.gif)
Sussex Cricket FREE online membership - Register NOW! | 9th of Feb, 2012
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
IM - my experience of these things is that some fancy consultant/accountant/ administrator comes in, wields the axe then buggers off - it is then absolutely clear-cut that most of these people are needed and the savings were totally unrealistic in the first place!
The Cricket Society newsletter did an analysis of this in their (very good)newsletter last year and county squad numbers have been rising slowly for years, mainly because one day/T20 cricket means a few specialists. But there is a limit on squad size in the ECB rules. 32 or something off the top og my head, with a dispensation for cebtrally contracted players.
Id guess support staffs have risen as well with the increased focus on fitness and analysis.
Last edited by KimJones (10-03-2010 18:19:10)
sweaty,
Sir Alan Sugar and his failure as Chairman to run Spurs as a "proper business" sums up the problems in both football and cricket. He blamed the foreign 'Carlos kickaballs' imports as the root and his 10 year tenure as "a complete waste of time."
Sport is a rich man's toy. If you want to make money create the next 'Google'. The only people to financially gain are the players and their agents, where that 4 letter word beginning with D becomes so normal that profit is a forgotten term... unless, of course, you're a Derbyshire! 
IM,
I agree, overstaffing can be a problem; all depends how important the fourth assistant to the assistant's physio actually is!
I had to smile at Kent's woes. It seems their financial management is so bad, that in their haste to cut down the club's wages, they sacked 7 members of staff; only to realise when too late, they had to then pay them £150,000 in compensation. 
Last edited by softandfluffy (10-03-2010 18:30:08)
SS - I'm sure a 25% cut is wholly unrealistic and in the next few months large numbers will return on different contracts. But even so it does suggest some overstaffing, even if its only 5% or 10%, which, if applied to Sussex, would increase the bottom line by a sizeable amount.
KJ - even with the volume of games to be played 32 sounds a very high figure. Wonder how they manage to give a promising youngster 'a run in the first XI'. 
S&F. I'm not sure 'Sir Alan' is the right role model because he is so 'business' focused. No-one on here seems to be advocating that cricket makes vast profits for each of its clubs, just a decent living. I think we all want to see a little more than 'survival' but baulk at Surrey's largesse for example. Creating another Google is fine..I'd rather watch cricket!
yes fair comment IM - although i always think the focus should always be on generating extra income than cutting costs as it yields more and is easier - but of course every organisation has areas where they can reduce costs with a bit of thought
Membership was under £100 less than 5 years ago . If you put it up to way over £300 membership will drop considerably.
I know soccer season tickets are mentioned but English footy is not a good comparison.
Football is a lot cheaper in Europe . I know you will give me stick but a season ticket at Brighton is a lot higher than at Ajax where they start at £200 . Unless it is PSV and Feyenoord tickets start at £20 . I have to pay £8 to watch Worthing and they are 1 league above county league which is little better than park footy .
A friend can get in to watch Inter Milan for £10 for the smaller games . A day return from Stanstead costs him under £60 so he spends less than £100 .It would cost him more to go into London to watch Chelsea or Arsenal .
Finally another friend lived in Malaga and he never paid much more than a£10 unless Real or Barcelona were there.
Wages in cricket can no way be talked about in the same breath as footy . £100000 is the top wage for us but every premiership player earns more than that .
Please forgive me for mentioning soccer but I have quoted this just to say you cannot compare cricket membership with english footy prices and as for wages they are not in the same league.
SS - in the long run, yes, but if we had employed two people less on £15,000 a year out profit before tax would have increased by £45,000 to £50,000 with allowing for associated costs such as NI etc. Need a lot of income to generate that amount of profit.
SPS - I agree that football is the wrong comparison. I prefer to use something like Chichester Festival Theatre. It gets no subsidies, lives on membership, tickets and sponsorship. It had its glory days and then overspent. It survived but lost its star names. Gradually it has built itself back up, lives within its means and is one of the most prestigious theatres outside London. The performers it attracts are improving season on season and it is capable of producing original successes like 'Enron' which is now playing to full houses in London.
