Down by the Riverside 2021

[Durhamfootman]

seems daft bringing someone in on a short loan, and then not playing them

Maybe Woody will be available soon

[westoelad]

seems daft bringing someone in on a short loan, and then not playing them

Maybe Woody will be available soon

But as you know DF Durham are good at doing daft.

[Durhamfootman]

well, indeed

[captaincolly]

seems daft bringing someone in on a short loan, and then not playing them

Maybe Woody will be available soon

But as you know DF Durham are good at doing daft.

Definitely!

[captaincolly]

Excellent article on Durham in The Times by Mike Atherton.
Essentially about how the finances are in much better shape, they're confident about the state of the youth teams.
Atherton also says the performances in the opening two games are also a sign things are improving on the field.
Although he does describe Burnham as " maturing."

[westoelad]

Excellent article on Durham in The Times by Mike Atherton.
Essentially about how the finances are in much better shape, they're confident about the state of the youth teams.
Atherton also says the performances in the opening two games are also a sign things are improving on the field.
Although he does describe Burnham as " maturing."

The comments are worth a look also. 100% favourable to Durham and critical of the ECB sanction.
Can't believe I'd ever say this but if ECB hadn't imposed some form of sanction Leech would have bankrupted us by now.

[captaincolly]

Excellent article on Durham in The Times by Mike Atherton.
Essentially about how the finances are in much better shape, they're confident about the state of the youth teams.
Atherton also says the performances in the opening two games are also a sign things are improving on the field.
Although he does describe Burnham as " maturing."

The comments are worth a look also. 100% favourable to Durham and critical of the ECB sanction.
Can't believe I'd ever say this but if ECB hadn't imposed some form of sanction Leech would have bankrupted us by now.

Yes, getting rid of him was vital.

[sussexpob]

Excellent article on Durham in The Times by Mike Atherton

The fact that he doesnt mention the 3 world cup matches as being the sole basis of your recovery to profit in 2019, shows to me he might be willfully ignoring issues that side with the fluffy and happy take he wants to write about. Of course, drifting into Durham hosting international matches as a reason for their recovery opens up uncomfortable avenues of further discussions; like the admission that over-spending on the ground to win those games nearly bankrupted the club, and that despite that, Durham will now benefit from that investment someone else had to pay for it for the rest of the foreseeable future, which as a fan of a non-test ground county like myself, I find palpably unfair. One might also b inclined to suggest considering your CE's comments about the ECB being acutely aware of Durham's needs to host internationals for their recovery, and the ECBs direct financial stake in your future in the shape of loans, that might have guided them to giving you so many internationals in one tournament.

And the same with the mentions of Stokes, who is a product of an academy that you could not afford. I am sure Sussex would produce bags of internationals if we also bankrupted ourselves paying for it.

It occurs to me Atherton is saying that the seeds of Durham's recovery actually lie in the products of their wanton overspending. This to me is nothing to celebrate about, and in fact when its coupled with the galling argument that Durham were wantonly punished unfairly, makes me quite angry. You are still benefitting from the ECBs interjection and a reckless financial model now.

Im glad your county is recovering, but its about time you were honest and thanked the ECB for saving your skin, rather than promote them as the bad guy. `

[westoelad]

Excellent article on Durham in The Times by Mike Atherton

The fact that he doesnt mention the 3 world cup matches as being the sole basis of your recovery to profit in 2019, shows to me he might be willfully ignoring issues that side with the fluffy and happy take he wants to write about. Of course, drifting into Durham hosting international matches as a reason for their recovery opens up uncomfortable avenues of further discussions; like the admission that over-spending on the ground to win those games nearly bankrupted the club, and that despite that, Durham will now benefit from that investment someone else had to pay for it for the rest of the foreseeable future, which as a fan of a non-test ground county like myself, I find palpably unfair. One might also b inclined to suggest considering your CE's comments about the ECB being acutely aware of Durham's needs to host internationals for their recovery, and the ECBs direct financial stake in your future in the shape of loans, that might have guided them to giving you so many internationals in one tournament.

And the same with the mentions of Stokes, who is a product of an academy that you could not afford. I am sure Sussex would produce bags of internationals if we also bankrupted ourselves paying for it.

