sussexpob wrote:Making_Splinters wrote:Not all the counties are struggling, if anything county finances can be a bit difficult to unpick. Take us for example, we have a large debt on the books due to completely redeveloping the ground but we made a just under £800,000 profit last year. It would be superficial to say because we're in £13,000,000 of debt that we are struggling, but actually, there is no danger of us not making our payments in the future on it unless something truly bizarre happens.
Counties that are truly struggling tend to stem from historic mismanagement and biting off far more than they can chew. Yes some of that is down to the ECBs slightly exaggerated promotion of the profits netted from international cricket, but just handing Counties a load of money wouldn't solve the bigger issues that are underlying what is going on
The last year Old Trafford didnt host international cricket, they made a crippling loss of 4 million (2012). They made a similar profit after a summer with an ODI and Test (2013) , having 150,000 odd tickets sold over 6 days. After the ODI's limited to one a year since, they returned modest profits. It would appear that Lancs need international cricket to turn a modest profit, and at least a 5 day test with good sales to make a worthwhile one.
This is where I take offence at the "historic mismanagement argument" because in short, Lancs did exactly the same so no one club can climb on the high horses here. Teams that were in bad finances took risks to make profit and attract cricket that brought money in, and lots of teams did it. Those that didnt are also in bad positions. Those that were lucky and got a greater slice of the pie have possibly very similar models to those that have failed. Take Hampshire, who also ploughed money into a ground to get test cricket.... not sure I see the difference between what they have done and Lancs?
As a county supporter from a non test venue, its pretty galling to see what financial advantages it gives people. Hove gets good ticket sales for T20, but lowering club membership levels for the county championship. A city based franchise taking the only profitability away would no doubt lead to death.
I think sometimes criticisms of counties is a lot like criticising the agricultural techniques of farmers in the middle of a drought. There is no money to mismanage.
Again it's easy to paint a simple picture there, Sussex. Most of the huge losses were due to a protracted legal battle over the redevelopment of the ground, and then the costs associated with going out there and getting it done. It's equally easy to say that the profits since the ground redevelopment are down to international cricket, again that's very simplistic, the ground redevelopment was designed to make OT a venue to generate revenue 12 months a year rather than just for 5 days a year. Also, we've launched successful ventures such as bonds which have increased revenue into the ground and next year will have a 5 star hotel in a prime location.
We didn't plough money in just to get Test cricket, but to secure OT as a funding machine for Lancashire cricket, there in lies the really big difference long term. International cricket isn't a golden goose, if you get the top Test matches such as the Ashes then it certainly pays well and OT does do that, but equally look at Durham's luck with international cricket! I doubt Hove or a fair few other grounds would actually benefit from getting Test cricket.
Not that you can really compare a venue which has hosted Test cricket since the inception of the Ashes to a County that has never done it.