English cricket's 'Premier League' revolution
English cricket is ready to follow the example of football's Premier League as it heads for a revolution in which some of the long-established principles of the county game could be abandoned.
I learned the details of the plans for the future while watching Derbyshire play Leicestershire on a rain-interrupted day at a ground with probably no more than 100 people in attendance - but the future will be far different if the authors of the report get their way.
I have seen the 21-page document and I am staggered by what Surrey chairman David Stewart and MCC chief executive Keith Bradshaw - with the help of Hampshire and Lancashire - have produced.
Their blueprint has the hallmark of the documents that led to the creation of football's Premier League in England back at the start of the 1992 season.
Having read through the document, I can well understand why Leicestershire and Derbyshire - both of whom would be condemned to the margins of English cricket if these proposals were adopted - are so angry about the plans.
For all its faults, English cricket is an egalitarian body: 18 counties more or less equal in status with nothing like the inequalities that prevail in English football.
But if the proposals make it into reality, that state of affairs will definitely change.
The first, and most dramatic, change will see some of the old county identities - the bedrock of the English game for more than a century - discarded.
The document says that "teams' identities may be linked to cities, regions, grounds or counties".
The authors do not specifically talk of city-based franchises as happened in the Indian Premier League (IPL), but their wording makes it clear they have no objection to it.
"The New T20", as Stewart and Bradshaw call their brainchild, will be, they say, "a partnership between the new owner/investors and the owners of the nine Category A grounds".
These "nine grounds" are the stadia that are fit and ready to stage international cricket - Lord's, The Oval, Old Trafford, Edgbaston, Headingley, Trent Bridge, Chester-le-Street, the Swalec Stadium and the Rose Bowl.
The teams that play there will be new creatures, the likes of which English cricket has never seen before.
The authors have talked to various people, and have benefitted from the advice of Deloitte's Sports Business Group and top City legal practice Charles Russell LLP.
"A positive approach has been made by potential investors," continues the document.
"From their approach there is real interest for investment into a New T20 in England."
There is no direct mention of the identity of the investors, but the document does suggest they could be media and branded goods companies and rich individuals. These individuals might want to purchase trophy assets or simply be looking for a financial investment.
Stewart and Bradshaw certainly speak the language that the City would understand.
At one stage, the report speaks of potential investors as being "existing sports team owners looking to utilise synergies from owning multiple businesses".
Who do they have in mind? Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich perhaps? Or how about Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks?
The figures in the report make for fascinating reading.
The new plans are projected to bring in more money - between £300m and £450m - for the nine new teams.
The document also says that "owners/investors could receive an annual return on their investment through profits and/or see a capital return on their investment when selling their stake at a later date".
The New T20 company would be a partnership between the England & Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and the nine teams. It all sounds very much like the partnership between the Football Association and the old Division One that launched the Premier League in 1992.
In other words, the regulator and ruling body of English cricket would have to change its role and no longer sit on its own at the top table.
Instead, the ECB would sit alongside these new franchises and we all know from the example of the Premier League where that road can lead.
As for the actual cricket, the plan is to have a 25-day tournament comprising of 57 matches with each team playing between 12 and 14 matches.
Ideally, teams would play on a home and away basis with six home matches in 21 days.
The tournament is seen as English cricket's closest equivalent of a major championship, with group games being followed by a knock-out phase.
It would be played in the middle of the season - mid-June to mid-July - when no other first-class cricket is played anywhere in the world.
The report says each team would be "allocated local star players (Pietersen, Flintoff etc)", with other players available on an auction basis - much like the IPL - within a salary cap of £1.5m per team.
Squads of 15 or 16 would have to feature a minimum of three younger (Under-21 or Under-23) players and a minimum of 12 homegrown players.
A homegrown player will be one who has played at least three years in England or Wales between the ages of 15 and 21, a clear indication that the authors want to do away with the multitide of Kolpak players in the game.
The document says each of the nine teams will generate revenues of £7m, more than the income of most counties at present, and predicts broadcasting rights of £50m and first-year profits of £47m... but it might be more.
Yes, some of this money would go everyone in cricket including overseas boards but the main share would be to the new franchises, the ones that will completely reshape English cricket.
Having analysed its 21 pages, I would say that, as a City document, the report is great.
But I can see why the likes of Leicestershire and Derbyshire are so unhappy about it from a cricket perspective.
The content of the document could be the catalyst for the biggest revolution in English cricket history, and the mother of all battles between the haves and the have-nots of county cricket.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~36~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
It would be pretty weird supporting "South London" or "London Brown Caps" instead of Surrey, but they should at least stress that the new teams should be for this competition only, and the counties retained for the County Championship and the Friends Provident Trophy.
