likely to jeopardise our status as a test match ground. Certainly working hard on a management of a club with a large test ground gives you a different perspective  on the difficultires of economic sustainability juxtaposed with the demands of members for a cheaper bar,more facilities,more sport and no increase subscripitions and an unpaid management committee.
  You lot are probably much more reasonable in recognising the inherent difficulties in maintaining a quality product and balancing the books.QPCC limits its membership to 3000(unless a change is approved by the members) and has a five year waiting list to become a member(the members happily vote to increase the entrance fee to become a new member).
Do I sound disenchanted?... I guess after 30 odd years of membership I am officially a grumpy old fart.

  • Registered: 15-04-2007
  • Posts: 1,260

Re: Sussex Profit

softandfluffy wrote:

Also, this feature which offers an excellent perspective on both Sussex's ambition and courage back in 1997; and how the club were primarily responsible for starting the cricket counties soaring wage ethos. May I quickly point out, what Pigott began, has proven to be hugely successful and must be wildly applauded.

And others.

softandfluffy wrote:

My favourite Barnett quote is, "Chris is a big name now; he's driving a Mercedes."  wink

Provided by Rivervale...

  • Registered: 15-04-2007
  • Posts: 1,260

Re: Sussex Profit

tiptoes wrote:
FiveMartlets wrote:

Salaries are completely private and nobody from an organisation will discuss other people's salaries. If you work in the payroll dept you process the figures and discuss nothing.
Tell us what you are earning and we will all have a chat about it........not.
Sussex will be paying the going rate like any other organisation does.

I think you'll find in annual accounts, most plcs are under an obligation to reveal the emoluments of directors as the company is owned by the shareholders.

Whereas Sussex CCC is run by an unpaid committee.

  • Registered: 22-05-2006
  • Posts: 938

Re: Sussex Profit

I'm sorry S&F but I still can't agree, being a member (or a supporter) does not equate to the risks a shareholder runs.

Being a member you are purchasing a package of benefits for a specific period i.e one year and you are providing that club with income not capital. No different to buying theatre tickets for a season of plays at Chichester Festival Theatre. At the end of each season you have received what you've paid for.

The argument that without members or supporters the club wouldn't survive and that makes them shareholders is a rather simplistic view don't you think?. Without customers a shop wouldn't survive but that doesn't make them shareholders (though sometime I feel as if I ought to be one).

As a member you do have a right to vote which is the only direct correlation I can see between a members club and a public company.

As TC says members obviously want to know they are getting value for their fees though how you determine value in this context I'm not sure. Is winning trophies value, is making a profit value, is playing entertaining cricket irrespective of result value? If you decide there is insufficient value then you either try to change things within the Club or cease to be a member.

  • From: Hove
  • Registered: 04-12-2009
  • Posts: 2,424

Re: Sussex Profit

IM,

We will beg to disagree.  wink

As a footnote: The 9 trophies in 9 years all began with a Sussex Members revolt at Brighton's Grand Hotel in Spring 1997 where they kicked out the entire hierarchy in less than an hour. And one of the primary revolutionaries? Our present chairman Jim May.

Members have far more power than they realise but usually only use this authority when their club is either entrenched in failure or are faced with a major increase in Membership fees.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/1264150 … x_cricket/

"Now the stumps have asked for pads!"
(Aussie radio commentator Kerry O'Keeffe as Rahul Dravid, bowled six times in seven innings during the present series, walks out to bat at the Adelaide Oval)
  • Registered: 22-05-2006
  • Posts: 938

Re: Sussex Profit

I'm sure we will be begging again in the future.  smile 

I don't deny the power of members as you have rightly demonstrated. The AGM though is the Forum to seek answers and changes rather than leap to conclusions on the basis of one set of limited figures and put the knife into management yet again. Maybe, just maybe, the 'status quo' will find agreement with you easier if you didn't open with unjustified comments like 'Something is rotten in the state of Eaton Road'.

  • Registered: 05-11-2009
  • Posts: 4,297

Re: Sussex Profit

Not sure what S&F and IM are actually disagreeing about.

Governance in cricket clubs?

Disclosure requirements for publc companies v clubs( in generally accepted accounting principles?)

Rights of members,supporters v owners/shareholders?

I think we all agree that regardless of legal niceties we dont need to know individual contract details but would like a breakdown of employment costs between playing staff,technical support staff,facilities maintenance staff ,admin and marketing staff.Quite what we would do with that knowledge I dont know as numbers alone dont tell you whether you have an efficient and effective operating cost structure.

  • From: Hove
  • Registered: 04-12-2009
  • Posts: 2,424

Re: Sussex Profit

IM,

"...if you didn't open with unjustified comments like 'Something is rotten in the state of Eaton Road'."

11 days on, and after a fair amount of research, I feel this comment is more justified than ever. Although, I should have written, 'Something is rotten in the state of county cricket.'