It occurs to me Atherton is saying that the seeds of Durham's recovery actually lie in the products of their wanton overspending. This to me is nothing to celebrate about, and in fact when its coupled with the galling argument that Durham were wantonly punished unfairly, makes me quite angry. You are still benefitting from the ECBs interjection and a reckless financial model now.

Im glad your county is recovering, but its about time you were honest and thanked the ECB for saving your skin, rather than promote them as the bad guy. `

Yes, all that is missing is the prefix
"Once upon a time..."
and the conclusion.. " and they all lived happily ever after".
Durham's Academy, lauded as an exemplar by ECB, was funded by a provincial newspaper and a ring-fenced ECB Grant which every County receives.
Durham are/were not alone in being in debt and the sudden calling in of a loan creating a financial cash flow issue; most test venues have experienced similar financial crisis and have relied on rescue packages from local benefactors or authorities.
As Atherton's well researched article points out, Durham,in their short existence,have produced a number of home-produced players who have regularly excelled for England. Surely that makes them more entitled to regular ECB grants than those Counties who have never provided test players?
Durham members accept that sanctions should have been imposed, the gripe was the the severity of the punishment-Glamorgan incurred a debt of several million £ which was written off,Leicester and Northants received bail outs without sanction.
I suspect you're being deliberately provocative,barely worthy of replying.
And so to bed...

[sussexpob]

As Atherton's well researched article points out, Durham,in their short existence,have produced a number of home-produced players who have regularly excelled for England. Surely that makes them more entitled to regular ECB grants than those Counties who have never provided test players?

Nothing I said disagreed with such a reality, and I believe that quite a large amount of funding from the ECB is decided on how many home grown players one produces (the most recent stat I can find is 44% of ECB funding to counties is based on this). So if Durham are getting more from the ECB on the basis they produce more, does it not call into question their slide into debt even more?

Durham's Academy, lauded as an exemplar by ECB, was funded by a provincial newspaper and a ring-fenced ECB Grant which every County receives.

My belief is the academy payments are part of the Sport England investment into grassroots, and they are ring fenced because the county has ownership of dishing out the investment down the pecking order. I cant find any recent information, but the last I can suggests the direct academy funding is only 50k max a year, and is limited to a maximum of 75% overall costs. My understanding is the junior levels of counties vastly exceed this grant in costs, after all you can nominate 12 players for full time coaching, and a further 30 players of interest at every age level, all under law that require a pathway and therefore have to have guarantee of minimum coaching time and minimum playing time. This must cost a lot of money to provide.

Durham are/were not alone in being in debt and the sudden calling in of a loan creating a financial cash flow issue; most test venues have experienced similar financial crisis and have relied on rescue packages from local benefactors or authorities.

While I understand the relevance about benefactors being raised in the argument of financial mismanagement, I'd have said personally that a rich benefactor bailing out a club is a private arrangement for funding or investment, and as such cant really be compared. Had Durham had access to such an arrangement, this would be a non-issue. And on a wider point, one could argue that people like Graves who loaned Yorkshire bags of money were probably in debt because the same guy was running the ship. Graves might have run them into debt knowing he was responsible, and as such, would pay for his own errors.

If you want to discuss if thats right, moral or fair, its a different story. If you want my opinion on Graves being in charge of giving test matches to clubs and the conflict of interest in that, its a very different picture, one I am very strongly against.

Durham members accept that sanctions should have been imposed, the gripe was the the severity of the punishment-Glamorgan incurred a debt of several million £ which was written off,Leicester and Northants received bail outs without sanction.

I am unaware of the exact nature of the Midlands clubs issues, and cant find any details on it. The Glamorgan case was a total sham, and should have ended in a similar punishment to Durham. While I sympathise for Durham looking at what happened there and feeling they got a hard end of the stick, two wrongs dont might a right. The problem is Glamorgan should have got punished, the fact they didnt doesnt in my eyes mean Durham are justified for walking away with nothing.

I suspect you're being deliberately provocative,barely worthy of replying.
And so to bed...

Not really a necessary comment.