Complain about this comment
I am a Derbyshire fan and to be quite honest I think the plan is brilliant. English cricket has for too long lagged behind its International counterparts and this competition would only strengthen the quality of the English team in a form of cricket that is incredibly lucractive and exciting. My only suggestion would be to have both a Twenty20 competition and 50 over competition because these forms of the game are where English cricket needs improving and drastically. The proposal clearly states that it will only take up a month of the season and this wouldn't harm the bedrock of the game, the County Championship. One last thing are us small counties entirely happy with fielding a team that has very little homegrown talent in their sides? I know I'm not and want to see our best young players have the opportunity to show the public what they're made of, not over-the-hill former Internationals that threaten to truly destroy affiliation to a county should it continue.
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure I like the franchise idea.
Are the counties going to be paired up to make these new teams? For example, in the South East, would Sussex "merge" with Hampshire, Kent with Surrey and Essex with Middlesex?
If the games are going to be only at the Test Match grounds, a lot of the existing county supporters are going to be facing long trips to watch games (e.g. from Hastings to Southampton). London gets two teams and less central locations don't get any games.
It also doesn't seem right that the current T20 champions are not deemed worthy of a place in the new competition.
I would prefer a two-tier approach with promotion and relegation.
Complain about this comment
I can understand why people might be worried about all this, but there is successful precedent. What is now known as the Guinness Premiership in rugby union in this country has made for exciting finishes, open title battles, and a competitive national side. The mistake they made was allowing Premier Rugby sit alongside the RFU, in essence creating a deadlock as to the release of players to play in internationals. Provided the ECB retain ultimate power over the administration of the competition and the release of players for the international games, I don't see a problem.
For years, we've had people complaining that there's too many teams, too many matches, too many mediocre players clogging up the system. Someone comes up with an idea to change all of that, and then everyone tries to pick holes in it. It's all based on a successful model - all it needs is some TLC to make sure it doesn't evolve into the monster that the Premier League has become.
Complain about this comment
Hello!!!!
Complain about this comment
It all sounds very exciting to me. Why resist the inevitable. The game in England and Wales has needed restructuring for decades. Football, Rugby and many other sports have embraced change and benefited from it.
The doom-mongers that predict the end of the County system are wrong. The new system could be the saviour of the County Championship if the small print required a certain amount of the profits to be directed that way.
It would be naive not to recognise that the proposed changes are driven by money and the linked requirements of TV companies. It is the way of the world. Whether it be next year or in several years, the richer clubs are likely to form some sort of T20 tournament. Better for the Cricket authorities to get involved with the process and regulate, rather than resist and loose control.
An interesting article Mr Bose but, "comprising of"........from a BBC journalist.......tut tut!
Complain about this comment
This idea is probably inevitable and eventually it will occur. But the locations of the grounds are quite frustrating. I live in Plymouth and have to travel for an hour and a half to get to Taunton, if this was the case where would I be travelling to. Birmingham? Cardiff? Southampton? Seems like a lot of effort and attendances may struggle due to how far people are prepared to go. Especially evening games when they have worked all day.
Look at the IPL, a new stadium was built in Mumbai (i believe) and was used for 2 fixtures, but they moved the fixtures to a different ground because the new ground was too far away from the city centre for people to go to. The same would happen with any EPL creation.
Complain about this comment
For several years one of the complaints against English cricket is that it isn't "hard" enough - too many irrelevant games. Well this proposal will start to address this issue if only in Twenty20 cricket. Hopefully, however, this additional competitiveness will spill over into other form of the game.
I appreciate that some county members may feel threatened by this proposal but times move on and evolution is better than revolution - and revolution is what will happen if our top players do not have the opportunity to share in some of the massive amounts of money that seem to be available in cricket at the present.
It needs to be remebered that the Football Premier league does not only have a negative side - It has made English football more competitive on the european stage, and facilities at most grounds have improved, (albeit at a price)
Unfortunately this change will mean that Twenty20 cricket will no longer visit some of the "regional" grounds in a county. Which is sad as these games attact large numbers of potential cricket watchers/players.
On a slightly different note many more days of test cricket like yesterday's (friday) Twenty20 cricket may well become an irrelevance
Complain about this comment
It won't happen.
Complain about this comment
"I have seen the 21-page document" Really? A journalist has seen a document that was sent to the press as a press release? Amazing.
This proposal is just one of many weird and wonderful ideas thought up by a self-appointed pseudo-quango. Any group of cricket fans can come up with such proposals when sat in the pub. It is menaingless, and barely is a matter for discussion. Obviously, the press lap it up up dutifully, because, well, they aren't that bright.
