Going through the financial statements of 17 of the 18 first class counties I wondered if it would be possible to get a clearer view of how money came to the counties and how it was spent. As a toe in the water I have had a look at Gloucester and Yorkshire. These counties were selected pretty much at random but also because their accounts are old style reports to the members which provide a lot of information. Many counties (especially the larger ones) just issue a glossy document which discloses the minimum required by law.
Although first class counties are small in business terms they are highly complex organisations performing a number of different, but frequently overlapping, roles. To try and get a handle on Yorkshire and Gloucester I split their income and expenditure into three pots. Firstly an ECB pot, this includes the grant from the ECB less the expenses of running a cricket operation and maintaining a ground (including interest and depreciation.) Secondly an international match pot, being income from internationals less associated costs. Finally an "other" pot including , membership fees, catering and other commercial income net of all costs not included in one of the other two pots.
For Gloucester the figures look like this
| ECB | International | Other | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Income | 2,115,000 | 571,000 | 2,340,000 | 2,686,000 | |
| Expenses | (2,799,000) | (388,000) | (1,737,000) | (3,187,000) | |
| (684,000) | 183,000 | 603,000 | 102,000 | ||
And for Yorkshire
| ECB | International | Other | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Income | 2,638,230 | 2,398,862 | 3,756,576 | 8,793,668 | |
| Expenses | (5,134,216) | (1,368,341) | (2,287,855) | (8,790,412) | |
| (2,495,986) | 1,030,521 | 1,468,721 | 3,256 | ||
Although these are two different types of county the split of income and expenses tells a similar story. Staging international matches makes a surplus, membership and other activities makes a bigger surplus but those combined surpluses are eaten up by the cost of running a team and a ground, even after ECB funding is taken into account. On these numbers the counties fund the ECB.
Now, it is possible to object to the allocation of income and expenses to particular pots. In particular it is almost definitely inaccurate to include all cricket playing costs and ground costs as part of running the non - international game. Some ground costs will be keeping the respective grounds up to the standard and capacity required for international matches. But this doesn't detract from the basic conclusion that the counties contribute to the costs that would otherwise have to be incurred by the ECB.
It might be that if the the counties were replaced by an ECB responsible for all first class and List A cricket it would be possible to reduce the amount spent on players and grounds by focusing resources. But very difficult to quantify and if we start to get rid of counties we lose the ancillary sources of revenue they provide (Gloucester for instance sells gym memberships - no sign of a gym at Headingley mind). Also the ECB has quite a capacity for Spending Money.
My point is not that I'm providing a perfect picture of county finances but that people sometimes talk about the ECB "supporting the counties" or "bailing them out" without providing any analysis of what they mean. When you look at the numbers it's clear the situation is a good deal more complicated than that and there is, at least, an indication it would be more expensive to run cricket in the UK if the counties weren't independent entities.
Comments
Post a Comment