Current Page: 1 of 2
T20 Finances
Posted by: middleman (IP Logged)
Date: 10 October, 2017 10:59

Now that the rawness of the season’s disappointments slowly drift away I thought I might raise a question for discussion which has been on my mind.
Financially we reached a deal with the MCC where gives us an annual lump sum in return for all gate receipts etc going to the MCC. I think I recall a sum of around half a million.
This year on my reckoning the total attendance at the four T20 Blast matches was around 100,000. Excluding the non-paying MCC and Middlesex members I should think around 75,000 were paying resulting in a gate income well in excess of a million pounds and with the income from food and drink I would not be surprised if the proceeds were close to two million. Accepting the operation overheads that still leaves a very healthy profit. I would imagine well in excess of a million.
So my question is this. When we employ our additional overseas personnel for the T20 Blast who pays for them? Middlesex or the MCC. Or has the MCC lump sum factored that in. The employment of McCullum, Southy and Vettori this season must have been a considerable increase in expenditure on previous seasons but if the MCC didn’t offer anything extra who is really benefitting from that expenditure. Certainly not Middlesex financially other than placing a drain on Club finances and quite possibly placing a strain on the dressing room as players see disproportionate sums being paid to temporary overseas T20 players and coaches.

Re: T20 Finances
Posted by: adelaide (IP Logged)
Date: 10 October, 2017 11:55

Don't the Lord's and Oval T20 matches sell out regardless of, well, almost anything? In which case MCC income would be unaffected by whether or not foreign stars are recruited so why would they be expected?

It surely has to be Middlesex, and Middlesex alone, who decide on such recruitment, with a view to getting through to the knockout stages, and Middlesex who fund it.

It would also be seen as unfair for just one county's recruitment to be (in effect) subsidised.


Adelaide

Re: T20 Finances
Posted by: Lifer (IP Logged)
Date: 10 October, 2017 12:21

I think you will find that the season Adam Gilchrist played T20 for the Middle was at least partly funded by MCC.

There was a certain amount of unrest in MCC of which I am also a member.

Re: T20 Finances
Posted by: The Diamond ruled ok (IP Logged)
Date: 10 October, 2017 19:11

Unrest in the MCC about Gilchrist's signing (and fee) , not in the least bit surprised by this but if the Master wishes for full houses and the servant doesn't have the financials to pay for a big star like him someone had to front up the cash for all those beer sales to be made.

If I were a member of any of he other 17 counties I would be looking at it thinking how the hell do they get away with that ?

Maybe next year we go without a "superstar" and see what the attendance figures are like then at Lord's.

In fact if we move the "Big 4" on we might earn a few quid as well. smiling smiley

Re: T20 Finances
Posted by: Lifer (IP Logged)
Date: 10 October, 2017 20:27

I don't think anybody told the other counties!

Re: T20 Finances
Posted by: middleman (IP Logged)
Date: 11 October, 2017 13:38

Interesting about Gilchrist. But presumably the MCC will insist on a big signing to bolster the interest in ticket sales. The adverts for last season certainly demonstrated that.

My real concern is that the extra money spent on short term T20 signings may limit our flexibilty in what we can offer other squad players. That can lead to such players feeling hard done by and ultimately that can affect performances. Would you go the extra mile if you felt that you are not being properly rewarded for your efforts whereas some players are earning as much for a a half a dozen matches than you are for the whole year? Loyalty can only stretch so far and the mind can soon find a reason for negativity in thought and performance.

Aside from the finances I was very concerned by the club allowing Vettori influence in the appointment of McCullum as a temporary T20 captain in place of Malan. Had McCullum being available for the complete tournament then that would have been fine considering his past captaincy of New Zealand. However the perception given by the appointmant was in my view the appointmant of a mate. That must have wrankled with some of the squad. It also gave the impression of weak management.

Re: T20 Finances
Posted by: Fozzie (IP Logged)
Date: 11 October, 2017 17:52

I thought that MCC met half the cost of hiring McCullum this season, though I may be wrong.