I reacted because, after Sussex had admirably achieved their best financial year - income 29% up on the previous year - I was surprised to read they had made just £1,455 profit on a turnover of £5.87m. Given that in 2008, the club made a £203,534 profit on a turnover of £4.55m; and given Sussex had experienced their most successful year on the field during 2009 including major income from a 4 day home match against Australia, I felt justified to comment.

I now understand why. The fault is not so much Sussex's but the deeper problems within  county cricket. And the root is the spiralling players' wages. The annual income generated by a majority of clubs is not sufficient to justify these salaries but the catch-22 being; if clubs don't pay them to their top players, how can they remain competitive? Meanwhile, the ECB annual handouts stop clubs from going bankrupt and allow this 'fantasy world' to continue.

Why such a small 2009 Sussex profit? Primarily because, the club paid an extra £790,000 on wages, an increase of 30%, while the interest income from the Cama legacy dropped by £267,701.

We have also discussed that Sussex face tough financial challenges ahead with the loss of the all-important Cama income; and it's up to Dave Brooks and his staff to create substantial new revenue streams, mainly via the ground refurbishments, to keep our club solvent.

Last edited by softandfluffy (07-03-2010 19:54:07)

"Now the stumps have asked for pads!"
(Aussie radio commentator Kerry O'Keeffe as Rahul Dravid, bowled six times in seven innings during the present series, walks out to bat at the Adelaide Oval)
  • From: Fishersgate Maritime Village
  • Registered: 04-11-2006
  • Posts: 10,444

Re: Sussex Profit

Presumably we are paying market forces, so dont see this as the big issue you seem to be making this out to be, S & F - you also use the expression ECB handouts quite a few times - this implies a one-sided arrangement from which the ECB gains very little and the counties a lot - dont think this is true at all - the counties are producing and developing a pool of players for England, as well as developing the game at grass-roots level. amongst other things

  • Registered: 22-05-2006
  • Posts: 938

Re: Sussex Profit

You're quite right TC, I'm not sure either.  big_smile

Consequently I will agree with S&F, clubs are in a Catch 22 situation if they wish to compete and the problem is not just clubs, not just county cricket but sport generally.

I don't see an easy answer. Top players now command what might be considered exhorbitant wages because cash rich countries and counties are prepared to pay them. I don't see the clock being turned back.

So it's right that attempts are made to improve income, that unnecessary expenses should be chopped and we win loads of trophies. A big challenge for anyone!

  • From: Hove
  • Registered: 04-12-2009
  • Posts: 2,424

Re: Sussex Profit

Sweaty,

Sussex must do what they must do to remain competitive. Winning 9 trophies in 9 years, justifies their high wage bill. If the club has to pay top salaries to attract players like Ed Joyce and Monty Panesar; or to keep others like Michael Yardy and Chris Nash, so be it. Who wants to be a Derbyshire?

The problem with Sussex is they are a small club attempting to be a big club. Their recent feats on the field are admirable given this juxtaposition. But without the Cama income, the pressure intensifies to attract the necessary substantial revenue to continue paying these high salaries.

I am optimistic that Dave Brooks has the financial ability to achieve this; and along with an understanding bank manager and a large overdraft, this should give Brooks sufficient time.

Re: the ECB, The 'Sky' money is divided up where 25% goes to community and grassroots cricket; and a majority of the remainder is given to the counties. In return, clubs develop potential England players, certainly; but in some cases, the money also saves certain counties from going bankrupt.

The 'Sky' money has done wonders for various aspects of British cricket - especially at the grassroots level - the downside being it has created, just like football, a spiralling wage culture within county cricket which could, eventually, destroy the game.

On a lighter note, this is one of the more amusing cricket-related articles I've read in a long while.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/sport/cricke … or_a_laugh

Last edited by softandfluffy (07-03-2010 21:33:17)

"Now the stumps have asked for pads!"
(Aussie radio commentator Kerry O'Keeffe as Rahul Dravid, bowled six times in seven innings during the present series, walks out to bat at the Adelaide Oval)
  • Registered: 26-04-2006
  • Posts: 601

Re: Sussex Profit

Just as a matter of interest, by winning nine trophies in nine years, has it put any more bums on the seats at Hove, Horsham & Arundel and indeed has the membership increased in the last nine years?

  • From: Fishersgate Maritime Village
  • Registered: 04-11-2006
  • Posts: 10,444

Re: Sussex Profit

dvlangford wrote:

Just as a matter of interest, by winning nine trophies in nine years, has it put any more bums on the seats at Hove, Horsham & Arundel and indeed has the membership increased in the last nine years?

tricky to answer that one, as impossible to know what would have happened if we were languishing at the bottom - i do seem to remember the crowds were poor when we were poor, so our success probably has had a positive influence on membership and crowds (just difficult to quantify)

  • Registered: 15-04-2006
  • Posts: 4,914

Re: Sussex Profit

softandfluffy wrote:

In my view, better transparency may help the increasing financial problems faced by clubs. The present line is simply not working and unless the situation changes, in 5 years time, we may see 14 clubs or less in the county set up rather than the present 18.