IM - the 2009 squad limit was 30 plus one for every centrally contracted player - doesnt include incremental contracts. Doubt many are anywhere near that.
BTW simple maths would show why the new salary cap of £1.8 isnt so much a cap as a head scarf.
Re cutting costs or increasing revenue, crucial difference to me is theres a limit to cost cutting whereas, in theory, you can enhance revenue for ever.
BTW if things are so tight that your profit is less than 2k, Id bet one hell of a lot that there isnt much wastage around.
Last edited by KimJones (10-03-2010 20:34:46)
Thought this might be of interest
http://www.edgbaston.com/news/wccc/MEMFIGURES/
If you get to the front page, click at the bottom to enter the site and there is an article titiled
Membership Figures Review
Last edited by dvlangford (11-03-2010 09:19:31)
BTW simple maths would show why the new salary cap of £1.8 isnt so much a cap as a head scarf.
brilliant I like that Kim. Conjures up a picture of thousands of loyal cricket fans with their travel rugs, thermos flasks and green & gold headscarves as a protest against M&S Inc (Modi & Stanford that is).
That Edgbaston article is not surprising, showing they have done continually well on the membership side of things
Kim,
I did say I wasn't specifically targeting Sussex with my point and increasing revenue is of course essential. Not many businesses survive a fall in income. But however tight the budget there is usually one area where the axe could fall in difficult times and others pick up the slack. I would suggest most of us have seen it. As Sweaty says experience shows that such staff are subsequently re-employed which may be true but equally economic fortunes may be on the up.
Not that I'm advocating wholesale staff reductions - too many experiences are spoilt by insufficient employees in attendance. If the same effect can be achieved by increasing revenue then that's the way to go.
I've just bought a new thermos so the scarf would be a great accompaniment.
SPSL,
" If you put it up to way over £300 membership will drop considerably."
Why? Sussex have one of the smallest Membership incomes within the 18 counties - just £374,932 in 2009. While the club's players' wages proliferated by 30% or £790,000 during the same period.
What has Sussex got to lose?
But these much needed Membership increases won't happen unless the other counties follow suit. In my view, it is down to the ECB to crack the whip. Take away the 'Sky' money and the clubs wouldn't have a choice, anyway. It is these charitable handouts which are holding back the necessary financial changes to take place.
What charitable hand outs?
SPSL,
" If you put it up to way over £300 membership will drop considerably."
Why? Sussex have one of the smallest Membership incomes within the 18 counties - just £374,932 in 2009.
Absolutely right, the counties with lower membership subscriptions have a higher number of members, so increasing the Sussex subscription would be like the turkeys voting for Christmas.
kim,
The 'Sky' money "is" like a charitable handout. What exactly do counties do to gain this annual money, which they wouldn't do anyway?
Perhaps, putting up with the 'Sky' cameras at their ground once in awhile. The occasional player doing the odd interview to camera, once in awhile; with the same applying to an earpiece during an OD game. It's Xmas, Easter and 3 Bank holidays all rolled into one. How very lucky the clubs are.
But to repeat my point, this money is holding back the all important and very necessary financial changes which need to take place at a majority of clubs before one or more go into administration.
At present, some are trying and succeeding like Glamorgan, while others are failing like Kent. Unless your ground is a Test arena, the odds are stacked against you, if you're an ambitious club wanting success in the field.
The 'Sky' money is simply putting off the inevitable by creating a false sense of security. Take it away and some clubs are up sh*t creek. I hope it never happens.
langford,
And that is why, the only way these Membership increases will occur is via the ECB cracking the whip. But for as long as the 'Sky' money is around, it won't happen. So, club Members can breathe a sigh of relief.
But the clubs produce the players that form the test teams that Sky broadcast, charging all the viewers a tidy sum to be able to watch, the more they pay the ECB and eventually the clubs then the longer they can gain the viewers and carry on charging them.
Likewise the 20/20 and(what was the Pro40) the 50 over FP, which they broadcast.
If Sky didnt pay the counties, the counties may as you say go to the wall, but then Sky would have sod all to broadcast, nobody would give a toss about England , so no viewers and no highly profitable advertising.
