I have only seen two days cricket at Cardiff. One before the ground was modernised and the other the Anderson / Panesar / Rorke's drift ashes game, but not the final day, sadly.
I don't really follow the county but from what I can see this is the history of the redevelopment and why it is causing such controversy in 2018.
In 2007 Glamorgan began work on a £9.5m redevelopment of its Cardiff ground, financing coming from Allied Irish Bank ("AIB") and Cardiff Council ("CC"). The sad fact was Glamorgan, like other counties who redeveloped at the same time, couldn't generate enough cash to pay the financing costs on debt incurred. Glamorgan's plight was particularly desperate, in part due to bad luck and weather and, perhaps, because there is limited enthusiasm for cricket in Wales.
By 2015 Glamorgan CC was in a desperate state, the £9.5m million borrowed had swollen to £16m and there was little prospect of it ever being paid off. Eventually AIB, CC and former Glamorgan chairman, Paul Russell, all agreed to write off 70% of the amounts due to them, from Glamorgan.
Whilst all this was going on the real concerns of Glamorgan County Cricket Club: fostering the sport, developing young players and putting out a good team, suffered. The club is generally in the bottom half of division 2 of the county championship, Simon Jones was their last England test representative and membership is falling.
Whilst all this was going on the real concerns of Glamorgan County Cricket Club: fostering the sport, developing young players and putting out a good team, suffered. The club is generally in the bottom half of division 2 of the county championship, Simon Jones was their last England test representative and membership is falling.
But financially at least things are, finally, picking up. Glamorgan's 2017 financial statements disclosed the county had booked a profit of £2.5m from a payment by the ECB for not staging test matches in the period 2020 - 2024.
Not surprisingly once news of this payment got out it caused dissatisfaction amongst other counties and independent ECB directors. There were two criticisms:
Firstly the payments were unfair, the non - staging payments only go to test grounds. But there are (including Middlesex) 11 first class counties who don't have a test ground. Why shouldn't those counties also receive the £0.5m per annum non - staging payment (gift?)?
Secondly it was maintained the payments had not been authorised or even disclosed to the ECB board. The corporate governance issues are heightened as one of the counties in line to receive a non - staging payment is Yorkshire, which owes the family trust of ECB chairman Colin Graves a lot of money The lack of disclosure was too much for Andy Nash, former chairman of Somerset CC, who resigned from the ECB board.
Not surprisingly once news of this payment got out it caused dissatisfaction amongst other counties and independent ECB directors. There were two criticisms:
Firstly the payments were unfair, the non - staging payments only go to test grounds. But there are (including Middlesex) 11 first class counties who don't have a test ground. Why shouldn't those counties also receive the £0.5m per annum non - staging payment (gift?)?
Secondly it was maintained the payments had not been authorised or even disclosed to the ECB board. The corporate governance issues are heightened as one of the counties in line to receive a non - staging payment is Yorkshire, which owes the family trust of ECB chairman Colin Graves a lot of money The lack of disclosure was too much for Andy Nash, former chairman of Somerset CC, who resigned from the ECB board.
There was a meeting of county chairmen on the 27th March where ECB chairman Colin Graves was described as being unscathed. Graves's defence was the ECB board had agreed the 2016 bail out of Durham was a "template" for an approach to other counties with similar financial problems. Additionally: "The ECB have previously intimated that compensation payments to other Test-hosting clubs for years when they do not host such games will only be confirmed once the board has agreed the policy."
Grave's defence is best described as curious. The argument Durham created a precedent for the Glamorgan non - staging payment has no basis. Durham only received £1.35m and although the county agreed not to stage test matches this came with a smorgasbord of other penalties: a reduced salary cap, relegation from division 1 of the county championship and points deductions in the following season. None of this applied to Glamorgan. Furthermore Glamorgan was not in a similar financial situation to Durham. Glamorgan had gone through its Durham moment in 2015 when its creditors agreed to 70% write offs. Glamorgan wasn't out of the woods, in 2016 - 2017 it still came an anaemic 13 out of 17 in the prestigious Bentley Forbes Consulting Financial Rankings but most of its debt repayments weren't due until 2026. A run of bad years might have required a second bailout before 2026 and 2026 would have been a crunch year but the write offs in 2015 meant Glamorgan had a chance of pulling through.
Similarly the argument the non - staging payments would be brought to the ECB board for agreement is undermined by Glamorgan's accounts. Glamorgan have accounted for the full £2.5m non - staging payments as income (see page 8 of the accounts).This would only be appropriate if they were assured the payment would be made. And although the years covered by the payments are 2020 - 2024 it seems Glamorgan have already received some of the cash. It's only I guess but I would estimate £1m to £1.5m has been paid out by the ECB, and it is not clear the board of the ECB approved the payment. It may have been the case the advance to Glamorgan was to enable them to pay down the AIB debt (in 2017 held by another company called Clipper). By repaying this debt in 2017 rather than 2026, as scheduled, Glamorgan were able to eliminate £2.2m of debt with a payment of £1.2m and book an additional £1m of profit.