It has struck me that whereas all Middlesex supporters were bitterly disappointed with this year's T20 campaign, from MCC's point of view it would probably only have been more successful had we managed to qualify for a home quarter-final, with the extra revenue that would generate.

Re: T20 Finances
Posted by: Seaxe_Man (IP Logged)
Date: 13 October, 2017 14:24

Middleman you are indeed correct in part if not all, re T20 finance under the new lump sum agreement.

The attraction for MX was in the event of bad weather, the lump sum of 500grand plus 5% plus 5% was forthcoming. This overlooked a couple of points a) if the weather was fine and b) even if the weather was wet, a T20 is only reluctantly called off. In the meantime the booze is still being swallowed and is non refundable unlike the ticket. The booze take is in the region 250 grand per match.

So MCC bless them cannot lose either way.

As you say the 4 games were attended by 95 to 100000. So the Surrey game, 28000 gate money (less members), booze,hospitiality and the food village should comfortably have covered the MCC obligation to the MX lump sum with change.

So, as you state, the Essex, Hants, Sussex revenues go in the MCC skyrocket. The surplus should cover the cost of the resurrection of the Middlesex Room should that ever happen. Previously funded by the late Ron Gerard out of his own pocket.

Where the T20 gate was left open, was in not negotiating a booze % or a bonus when a certain level of ticket sales occur to add to the lump sum.

Turning to the part payment yarn of 2011. This was from an article written by the former Telegraph writer D.R. Pringle and has the hallmarks of being written in the Tavern Bar.

After referring to 'sugar daddies' for some, he then waffled on the Gilchrist part payment yarn. He was curiously a bit short of detail. Was there a contract that he had seen? How much was the part payment? 'Higher or lower than 50%?

The conspiracy theorists reckon a ' creative accounting' mode was used. This would still be of interest to HM Revenue I would imagine.

The accounts of that period show no such reference to the relief of the auditors of both clubs I imagine.

What it does prove is that when 'the s**t hits the fan it sticks' six years down the road.

And another thing. Since the lump sum deal came in whereby MCC retain all of the gate money and revenues.

We now have a bar code which has to be read for entrance ensuring no money slips by. I am on MCC's side on that. But indicates that they collect money not give it away.

The days of yore in MX times when a bus pass could be waved at the North Gate are gone.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 13/10/2017 14:33 by Seaxe_Man.

Re: T20 Finances
Posted by: middleman (IP Logged)
Date: 13 October, 2017 16:42

Thanks for your interesting as always response Seaxe.

Goodness knows what will be the position when the new T20 competition comes in.

What then happens to the lump sum?

I can't see the same interest in the Middlesex T20 games in comparision to North London games where all the "stars" will be playing presumably at home at Lords.

Most of the Middlesex games will be banished to outgrounds.

Re: T20 Finances
Posted by: Lifer (IP Logged)
Date: 14 October, 2017 09:35

Quote:
middleman
Thanks for your interesting as always response Seaxe.
Goodness knows what will be the position when the new T20 competition comes in.

What then happens to the lump sum?

I can't see the same interest in the Middlesex T20 games in comparision to North London games where all the "stars" will be playing presumably at home at Lords.

Most of the Middlesex games will be banished to outgrounds.

But at least if we are banished to outgrounds the entrance fees and at least part of the catering revenue will go to us!

Re: T20 Finances
Posted by: Seaxe_Man (IP Logged)
Date: 15 October, 2017 13:22

Quote:
middleman
Thanks for your interesting as always response Seaxe.
Goodness knows what will be the position when the new T20 competition comes in.

What then happens to the lump sum?

I can't see the same interest in the Middlesex T20 games in comparision to North London games where all the "stars" will be playing presumably at home at Lords.

Most of the Middlesex games will be banished to outgrounds.

Middleman thanks for your interest. The lump sum scenario. I will endeavour to recall what was said at the AGM and summer forum.

