The 2022 Bentley Forbes Consulting rankings for financial stability of English county cricket clubs has now been completed. Since their inception in 2018 the rankings and the highly complex* financial algorithm** behind them has provided a definitive insight into the financial position of 17 of the 18 English first class cricket counties***.
The 2021 rankings are here and the first set of rankings, which includes a bit more detail on how on the calculations, here. In summary the 2022 accounts for each county**** are used to rank, profit, (based on an average of profitability for the last three years), and balance sheet strength. The overall balance sheet measure is a blend of three different measures: liabilities compared to assets that can easily be converted to cash, liabilities compared to total assets and liabilities falling due in the next five years compared to total assets. From the profit and balance sheet rankings I then come up with a blended ranking and a table - that looks like this!
| County | Profit | Assets | Ranking | Position |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Derbyshire | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| Notts | 3 | 5 | 4 | 2 |
| Northhants | 11 | 1 | 6 | 3 |
| Kent | 8 | 6 | 7 | 4 |
| Surrey | 1 | 13 | 7 | 4 |
| Somerset | 6 | 9 | 7.5 | 6 |
| Durham | 5 | 10 | 7.5 | 6 |
| Glamorgan | 9 | 7 | 8 | 8 |
| Lancashire | 2 | 14 | 8 | 8 |
| Essex | 15 | 3 | 9 | 10 |
| Sussex | 14 | 4 | 9 | 10 |
| Leicestershire | 10 | 11 | 10.5 | 12 |
| Warwickshire | 7 | 16 | 11.5 | 13 |
| Middlesex | 16 | 8 | 12 | 14 |
| Gloucestershire | 13 | 12 | 12.5 | 15 |
| Worcestershire | 12 | 15 | 13.5 | 16 |
| Yorkshire | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 |
A few general comments on the financial state of English county cricket.
2022 was a difficult year. In aggregate the seventeen counties made an adjusted net profit of over £5m. But much of that came from: long term financial behemoth, Surrey, Lancashire who seem to be joining them and Warwickshire who had a good year. At the other extreme 7 counties made losses of over £0.1m in 2022. Essex can hope that with the report into accusations of racism at the county complete better times are ahead but there are perhaps issues for: Leicestershire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire, Middlesex and Yorkshire.
What made 2022 a difficult year was that ECB payments to the counties were broadly speaking in line with 2021 but costs, in particular players' salaries, increased. Interestingly both Nottinghamshire and Kent reported below budget revenues from the T20 Blast. To make ends meet the counties either needed to reduce expenses or find additional sources of revenue. Some coped just fine, others didn't. Some brief, at times very brief, comments on each of the 17 counties below.
Derbyshire: A financial powerhouse, largely by keeping a lid on player salaries which were (just) under £1.5m for the year.
Nottinghamshire: Always close to the top of this table. It's impressive how the county has remained financially strong whilst developing Trent Bridge which remains a cricket ground rather than an all purpose stadium. It's been a while since the on field performance and development of England players matched the admirable financial record.
Northants: No longer a members' organisation but the revised structure with a group of members introducing capital seems to have brought financial stability.
Kent: Steady, but did make small loss in 2022.
Surrey: Recent expansion of the Oval and associated borrowing led to Surrey falling down the table in 2021. But they've made up a lot of ground in 2022 and the new Oval seems to be a cash machine. Surrey actually made a loss for the year after writing down the value of investment properties but I excluded that from my figures as being a one off.
Somerset: A good example of how a county can balance investment in its team, a 16% increase in cricket salaries to £2.6m, with financial stability, a profit just shy of £0.4m and net debt of £2m*****.
Durham: Much improved since the dark days of ECB bail outs. The ECB has leant Durham £1.75m repayable over 5 years (from 2024 I think) at zero interest and Durham council holds £2.5m in preference shares also at zero interest. This has given Durham some stability and the preference shares are steadily being paid down. Alongside that two of England's current players, Ben Stokes and Mark Wood are from Durham, whilst, Potts, Carse and Lees are all close to being in the England team. Add to that a squad with a preponderance of state school educated players and there is much to admire at the county.
