Sussex Profit (Page 8 of 12)

Have to ask why Henry Kelly? To quote This Is Spinal Tap, 'currently residing in the "where are they now" file'.

There must be some celeb Surrey fan who would have jumped at the chance to do it.

BP,

At the time, much emphasis was made in the media that Barnett's Bentley was chauffeur-driven. I didn't explain this too well. 

IW,

I learnt recently that Kent had to sell a famous painting by Chevalier Taylor, some years back, just to raise funds. Perhaps, they have a Monet or a Van Gogh tucked away somewhere? When you read, "a 5 year plan", you know the club is in financial trouble. A way of appeasing the bank manager and raising the overdraft. Of the so-called bigger clubs, I could see Kent becoming the first financial casualty.

The major difference between Sussex and Kent is... we are incredibly lucky with the Cama legacy - extraordinarily fortunate, in fact. Kent have to beg, borrow and steal plus pay interest on their loans. We don't + the club have gained up to £3m revenue during the noughties from the building society interest. And then after building a new ground, how are Kent going to pay for it? They face a similar challenge as our own Dave Brooks; attracting substantial new revenue streams during a recession. It won't be easy.

TC,

I know a bit about music myself, and promoting concerts is a high risk business. After the success of Elton John, I remember the Sussex hierarchy were enthusing about regular music events at the ground. I shuddered, especially when McFly and the 'Rat Pack' were advertised.

There are very few performing groups who would attract 20,000 people to the Hove ground. I might suggest 'The Who'; 'Rolling Stones'; 'David Bowie'; 'Paul McCartney' and 'U2'. I might even baulk at 'Coldplay' or 'Muse'. But the overheads would be so high, certainly not worth the risk. I suspect Elton John gave a discount to the cricket and football clubs he played at during 2006, because he wanted to perform at different venues.

shark64,

What a night Surrey had! Poor old Henry Kelly, the article never stated he was sozzled, due to fear of libel, but Kelly should keep to game shows. 

Last edited by softandfluffy (08-03-2010 16:46:51)

Ardcarran,

Yes, transparency would curb the agents' power, in my view. It might also surprise and anger some club Members/Supporters if they discovered the exact high salaries their team's players were on; thus putting pressure on county cricket.

In my view, if wages are not tempered, clubs will face a financial crisis. Some might suggest that time is already here. The 'Sky' money is creating a false sense of prosperity within certain counties. It is the safety blanket to stop them from going bankrupt and allows this ethos of spiralling salaries to continue.

I suggest that within 5 years several clubs will face administration, and like football, these counties will be forced to go begging for a wealthy benefactor; no doubt from Asia rather than Saudi Arabia!

I note Monty Panesar has taken a wage cut to join Sussex. While applauded, I doubt if other top players would follow this path unless their own careers were in need of a boost.

As the famous saying goes, "It will all end in tears."

sweaty,

I don't begrudge the players. They're doing what most people would do. Attain the highest wage possible with help from their agents. And if counties are willing to comply, so be it. The problem being, apart from Surrey, the annual income that most clubs gain, simply can't sustain the present spiralling salaries. It is out of control and in danger of bankrupting certain clubs.

Those like Derbyshire who have accepted they are and always will be an LV 2 side; who have chosen to override ambition with a consistent small annual profit, may not be affected. But those ambitious smaller clubs, who wish to become or remain a big club - and I put Sussex in that category - are the ones most at risk.

Kent are already creaking and groaning under the increasing weight of financial debt; Hampshire are taking ludicrously high risks to transform their 'Rosebowl' into a top Test arena; Yorkshire, for years, even with the revenue gained from Test matches, has been in a perpetual state of debt eg. back in 2002, they had a £10m overdraft with HSBC. And so it goes on.

It only requires a bank to withdraw their overdraft or a lender to call in a major debt, and we may see the first club bankruptcy. And all along the increasing annual county wage bill is adding to that financial pressure-cooker.

At present, my money is on Kent to be the first casualty. Their finances appear to be spiralling out of control; for while the club's hierarchy are putting a brave face on their recent disastrous losses, they seem to believe that once the ground redevelopment is concluded, somehow money will come pouring in and their debts will disappear. Why?

