Skip to main content

Reigndei

One of the curios of the ECB accounts is payments made to a company called Reigndei.

According to the accounts for the year to 31 January 2017 Reigndei is "An insurance company beneficially owned by the 18 first class counties, MCC and MCCA."  Presumably the ECB's payments are to insure against bad weather at international matches.  

Reigndei is a very profitable entity.  In the period 2005 - 2017 premiums paid to Reigndei by the ECB were £6.3m greater than the claims paid to the ECB by Reigndei.  Reigndei also earns interest on premiums received and the true profitability would be somewhat higher.  As an international insurance company I don't think Reigndei would pay tax in Guernsey and there is no indication in the ECB accounts of any controlled foreign company tax charge in respect of Reigndei.

What is not clear is what Reigndei does with the money it accumulates.  The company is resident in Guernsey and as a consequnce  there is no proper access to its financial statements.  It is not even clear who the directors of Reigndei are or what dividends, if any, it pays to its beneficial owners.

The 2015 ECB accounts disclosed that Brian Havill, a director of the ECB, was also a director of Reigndei.   Mr Havill resigned from the board of the ECB in November 2015 although his Linkedin profile still shows him as Finance Director of the ECB.  

This is presumably a LinkedIn snafu as the ECB's 2016 accounts record Scott Smith as company secretary and in press releases Mr Smith is described as ECB Chief Financial Officer although he is not a director of the ECB.  This would seem to preclude My Havill still being Finance Director [Then again the ECB has a chairman and a president so why not a CFO and a finance director?]  

In any event it is unclear who, if anyone, has replaced Mr Havill on the Reigndei board and the company remains an enigma.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

County Championship Salary Cap

This is post about salaries in county cricket. The first class counties are subject to a cap and a collar on amounts paid in wages to cricketers.  They must pay above a collar, currently £0.75m, and below a cap, currently £2m. There is an agreement for both the collar and the cap to increase over the next funding round to 2024. In 2024 the collar will be £1.5m and the cap £2.5m What is less clear is what payments count towards the cap and collar.  I assume employers' national insurance (a 13% tax on wages) isn't included.  Similarly I assume payments to coaching staff don't count towards the cap as if they did, Somerset, Lancashire and Yorkshire would all be over the current £2m cap.  I've gone through the accounts of the first class counties to see what, if any, disclosure, they include on players' wages.  What gets disclosed varies enormously, quite a lot for some counties, nothing for others.  Additionally there is a possibility the information include

Mo Bobat and County Cricket

Cricinfo has this  interview with ECB "Performance Director" Mo Bobat.  Bobat makes an interesting claim about county cricket, "Take something like county batting average. We know that a county batting average does not significantly predict an international batting average, so a lot of the conventional things that are looked at as being indicators of success - they don't really stand true in a predictive sense."  And later in the article there is a graph, showing county averages plotted against test averages for 13 English test batsmen.  This is reproduced below. better than random? raw data suggests no meaningful link between championship and test averages 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Test County Championship Sam Curran England players' batting averages

English County Cricket Finance: 2018 Bentley Forbes Rankings

I have gone through the most recent financial statements for the English first class counties,  made an estimate of the financial strength of each and given them a Bentley Forbes Consulting ( TM ) financial sustainability ranking.  The overall table looks like this. County      Profit Assets Ranking Position Essex   4   4   4   1 Surrey   1   7   4   1 Nottinghamshire   5   5   5   3 Somerset   2   8   5   3 Derbyshire   8   3   5   5 Leicestshire    6   6  6   6 Sussex  15   1  8   7 Middlesex  14   2  8   7 Kent     9   9  9   9 Worcestshire    3  15  9 10 Gloucestshire   7  12  9.5 11 Northamptonshire   11  13  12 12 Glamorgan   16  10  13 13 Durham     12  14  13 13 Yorkshire    10  17  13 15 Warwickshire   17  11  14 16 Lancashire   13  16  14 17        The approach is to rank the counties for profitability and balance sheet strength and combine the two measures in a sustainability ranking. The balance sheet strength is itself a combination of thre