[westoelad]

Thanks SP.
Counties get bonuses for how many England qualified U25s are in the 1st team, don't believe it's anything like as high as 44%. They also get compensated for losing players to England teams-was as much as £100k for someone like Stokes representing England in all formats.
The most recent figure I've seen for Academy grants was £200k with Durham investing a further £100k into the Academy mainly from local sponsorship.Sports England is government and National lottery funding and nothing to do with the ECB, it's at grassroots level.
It must be remembered that cricket funds don't belong to the ECB,they have the responsibly of administering it. The funding is raised mainly from the England team by gate receipts and TV income. The England team comprises players from the counties. I can't see anything fundamentally wrong, therefore,in Counties asking for a loan to solve a cash flow problem. Durham's £3m loan,bail out is pretty insignificant compared to the £70m thrown into promoting an unproven venture such as the Hundred.I
The sanction imposed on Durham was unprecedented, requests for clarification on how it was decided was refused, this from a public body,and those deciding on the sanction had a vested interest as fellow competitors for England internationals.
Your original post was fundamentally false on issues of fact as I've shown-hence my view that it was provocative -that was purely a personal view.

[sussexpob]

Counties get bonuses for how many England qualified U25s are in the 1st team, don't believe it's anything like as high as 44%

It was the only figure I can find verified in any press story from an ECB source. To test the figure out, I checked the 2016-2017 accounts for 4 counties (Surrey, Durham, Sussex, Yorkshire) to see how much ECB paid them.

Yorkshire earned the highest at 3,150,000
Surrey earned the least at 1,900,000
Sussex were 2,600,000
Durham 3,000,000

A roughly 40% percent difference between top and bottom. In full disclosure, Surrey's accounts seem to be released around the start of the annual tax year, while the others seem to release around end of October for the season, so there is a chance this figure relates to Surrey's season before. All the payments factor up in that season by a noticeable amount (new TV maybe?) so if this is 2016's amount, the difference is closer to 20-30% region using the average rise. Still very signficant.

Obviously the 44% percent would be the maximum difference, but its almost impossible not to have at least one player under 25 who is English.

hey also get compensated for losing players to England teams-was as much as £100k for someone like Stokes representing England in all formats.

Durham received a stated 2 million pounds "test match compensation" from the ECB, not included in the figures above, during the same accounting period. While obvious the ECB full red/white or all format contracts involve them paying the wage of the player, I very much doubt with the salary cap and the fact neither were likely to play for Durham much, their combined wage payment on their county deals is anywhere near that. So Durham must have received quite a lot for providing players.

Worth noting the addtional benefit on the rare occasions a contracted player comes back, they are playing for free. Although this does not outweigh the initial skills loss.

The most recent figure I've seen for Academy grants was £200k with Durham investing a further £100k into the Academy mainly from local sponsorship.Sports England is government and National lottery funding and nothing to do with the ECB, it's at grassroots level.

Durham make no reference of this grant (nor does anyone) in their accounts. In the most recent 2019 account, Durham do list the payments involved in their ECB income, and the academy is not included.

Surrey and Yorkshire list "development costs' both over 400,000, but then later in staffing breakdowns, indicate that the "playing staff costs and numbers" is inclusive of academy coaches and staff . So the eventual figure would be much higher. Facilities costs are not defined, but are listed as a total across the clubs, so again this figure would be higher.

Sussex are the most exhaustive. 424,000 paid for upkeep of "squads/academy" which is purposefully separated from the pro team in the accounts. Nearly another 200,000 for the upkeep of the Blackstone academy and indoor development school. Total 601k for the year. Worth noting many of the grassroots teams and Sussex Women team fall under the Sussex Cricket Foundation Charity, and are listed in separate accounts.

Income is listed at 324,000 for the year. Roughly tallies with your grant figures quoted above, but still, all counties checked are not doubt doubling these grant contributions in costs. There is no way Durham were pumping out world class talent spending half on their academies and coaches to even other relatively small non-test hosting counties.

As for the comments about Sport England, yes I seem to have confused this with Sussex's Cricket Foundation arrangement. No other club seems to have this dual company setup with the pro club in one, the grassroots/academy and womens teams in another.