In the last 10 years, 14 of the 18 county grounds have entered into very expensive redevelopment schemes, and yet, is there enough interest or money in club cricket to justify these huge financial outlays?

sweaty,

I have already mentioned some possible solutions.

1) Curbing the power of players' agents via greater transparency within club accounts.

2) Salary caps.

3) More ECB control and influence over the counties to end these wage increases.

But here lies the problem. The ECB don't wish to upset the apple cart - especially Giles Clarke - who required the county vote in February 2009 to get himself re-elected, after Lord Marland went up against him citing the Stanford scandal.

Marland withdrew after 16 votes had been cast from the possible 18. Clarke was ahead 14-2. So, very much a case of "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours."

I don't believe there is a solution to the county cricket problem. Capitalism's very nature is to create a boom/bust business culture. The clubs will somehow stagger on, finding ways to keep solvent. If banks refuse finance there is always the local council to call upon. Kent have been kept afloat by a £4m loan from Canterbury council; and Hampshire were rescued last July by an astonishing £30m loan from Eastleigh council.

Do I really care? So long as Sussex can remain solvent and keep playing, no! 

Last edited by softandfluffy (09-03-2010 22:12:23)

SALARY CAPS ?

and here's an interesting piece on the ' other' Monty giving a bit of perspective on the lot of the 'average county cricketer' and his transition into school teaching.

Monty - a working life

Yet:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ … 927329.ece

Can I just say that "ECB subsidy" is right up there with "batters" on my hate list of cricket expressions.

BTW before we give up on county cricket's chances of survival

http://www.testmatchextra.com/Blogs.asp … b2c2269fd9

Last edited by KimJones (10-03-2010 11:42:41)

5M,

You miss my point.

Apart from Surrey, cricket counties do not make enough income to afford the spiralling players' wages. Football clubs earn a far greater amount because of the much larger interest from the world public. The two games can not be compared. Cricket in Europe is a minority sport.

English cricketers, thanks to their agents, gain the best salary they can. They get paid what the clubs are willing to pay. The fault is with the counties not the players.

If the 18 clubs got together and agreed to a salary cap, the problem would be resolved. But given the vast financial gulf between a Surrey and a Leicestershire, for example, what hope is there? The problem arises from the ambitious clubs who are willing to pay the soaring wages for top players in their quest for success.

I completely agree, Membership fees are absurdly low. Raising the Sussex sum from £210 to £500 would still seem good value; but unless all the other 17 clubs agree to similar hikes, it won't be possible.

As shark64 stated, it may require a club/s to go into administration before the counties are shaken enough to change their present intransigent attitude.

Ardcarran,

That article was written in 2007. Since Gus MacKay and Chris Adams arrived at the Surrey helm, Sheldon's noble attitude has been turned on its head.

Last edited by softandfluffy (10-03-2010 15:42:01)

Maybe, but who would be able to afford that? Except your good self perhaps?

If they did that it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.

softandfluffy
Apart from Surrey, cricket counties do not make enough income to afford the spiralling players' wages.

Sussex did last season as they showed a 1k profit. However, in the future one club wlll have to take the lead and put prices up for season tickets. Others will then follow.
If you don't pay the going wage for players then your team will fall to the bottom of the second division and support will dwindle. It's a wicked circle.
Sussex can't forever sign the Dilshan's and only charge £210 for a season ticket. £210 will become £250 and then £275 and then £300 in the future.
When the recession is over and banks are freely loaning again you might have an Sussex/ Bank tie-up sponsorship to make it easier to pay with a bank paying your season ticket price up front and then direct debiting you with 12 monthly instalments.
I think that cricketers' wages have played catchup in the short term and hope they won't continue to spiral upwards at such a rate.

softandfluffy
I would suggest the county Membership hike would need to be done a lot faster than that.
At Arsenal FC, their Platinum Members fee for the 2009-2010 season ranges from £2,500 to £4,750. It is completely sold out.

I used to be a bondholder in the new north bank at Highbury. The last season I held a season ticket was in 1998 and I paid £240 for the whole season. Now the cheapest ST is £800+
It shows how quickly ST prices have risen in Football.

I would not be surprised to see Sussex ST prices go from £210 to at least £350 in one go shortly.

its also more or less true that about 90% of 92 football clubs run at a thumping great loss