So a charitable handout..........I dont see it that way.
Wewait with baited breath for your next meaningless crusade. 
unless we just want to see a semi-professional game in the counties
S&F - are you confusing "sky Money" with the annual sums given to each county by the ECB?
At present, some are trying and succeeding like Glamorgan
an oxymoron if ever there was one surely
Last edited by 3rdman (12-03-2010 14:42:30)
HC,
"Meaningless..." Obviously, you are more shallow and superficial than I thought.
So, English cricket didn't exist before 'Sky' came along in 1990? Clubs have been producing Test players since the 1800s.
Today, 'Sky Sports' annually show over 60 live county games involving every club in every competition.
The £260m they gave the ECB for a 4-year deal up to 2013, which includes England internationals, is mighty generous given the minority sport cricket is. There was such little interest from other TV companies, there wasn't even another bidder. 'Sky' has given English football £1.3bn for a similar period and that doesn't even include coverage of the FA Cup.
The ECB and county cricket are unbelievably fortunate.
Compared to some other sports, the viewing figures for county cricket matches are minimal. I suspect more watched the British curling team at the recent Winter Olympics. And as to advertising rates during a club game, I would imagine even the local funeral parlour could afford them.
'Sky' are doing English cricket an enormous favour. Their money helps expand grassroots and community cricket; the growth of women's cricket; but above all, stops an increasing number of county clubs from going into administration. Murdoch should be applauded for his altruism.
kim,
My understanding is that 'Sky' gave £260m to the ECB for a 4 year deal from 2009-2013. This money is then divided up and given to various "causes" including 25% of it to grassroots and community cricket; but obviously the largest portion is handed out to county cricket with conditions attached including the number of home-grown players used; centrally-contracted etc...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket … 357194.stm
3rdman,
Stop being so pedantic!
Last edited by softandfluffy (12-03-2010 15:13:07)
"Murdoch should be applauded for his altruism"
LOL!
I thought Rupert did it to get subs and hour after hour of valuable content, among other things.
Its quite a revelation to find he's really been effectively flinging his hard earned in a giant ECB benefit bucket.
Last edited by KimJones (12-03-2010 16:15:12)
kim,
The man's a reptile but I have a grudging respect for him.
I was one of the 'Sky' early-birds and being a sports lover, the sheer enjoyment I've gained from watching the 'Sports Package' over the years is immeasurable.
Today, it costs £18 a month to access the 4 channels which covers over 100 different sports; almost as good value as county cricket membership!
Murdoch is only the 131st richest man in the world with a net worth of £4bn, so let's give him a break.
PS: If on 'Freeview', don't forget ITV4 have just started showing the IPL tournament. I'm watching it as I write.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cric … 16363.html
Last edited by softandfluffy (12-03-2010 16:35:14)
HC,
So, English cricket didn't exist before 'Sky' came along in 1990? Clubs have been producing Test players since the 1800s.
)
And what kind of wages did the cricketers earn before Sky came along, and what chance did millions of fans have have to watch cricket.
You want the best of both worlds by the sound of it..........but that surprises nobody
S& F. This is the ECB on the payments to counties:
"They are paid to First Class Counties in recognition
of the costs they incur in participation in the Board’s
competitions. The First Class Counties are effectively
18 Centres of Excellence and the fees paid to them
underpin the Board’s objective of ensuring a vibrant
domestic game in which our most talented players are
prepared for international cricket through a structured
and competitive First Class programme."
They arent handouts, they arent charity. They recognise that its a partnership - the ECB need the counties, thier players and thier grounds. In return the Counties need the ECB.
You cant argue that the counties exist to produce test players - and then say they should do it for free.
Bottom line for me is that if the ECB had to set up and run a system to manage cricket nationwide it would cost them a hell of a sight more than it does to pay the counties to do it for them
Last edited by KimJones (12-03-2010 17:05:54)
© 2010 Sussex County Cricket Club. All rights reserved
Privacy policy | Terms and conditions | Site accessibility | Technical help | Site map