Complain about this comment
Well, I too was at this rain interrupted day at Derby and I would suggest that if Mr Bose was to return on a sunnier day, he would be quite suprised at the healthy attendace.
What does he expect - thousands queing up to see the rain fall for over four hours.
As for the content of this document, well there is no doubt that its just what our heavily southern biased ECB would want to hear.
Of the sides north of Watford I guess Lancashire would be the only ones to get a look in.
If this lot happens then I, for one, would turn my back on game which I have supported all of my life and so too will all of the marginalised supporters over most of the UK.
How does this encourage young players to rise up through a system to become the players of the future - or like the football premier league, doesn't that matter any more?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
As the BBC doesn't like the longer post I wrote, I shall try and condense it:
-Rubbish proposal proposed by people with their own interests at heart and not that of the England cricket team and the game in general.
-The Premier League has more power than the FA. The Premiership rugby clubs have more power than the RFU. If the franchise were to occur, they would end up with more power than the ECB. In every sport, it is the men with money who control everything. Just check out the FIA versus the munchkin Ecclestone in Formula 1 and see how bad Formula 1 is now since the real moneymen took over. Do you want English cricket like that?
When people as respected in the game as Justin Langer say English cricket is now as competitive as Aussie state cricket, when we have the second best side in the world following on and looking rubbish, when you see how much English cricket has improved over the last decade and how we've introduced new initiatives like Twenty20... how on earth can anyone suggest that English cricket is being run poorly? Yes there are improvements that can and must be made, such as the dumping of this 40 over nonsense, but give the ECB some credit for their work over the last decade.
Complain about this comment
The Twenty20 can never be like the premier league.
Complain about this comment
I think this is a great idea. After all, it doesn't remove the old system at all (though perhaps one of the 50 (or 40) over formats should be re-assessed).
However, I think it was Aggers who suggested a few months ago that this could be a regional team, rather than a city-based competition. For the sake of not excluding those old hubs of cricket. Why should Southampton, Cardiff and Durham benefit whilst Leicester and Derby loose out? The revenue this competition will generate will quickly enable those counties to improve their grounds to a similar standard. I would go for a regional T20 team - e.g. the East Midlands and if 6 home games were to be played, then perhaps Trent Bridge could host 4, with Leicester and Derby getting one each. As those grounds develop, then the games could be shared evenly. Similar benefits would be seen in the South East (Essex, Kent + Middlesex?) - which under this proposal would get no action.
It's been obvious for ages that non-test hosting counties are in serious trouble. This new competition has the potential to save those traditional teams, but also make the fatal blow if badly managed.
The worst thing about the Premier League is that it's so unfair, and only a handful of teams could ever conceive winning. The ECB has the chance now of making sure this doesn't happen in cricket.
Complain about this comment
#10
Mihir asks me to point out that the 21-page document he gained access to was not a press release. It was a genuine journalistic discovery.
Complain about this comment
All that is going to happen is that a few people with their own interests will move into the Cricket area to claim their tax breaks etc etc .
20/20 is a fad an enjoyable aside from the main game.....what is being proposed is making it the main event...
If we had cricket grounds that were undercover so the game could be guarenteed yes i can see it working but that would also help all other forms of the game.
For my self the thought of travelling 100 miles to a game that might not take place is always going to be the main consideration and for all forms of the first class game prevents us in the north west being regular attenders.
For those who want to hold the premiership up as a success please take a closer look at the balance sheets of the top 4 clubs they are in debt for millions...the national team is the worst it has ever been and less and less english players are actually playing the game.
Complain about this comment
"For those who want to hold the premiership up as a success please take a closer look at the balance sheets of the top 4 clubs they are in debt for millions...the national team is the worst it has ever been and less and less english players are actually playing the game."
Throw in more and more foreign investors and the dreaded word 'stakeholder' and I personally think English football is an icon of our times: something glitzy that's pretty hollow inside. I would absolutely love a major global recession because you'd see some of these big clubs panic like mad. Remember when Parmalat hit the skids? Comic gold. When you see companies like IndyMac going down, you wonder how football would be hit by a really big team crumbling or what would happen if there was a repeat of the ITV Digital farce.
And people want cricket to be like football? Ha! The regional aspect of the 18 counties is just as important as teams. Can you imagine Arsenal, Tottenham and Chelsea being told that they had to merge to form London United? Of course not so expecting Somerset, Gloucestershire and Glamorgan to do it is absurd. County support might not be as visible as football team support but it exists and there are many loyal supporters out there.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
View these comments in RSS