[sussexpob]

t must be remembered that cricket funds don't belong to the ECB,they have the responsibly of administering it. The funding is raised mainly from the England team by gate receipts and TV income. The England team comprises players from the counties. I can't see anything fundamentally wrong, therefore,in Counties asking for a loan to solve a cash flow problem.

The ECB are also guardians of the integrity of the game, and have to make decisions to guarantee the sport is fair and evenly competitive, things we found out this week means a lot to fans in sport. Allowing teams to overspent their means and benefit on the field of play, then simply giving them money that others dont receive, is not fair. Its not fair in the slightest.

[westoelad]

t must be remembered that cricket funds don't belong to the ECB,they have the responsibly of administering it. The funding is raised mainly from the England team by gate receipts and TV income. The England team comprises players from the counties. I can't see anything fundamentally wrong, therefore,in Counties asking for a loan to solve a cash flow problem.

The ECB are also guardians of the integrity of the game, and have to make decisions to guarantee the sport is fair and evenly competitive, things we found out this week means a lot to fans in sport. Allowing teams to overspent their means and benefit on the field of play, then simply giving them money that others dont receive, is not fair. Its not fair in the slightest.

Can't believe you can use the terms fair and even when talking about the way ECB conducted themselves during this issue.
Well,actually, I can believe but.....

[sussexpob]

Can't believe you can use the terms fair and even when talking about the way ECB conducted themselves during this issue.
Well,actually, I can believe but.....

The fact you have stated your belief I am just winding you up might prohibit any further discussion on a deeper level, but I get the feeling that you are taking a lot of half-arguments or problematic examples, and using them together in totality to form what you believe is a compelling case against the ECBs conduct. Now, I have stated and will state again, a lot of these examples do set dubious precedent or have very weak justifications, but they are also not black and white, and there are huge amounts of factors at play for each party that makes it difficult to set an objective overall picture.

I think a prime example is council debt, and specifically the fact that some councils have shown an inclination to provide debt relief to clubs. One would be inclined to view this as unfair, because each council has their own autonomy to decide what is best inside their sphere of geographic control, and one council faced with an exact situation to another might be inclined to shell out millions to keep a club afloat, while another might be struggle to see a benefit of maintaining the club and seeing any benefit to the local area by maintaining a stake in its existence.

What role should the ECB have in this? The question is not an easy one to answer, because at the end of the day you sort of end up with democratically elected municipal governments deciding what they feel is best for the voting public versus the desires of a cricket board, which has no power, nor should, to force layers of government into taking steps that are bad for their local areas. What each independent council, voted in by a different public, feels on a given situation or confronted with the same facts will naturally be different - you cant place an objective standard on that because even on the most fundamental level of politics, different councils are composed of different parties or political agendas as a result of a direct democratic process, so the Green council voted in down the road are going to take a vastly different path to a Tory council next door. Or a labour one. Councils are all fundamentally built differently, as a result of what the locals vote.

You reach a sort of point where the devil in the detail becomes irrelevant. Any council investment or debt relief into a club is made always on the same terms, that a democratically elected council believes it has a tangible benefit to the local area under their control. How can the ECB or anyone at that point step in and over-ride that? It goes against the very core of the democratic and political process of the country. The ECB are not, and never will be, part of the constitutional and administrative process in the country and have no devolved powers from central government to counter someone who does. The only instance where such council investments can be contested would be if such investments could be proven to be purposefully fraudulent or made on bad faith. So yeah, Hampshire's local council buying their ground feels like a direct investment from a public body, but maintaining a huge outdoor arena that can host events or concerts and therefore attract people to the local area is an obvious potential benefit that can be used to justify it. Glamorgan council accepting to write off debt on the basis Sophia Gardens brings test matches and ODIs into the area, and WC games (Durham's CE said an estimated 15-20 million was made in the local economy hosting the same games) is the same. Whether or not these projects work, are popular, or the locals agree with are answered at the ballot box. A council putting 10 million into a great failure of a project will get voted out.