Don't just chuck transparency into the ring as an idea, S&F, explain very clearly why it would help.

  • From: Sussex, living in Surrey
  • Registered: 05-10-2006
  • Posts: 3,633

Re: Sussex Profit

FiveMartlets wrote:
tiptoes wrote:
FiveMartlets wrote:

Salaries are completely private and nobody from an organisation will discuss other people's salaries. If you work in the payroll dept you process the figures and discuss nothing.
Tell us what you are earning and we will all have a chat about it........not.
Sussex will be paying the going rate like any other organisation does.

I think you'll find in annual accounts, most plcs are under an obligation to reveal the emoluments of directors as the company is owned by the shareholders.

Since when was Yardy a Director roll  smile

and since when was Sussex CCC a plc ?

  • From: Robertsbridge
  • Registered: 20-09-2004
  • Posts: 2,816

Re: Sussex Profit

Cricket is just going to carry on as usual...........until we have a Portsmouth. Then there will be a big discussion about what needs to be done to keep cricket alive and whose fault it was.
Me, I think it will be the fans fault as they always want to watch their cricket for nothing, always moaning about the club's charges.Ooooh nooooooo £210 for a whole season is far too much.
It's not rocket science, it's become too cheap I'm afraid.

  • From: Hove
  • Registered: 04-12-2009
  • Posts: 2,424

Re: Sussex Profit

Ardcarran,

"Don't just chuck transparency into the ring as an idea, S&F, explain very clearly why it would help."

You're doing a global warming on me!  wink

Various reasons but I will mention the major  one... The parasites of football - the anthrax of cricket - agents!

Not many had heard of cricket agents until, in 1997, Jonathan Barnett came along to Hove in his Bentley-driven car and told Sussex that Chris Adams was "His Boy". He managed to secure a 3-year deal with the club worth over £200,000; in those days it caused a sensation, prompting the ECB to warn the counties that huge salaries could destroy the game.

13 years on, £200,000 is more a sum top county players are getting a year!

Agents love a lack of transparency. They stoke up the rumour mill; telling X county that if they don't pay the wage, then Y will; and why salary caps are muted. At least, everyone knows the maximum amount. But, of course, it never happens, because clubs can get around it by offering "extras" on top. The best players will always attract the best money in sport; and given the dog eat dog world, counties will pay it.

It seems every cricketer has an agent today, from the top player to the bottom. They wield far too much power and are a primary cause why county cricket is facing spiralling and out of control players' wages. If the top cricketers' salaries were made public, this would deflate the power of the agent and bring control back to the clubs by cutting out the whispers and rumour-mongering which these parasites are past masters at.

As the American journalist, Bill Moyers, once said, "“Secrecy is the freedom tyrants dream of."

Hows that?

Last edited by softandfluffy (08-03-2010 11:30:44)

"Now the stumps have asked for pads!"
(Aussie radio commentator Kerry O'Keeffe as Rahul Dravid, bowled six times in seven innings during the present series, walks out to bat at the Adelaide Oval)
  • Registered: 15-04-2007
  • Posts: 1,260

Re: Sussex Profit

softandfluffy wrote:

Not many had heard of cricket agents until, in 1997, Jonathan Barnett came along to Hove in his Bentley-driven car and told Sussex that Chris Adams was "His Boy". He managed to secure a 3-year deal with the club worth over £200,000; in those days it caused a sensation, prompting the ECB to warn the counties that huge salaries could destroy the game.

Wasn't he driving it himself ?  wink

  • From: Polegate
  • Registered: 27-08-2004
  • Posts: 132

Re: Sussex Profit

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket … 555635.stm   

Thought's on this one S&F ?

  • Registered: 05-11-2009
  • Posts: 4,297

Re: Sussex Profit

An interesting side note to the men of Kent article are the huge losses from pop concerts. We have been down that track and I recall Mike by the sea(whose dubious background includes intimate knowledge of the promotion of pop concerts) cautioning about the risks BEFORE our mcfly episode.

My own experience at QPCC supports this.While we are very fortunate there is no winter in the Caribbean and the ground is in heavy demand for concerts we have always leased the ground to experienced promoters for a fixed or gate based fee and NEVER taken the risk of promoting directly .This despite many people suggesting its easy money.It is not.Take the rent dont take the risk.A quality promotion has massive costs.Recent Beyonce concert cost near 3 million pounds to promote and Beyonces fee is about ! million pounds. It was a sellout and still made a loss....lower quality entertainers ,bigger risk of not selling.

  • Registered: 18-09-2008
  • Posts: 338

Re: Sussex Profit

I agree, the best way to do it is just to take the money and don't get involved any deeper in the event unless you have to. But it is still unbeleivale that a concert like that can make a loss.

Murray Goodwin is my God.