Glamorgan: Another county helped out by the ECB, but with none of the sanctions applied to Durham. The results look reasonably solid, but some signs of strain under the surface. The county made a small loss in the period but that was after £0.7m of grant income from the Welsh government. Glamorgan's former chief executive, Hugh Morris, has always been an astute fund raiser and his successor will need to show the same skills to avoid the county slipping to the bottom of the prestigious Bentley Forbes Consulting rankings.
Lancashire: A complicated entity as much a hotel and conference business as a cricket club, but it seems to be working well for them, on a financial basis at least. Covered more fully in this post.
Essex: Made a loss of almost £0.4m, in part due to the costs of investigating allegations of widespread racism at the county and a 12% increase in total cricket costs to £3.9m. But the balance sheet remains strong and hopefully better times are ahead.
Sussex: Like Essex a weak profit and loss statement but a strong balance sheet. In fact I've been a bit harsh on the profit calculation as I've excluded gains on revaluing investment properties as being a one off item. Sussex are involved in a long term property project and taken on additional debt to fund it. This seems to be working as the value of the properties owned by Sussex exceeds the amount of debt. But the county is obviously dependent on property values in Hove holding up. Cricket costs have remained fairly constant over the past five years in contrast to the increase seen at most other counties, but that has fed into poor county championship performances.
Leicestershire: A roller coaster county. Another to enjoy a discrete ECB bail out, in this case in 2019, Leicestershire seemed to have turned a corner in 2021 with a £0.4m profit. But sadly 2022 saw a loss of £0.3m caused in part by a 15% increase in player's salary costs to £1.4m.
Warwickshire: My county and up from their long - term position at the bottom of the table. More detail here.
Middlesex: A slight improvement on last year's position. But still plenty to worry about. A post tax loss of £0.2m was an improvement on the 2021 loss of £1.0m. But the reduced 2022 loss is after £0.4m of other income from an insurance claim and a refund of pension contributions plus a curious tax credit of £0.2m relating to a research and development claim. Additionally the county sold, for £0.6m, an investment property included in fixed assets. That provides a benefit in the ratings which recognises cash on the balance sheet but not fixed assets, but it's a consequence of me having missed this item before (i.e. I should always have treated the property as an item that could, fairly readily, be turned into cash).
Gloucestershire: A worrying one. Generally Gloucestershire have been mid - table in the prestigious Bentley - Forbes rankings, making a small profit most years and with manageable debts. This year they suddenly recorded a loss of £570k in part due to a 28% increase in first team squad expenses. As an international (but not a Test) ground Gloucester have always carried a certain amount of debt and it's not a great mix.
Worcestershire: For members and supporters of Essex, Yorkshire and Middlesex there is the consolation that current financial difficulties are, to some extent, the result of past mis- management. An improvement seems very possible. For Worcestershire I'm not so sure. There are many admirable things about the county but for as long as I've been doing these rankings it's had quite a lot of debt. If times do get harder for all of the counties I fear Worcestershire might be one of the first to really feel the pinch. Having a ground that is often under water can't help.
Yorkshire: Not a surprise they are last in the rankings, if they'd been anywhere else than last it would have called the whole approach into doubt. I've already posted on Yorkshire here and here. If you don't want to plough through all of that I've a mental exercise.
Imagine a car, a car abandoned on the hard shoulder of the motorway with lorries screaming past it. It's an old car, a Volvo estate, a brown, old Volvo estate. Have you got that? Right, now imagine the car is on fire. That's Yorkshire.
* Not that complex
** Not an algorithm - don't really know what an algorithm is.
*** No Hampshire as not a members organisation. Nor are Durham and Northamptonshire but they are closer to being "counties" than Hampshire.
**** For Surrey and Gloucestershire accounts to 31 January 2023.
***** My measure of net debt excluding fixed assets, associated grant funding and non - cash liabilities included in deferred income.
Comments
Post a Comment