Although in the case of Glamorgan, the club then securing finances from elsewhere rendered that agreement impossible to uphold. They secured more direct funding from the ECB while rendering the investment the council made impossible to provide the intended benefit ot the local area, based on a wilful agreement not to apply for internationals that brought it. You could at this point say Glamorgan council were thinking in longer terms, and that maybe a small investment that pays big in 15 years time is worth it, but the actions of the club to me were totally unacceptable. And the ECBs cash injection is also unacceptable and unjustifiable. Glamorgan should have had the book thrown at them, the fact they didnt angers me somewhat.

As for rich benefactors, I guess in the current way the CC operates, there is nothing that stops it. Its hard to differentiate between a trust fund or a private benefactor offering a gift or loan on good terms of interest, and in most cases Id imagine its preferable to sourcing investments from the market where such interest might include a profit for its provider. Of course, you have flagged the conflict of interest which is the main problem; I dont disagree with this. Graves should never have been ECB chairman with the power to decide lucrative destiny of matches while one club owed him eye watering sums of money. But we arent talking about the "source" or process of the cash here, we are talking about overall governance (the new CPA agreements and Sport England regulations I think demand certain changes in this regard be in place over the next few years, so this might be changing). Had Graves had no other conflicts of interest, the fact that he gave a gift loan to his club in itself means very little. You cant differentiate it from any other source of income that is very important for any business to have access to. Limiting it would contradict a whole heap of normal company or commercial law, it simply cant be done.

Again though, lets take it to its deepest point. Is this moral? Is this fair? There are obvious arguments against that, how "fair" is the county championship if one millionaire can pump out bazillions into one team and just hog the best talent? Its not desirable for me to see that, but the reality is it does happen. But then there is and has been a salary cap for a long time, and this does narrow the scope at which such investments can impact. Accruing massive debts while wantonly overpaying compared to everyone else has limitations. In football, they have FFP that stops chairman pumping in crazy money, and teams have to stick vaguely to their revenue generated - of course, no system like this is perfect for fairness because natural unfairness (size of team, population centre it inhabits, history, size of fanbase) will always lead to revenue discrepancies between the most popular and small teams, which manifests itself in competitiveness on the field, but unless you had a full out system where every team is limited to spending what the lowest revenue earner makes (which lets face it, will never happen) there is always in built unfairness.

You could advocate FFP style things in cricket, but its dubious with a salary cap and the fact most counties make most of their revenue from handouts, what it would change. Those revenues are also balanced to stop teams who just sign established players they didnt create, so in theory clubs who benefit least from natural revenue inequity should make the most money from the ECB under a culture where the richer teams sign all the talent using their money, the process itself therefore is self correcting. My own personal view is the salary cap should maybe be lowered to the point that it gives high revenue teams a marginal advantage, but its hard to really advocate whether or not this is already the case. I believe it is. Even money aside, status can push players to accept lower deals and drive better value at certain clubs. A player offered 100k a year by every county is not joining Derbyshire over Surrey for instance. And status drives value too - so there is no way for this to be perfect.

What about ECB regulations? I do have sympathy for this argument, its impossible in many regards to even find the most basic of ECB policies on finances in writing anywhere. Therefore how they make their decisions, and the potential for that to not be based on consistent and fair criteria, is a worry. This is something the ECB need to rectify in their published playing conditions.

Having said that, from a very basic level we have to remember that the ECB did not force anything on Durham from the strictest sense. The ECB offered the council a compromise to recoup some value to their investment, and offered the club a way out of non-existence in the form of a voluntary credit agreement. In that regards therefore, the club accepted voluntarily the terms of the financial bail out. In doing so they acknowledged that their position was so dire, almost anything was preferable. Yes of course, we can get into a philosophical discussion about what words like choice or voluntary mean when you in reality no choice at all, but that would ignore the fact that the lesser evil here was to accept, exist into he future, and ride out some bad times while stabilizing. We could therefore argue what is a bad deal or a good deal, I am inclined to think that something that is a marked improvement to bankruptcy is a good one. And remember that every single club in the game also has an interes

It is also worth noting that once Durham's options for external financing where exhausted and the ECB became the last option, there was no longer anytime left. Getting into a very deep discussion of the ECBs capacity, getting into deep discussions about non-existent rules, laws or god knows what - there was no time. Some reports indicate Durham were days away from game over. It doesn't feel practical either to think the ECB could just take on the debt to save the club and work out how it was going to be repaid later, especially when every other clubs are direct stakeholders to such an agreement.