First. There will still remain a county T20 to be played early season. As we have passed over the marketing and gate money at Lords to MCC, still in their interests to continue that to meet the lump sum obligation.

Second. There is a break clause available to both sides in 2019. Likely to invoked with Graves Big Bash the following year kicking off with at least discussion.

Third. The Treasurer spelt out the Big Bash affect on MX. Lords Cricket Ground will be required for the North London Franchise for a period roughly coinciding with the school holidays.

So six/seven weeks.

Fourth. Each county (the bribe) is to receive 1.3million each for this period. the ground hosts (MCC) to get a staging fee of 300grand. They, MCC, as now, will keep all of the booze, hospitality etc. So that looks to be four nice little earners on a Thursday night.

Fifth. 120 players are required. 96 domestic including England, plus 24 o/s to give 15 per franchise. This to be sorted by auction on TV, England players on a separate day. So North London, nominally Essex/ Middlesex could be made up of anybody from anywhere.

The remaining three hundred players not required will be playing 50 over cricket at outgrounds.

As Lifer remarked we retain some revenue earning capacity at those venues.

We pay a match fee. As at Lords booze etc remains with the host club to assist with running the venue throughout the year.

We take, the gate money and car park dosh and I assume the seating revenue from the hospitality less paying the host venue for the food..odds and ends such as scorecards also we retain..

I would hope that the new business manager can acquire advertising and sponsorship for these venues to boost our revenue come the day.

Also a chance to interest and acquire new members.

The lump sum arrangement could alter come 2019 as we will not be providing as much cricket from 2020 onwards at HQ.

The Treasurer spelt out that the £1.3 million could be dwarfed by membership and sponsor cancellations. So tricky for MX to put it mildly.

The gate money and shirt sales are to be ring fenced by the ECB (8 venues) and shared equally with the 18 counties at year's end.

Graves has forecast a 15 million loss in year one, to be absorbed by ECB. TV deal should cover that.

Hope I have'nt missed anything out that was said by top table.

Re: T20 Finances
Posted by: Seaxe_Man (IP Logged)
Date: 20 October, 2017 11:38

Quote:
adelaide
Don't the Lord's and Oval T20 matches sell out regardless of, well, almost anything? In which case MCC income would be unaffected by whether or not foreign stars are recruited so why would they be expected?
It surely has to be Middlesex, and Middlesex alone, who decide on such recruitment, with a view to getting through to the knockout stages, and Middlesex who fund it.

It would also be seen as unfair for just one county's recruitment to be (in effect) subsidised.


Adelaide

We agree on this Adelaide. In 2004 we played our first T20 at Lords versus Surrey. There was a crowd of 27509 (MCC figures).

Entrance was a tenner. There were no expensive fancy dans brought in on under the table part payments or otherwise.

Underlining your point Adelaide.

Re: T20 Finances
Posted by: Darren Gosling (IP Logged)
Date: 27 October, 2017 21:48

Footnote: Back in 2003 when T20 was first launched the MCC turned their noses up at the very thought of the competition and didn't allow Middx to stage ANY matches at 'the home of cricket'.
Of course that soon changed when they saw the attendances elsewhere in the country - particularly that at the Oval.
Now of course they have a very cushy deal for them as SeaxeMan explained to the detriment of Middx.

Re: T20 Finances
Posted by: Seaxe_Man (IP Logged)
Date: 31 October, 2017 13:21

D.R Pringle now of the Cricket Paper has lobbed in a grenade in last weeks CP re T20 finances.

In his article quote ' New T20 unsure of counties goodwill'.

'News that counties have begun to question some of the thornier details of the all singing, all dancing T20 proposed by the ECB in 2020 comes as little surprise'.

Part of the problem is that smaller counties feel they will be further marginalised once the hosting venues, almost certainly those with the biggest stadia have been decided.

Suddenly, the £1.3 million a year sweetener clubs signed up to does'nt look that generous, given that hosting clubs will be paid £150,000 a year (previously stated to be 300 grand) and allowed to keep 30% of revenues made during the matches.