This gives rise to a raft of additional, secondary corporate government issues. If the non - staging payments are for 2020 - 2024 why is the ECB advancing money in 2017? It's not unreasonable for the ECB to assist Glamorgan discharge debt on advantageous terms but why isn't the County paying a fee to ensure cricket as a whole is getting some of the benefit? Also, commenting on the Durham bail out ECB chief executive Tom Harrison said: “It’s not the ECB’s job to be a lender.” But the ECB has lent Glamorgan £1.7m, £0.5m of which is interest free.
Grave's defence is best described as curious. The argument Durham created a precedent for the Glamorgan non - staging payment has no basis. Durham only received £1.35m and although the county agreed not to stage test matches this came with a smorgasbord of other penalties: a reduced salary cap, relegation from division 1 of the county championship and points deductions in the following season. None of this applied to Glamorgan. Furthermore Glamorgan was not in a similar financial situation to Durham. Glamorgan had gone through its Durham moment in 2015 when its creditors agreed to 70% write offs. Glamorgan wasn't out of the woods, in 2016 - 2017 it still came an anaemic 13 out of 17 in the prestigious Bentley Forbes Consulting Financial Rankings but most of its debt repayments weren't due until 2026. A run of bad years might have required a second bailout before 2026 and 2026 would have been a crunch year but the write offs in 2015 meant Glamorgan had a chance of pulling through.
Similarly the argument the non - staging payments would be brought to the ECB board for agreement is undermined by Glamorgan's accounts. Glamorgan have accounted for the full £2.5m non - staging payments as income (see page 8 of the accounts).This would only be appropriate if they were assured the payment would be made. And although the years covered by the payments are 2020 - 2024 it seems Glamorgan have already received some of the cash. It's only I guess but I would estimate £1m to £1.5m has been paid out by the ECB, and it is not clear the board of the ECB approved the payment. It may have been the case the advance to Glamorgan was to enable them to pay down the AIB debt (in 2017 held by another company called Clipper). By repaying this debt in 2017 rather than 2026, as scheduled, Glamorgan were able to eliminate £2.2m of debt with a payment of £1.2m and book an additional £1m of profit.
This gives rise to a raft of additional, secondary corporate government issues. If the non - staging payments are for 2020 - 2024 why is the ECB advancing money in 2017? It's not unreasonable for the ECB to assist Glamorgan discharge debt on advantageous terms but why isn't the County paying a fee to ensure cricket as a whole is getting some of the benefit? Also, commenting on the Durham bail out ECB chief executive Tom Harrison said: “It’s not the ECB’s job to be a lender.” But the ECB has lent Glamorgan £1.7m, £0.5m of which is interest free.
Unsurprisingly not everybody accepts the matter is closed, a second ECB director, Richard Thomson, chairman of Surrey has now resigned. Sussex, Essex and Kent are also reported as having "reservations" and the ECB, having tried to ignore the issues raised has agreed to a Review of the payments to Glamorgan. But even if the corporate government questions are answered satisfactorily(and they clearly haven't been so far) there is still the issue of why payments are going to some counties and not others.
Finally
Finally
Hugh Morris, former ECB employee, became Chief Executive of Glamorgan in 2014 and has played a stormer, first restructuring the club's crippling debts. Then persuading the ECB to pay the mysterious non - staging payments two years early, and discharging another slug of debt on advantageous terms. And rather like other cricketing controversies of late there is some fun to be had as the ECB spins itself dizzy. The non - test playing counties may have lost out but they only have themselves to blame by appointing Graves in the first place.
But the citizens of Cardiff are real victims. The council lost £4.4m in the 2015 write downs and now the ECB has turned up with another £2.5m of spare cash to gift to Glamorgan. Wouldn't it have more appropriate if the ECB had provided that money in 2015 to reduce the cost to the council, a cost that can only be borne by reductions in other services? Cricket for all the pervasive doom and gloom over its future is a well financed game in the UK and should have done better.
But the citizens of Cardiff are real victims. The council lost £4.4m in the 2015 write downs and now the ECB has turned up with another £2.5m of spare cash to gift to Glamorgan. Wouldn't it have more appropriate if the ECB had provided that money in 2015 to reduce the cost to the council, a cost that can only be borne by reductions in other services? Cricket for all the pervasive doom and gloom over its future is a well financed game in the UK and should have done better.
Comments
Post a Comment