And its here we stumble on the silver bullet point - the ECBs policy of county remuneration is not equal, but is justified as being so on the basis that they have a primary role in ensuring English cricket on an international level is competitive, and the rules are therefore written to ensure the county game is shaped to that cause. You can therefore justify paying Surrey 2 million quid a year and Yorkshire an extra million or so, because Yorkshire are providing half the national team through their work and giving younger players chances from their academy, Surrey just sign players on big money or steal them.

How do you justify paying a county 4 million quid you dont give to anyone else, solely because they need the money due to poor financial management? Financial mismanagement that also lead to an enjoyment on the pitch of competitive advantages and successes, and left a legacy of having a lasting capacity to make more revenue that others in the future? Its simply impossible to do so.

I mean take the world's crappiest analogy - tomorrow I decide to give my daughters both 500k as a knee up to their lives. The older one buys a house for 200k, and saves the rest of the money which helps her whenever she is short, and means she never asks me again for money. The second buys a mansion for a million quid, takes on extra debt using the initial down payment, and gets into debt instantly because she cant pay it off. After five years, the older one is stable and has a lovely house, the other is about to declare bankrupt and have the bank chucker her on the street. If I were to step in and pay off my youngster daughter's debt and put her in the position to retain her house and keep up her payments, I would fundamentally have ended up giving her more money on the most basic measurement of fairness. My oldest daughter, who did everything right, would end up with a house far less in value, a less majestic place to live, would not enjoy the benefits of wanton over spending, and would in contrast almost have been punished for taking the right step.

But the advantages dont stop there. House prices rise, and say they did so at about 5% per year (way below the current UK average) by sensible daughter would have an additional 78,000 of value on her home, my stupid daughters home would have gained 400k. You can see therefore that overspending on an asset you cant afford that then increases in value just increases the gulf in fairness. By making sure my daughter pays the mortgage and doesnt get booted out, I also allow her to enjoy the continued benefits of not only living in a situation she couldnt afford, but allow her to eventually escape any of the drawbacks because her asset will increase in value and eventually benefit her greatly.

When the ECB bailed out Durham therefore, its not just the bail out money that matters. Durham over spent on an academy, but get 2 million a year from the ECB recompense for the talent it produced. The academy has given Durham a reputation for youth success, one that will no doubt breed further success. Durham overspent on a world class international stadium fit to host WC matches, and will continue to benefit on that in the future. They won championships with wage bills they couldnt afford, and will forever be able to own that success and exploit it in terms of reputation or sponsorship. I mean would a company like Emirates be sponsoring a no hope team that didnt host Internationals? Thats just one major financial gain built on previous overspending.

You add all that up, and then say to me you think it is fair that the ECB should give you another 4 million quid? Unique to you and no one else? Give you internationals most teams dont get? Allow you to enjoy everything with no payback? Money and success goes hand in hand with sport, the two are hugely linked. You were a no hope team that suddenly got good after a string of international games came your way. You won championships by being the only team to overspend on wages. I mention this not to make a point other than demonstrate the link between financial investment and sporting success. Its very demonstrable, even in the recent history of Durham.

The ECB therefore couldn't just throw 4 million quid at you. A payment that would be unique to you, which no one else would get. A payment that by its very nature would make you more competitive to play for your opponents, and that would on even purely sporting terms, help your success. The payment could only be made fair if all hints of sporting benefits were removed, and not just for one relegation, because as demonstrated the overspending benefits haven't ceased. The payment needed to be separated from that too; you had to prove with things like savage salary cuts that it wouldnt be used to pay for talent. In short, the punishment's had to be nuclear. They were nuclear, and I will defend the ECBs actions as you will note very positively for that.

But as the OP that started this long conversation mentioned, I look dimly on people who don't acknowledge that Durham benefit even now from their past poor management when it comes to internationals or the academy. I look dimly on people who advocate lesser punishment without reference to the spirit of competition that made it essential.

I hope this long post has demonstrated that this issue is not just an attempted troll, but is an honest and well thought opinion based on things I very much believe passionately.

I leave you boys to your thread now. Have a good season.