Pringle is a bit short on detail but revenues for me, equal, gate money, booze, shirt and programme sales. Previous ECB stance, was gate and shirt sales were to be ring fenced.

30% of that lot, if it goes as the grocer hopes. Will be a nice wedge in the back pocket for the host stadia including one at SJW.

Will MX benefit. Like MCC refurbishing the MX Room with the 30% windfall. Don't hold your breath.

Re: T20 Finances
Posted by: adelaide (IP Logged)
Date: 31 October, 2017 15:45

SM

There is a good discussion on Come on the 'Rey, part of the gist of which is that if the whole ground is taken over for five to six weeks Surrey might actually lose out because the loss of other income (e g conference income) would be insufficient to compensate for the £150K plus percentage of takings, with the proviso that nobody there is sure whether takings are more than just gate receipts, or who gets the food and drink income.

I suspect we have several tiers of counties here, potentially in different situations:-
- counties that will not be hosting
- counties that will be hosting in modest-sized grounds (Bristol?)
- counties that will be hosting in large grounds
- Surrey (huge commercial income because they are in London)
- Middlesex (humble tenants).

At the moment it looks as if counties may be asked to bid to host this stuff with only the vaguest idea of the finances. Not our problem whether to apply to host but I doubt anyone has any real idea of how much income Middlesex would get out of the new competition.


Adelaide

Re: T20 Finances
Posted by: Jonathan Winsky (IP Logged)
Date: 31 October, 2017 19:06

It seems an overreaction that grounds hosting the city-based Twenty20 competition will be prevented from being used for any activity other than staging matches in this competition and will be unable to use the name of the ground's sponsors. It often happens if a ground is being used for an ICC, FIFA, UEFA, Olympic etc. event, but it is unusual for an English domestic tournament.

I have a contrary streak, so I will probably suddenly become willing to refer to grounds as the Kia Oval, Ageas Bowl and Emirates Old Trafford.

Re: T20 Finances
Posted by: Seaxe_Man (IP Logged)
Date: 02 November, 2017 12:57

Adelaide. This is getting out of hand. I agree with all in your last post. SM.

As it is Halloween. The T20 finances look increasingly like a 'Witches Brew'.

Re: T20 Finances
Posted by: The Diamond ruled ok (IP Logged)
Date: 02 November, 2017 18:56

Nice to see that some of those so in favour of getting the Grocers project to fly are now not sure the money they were promised is worth the fare.

To literally lose their grounds for the whole of the school holidays (which is when this is planned for) will see no children introduced to the Counties whose grounds they are attending with any advertising etc for said county.

Will they demand that all the paintings in the pavilions are removed as well if they have sponsors logos displayed anywhere within them or mention the proper name of the ground/county? I wouldn't put it past the egotistical maniacs.

Re: T20 Finances
Posted by: middleman (IP Logged)
Date: 04 November, 2017 14:28

The 2019 break clause in our agreement with the MCC should lead to some interesting negotiations between the MCC and Middlesex. Can't see the MCC not going along with Lords being one of the venues simply because of the potential revenue.
As technically Middlesex is a non participating county because we don't own our own ground are we just going to be left with the 1.3 million and nothing else including the MCC using the break clause to stop paying the fixed sum or paying a reduced sum because of the reduced value of the county T20 competition?

Re: T20 Finances
Posted by: dingy bags (IP Logged)
Date: 05 November, 2017 11:57

Counties hosting the new franchise will at least be able to use the additional, hosting fee to offset the costs of using outgrounds. We will not, as things stand, and will be out of pocket.

Interesting that, according to various reports, some counties, whether likely to host or not, seem to be getting cold feet on this. Confirms my feeling that they were bullied/bribed into the vote.

Some see the collapse of the South African proposed T20 circus as a big warning for the ECB. Interesting times ahead!!

Current Page: 1 of 2
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net