County cricket’s civil conflict is breaking out – LAWRENCE BOOTH reveals secret assembly of ‘have nots’ because the Hundred threatens 11 counties with looming ‘cliff edge’ of spiralling prices, their greatest gamers being pinched and ‘irrelevance or failure’

Fears of growing inequality in domestic cricket led to a secret meeting behind the ECB’s back earlier this month between counties concerned about being stranded on the wrong side of the Hundred divide.

Nine of the 11 clubs who don’t host a Hundred franchise convened at the County Ground in Northampton on April 9 – only for the board to get wind of the meeting and insist that any communication should take place through them, not in private.

Representatives from Derbyshire, Essex, Gloucestershire, Kent, Leicestershire, Middlesex, Northamptonshire, Somerset and Worcestershire were in attendance, with only Durham and Sussex missing.

The meeting was called because of increasing worries among the non-host counties about the sustainability of their business model amid spiralling costs and inflation, and a desire to present the ECB with a proposal about the way ahead. A document seen by Daily Mail Sport flagged up widespread concerns about ‘facing either irrelevance or failure’.

As a result of last year’s sale of the Hundred franchise, which generated over £500million of private investment, the non-host counties stand to pick up somewhere in the region of £25m each. And while the ECB insist that money should bankroll red-ball county cricket for a generation, and say that millions of pounds have already been handed out, that hasn’t eased two major concerns among the 11 clubs.

The first is what happens when the current broadcasting deal runs out in 2028, with fears that the foreign investors in the Hundred clubs – including four with links to the IPL – will demand a bigger slice of the pie in a bid to recoup investment.

Fears of growing inequality in domestic cricket led to a secret meeting earlier this month between counties concerned about being stranded on the wrong side of the Hundred divide

Nine of the 11 non-Hundred hosts met up at Northamptonshire’s County Ground on April 9

The second is the question of player migration. One county chairman, who wanted to remain anonymous, said the captain of his club had already received offers from host counties worth twice his present salary.

‘It doesn’t matter how good your county pathway is,’ he said. ‘Over time, the best players will move to the top eight. It will be them and us. It’s going to be very difficult to maintain a level playing field.’

One source who attended the meeting said: ‘The feeling was that all the clubs are heading to a cliff edge at various speeds. They will all fall over one after the other if something is not addressed in the short term. Inflation costs are skyrocketing and they can’t keep up. There is enough runway for the next two years, but who knows what happens after the next TV deal.’

A chief executive in the room complained that the promise of a Hundred windfall had, paradoxically, generated less certainty, since no one could say for sure what will happen when the broadcast rights next go under the hammer. Meanwhile, the reduction of the lucrative T20 Blast programme from 14 games per county to 12 – robbing each club of one home game a summer – has not helped.

When the nine counties who turned up at Northampton were asked whether they thought they would make a profit in the forthcoming financial year, only one raised their hand. That was Gloucestershire, who last September announced they were debt-free (debentures excluded) after drawing down £3.1m of their Hundred allocation. The club said the move has saved them £200,000 a year in interest payments.

Paying off ‘onerous debt’ is one of three strict criteria laid out by the ECB for unlocking funds. The other two are the establishment of formal reserves, and investment in infrastructure that either protects existing income streams or opens up new ones. The example of Sussex, who were placed in special measures earlier this year because of financial mismanagement, has made the ECB understandably determined that the Hundred money should not go to waste.

But the strictness has infuriated some clubs, with one chairman accusing them of ‘over-reaching’ and failing to treat the counties like ‘adults’. Middlesex, who are effectively MCC’s tenants at Lord’s, were blocked last year from building a new home at Uxbridge because it would have required private investment from an American firm. The ECB say this would have breached the County Partnership Agreement, leading to a reduction in funding. 

Throughout its long history – the County Championship began officially in 1890 – the domestic game has fretted over its finances, which is why the eye-watering numbers generated by the sale of the Hundred provoked relief and delight at the ECB.

Crisis club Sussex are a key example of why the ECB are keen to be strict over how the Hundred windfall is spent by counties

Middlesex, who are effectively MCC’s tenants at Lord’s, were blocked last year from building a new home at Uxbridge because it would have required investment from an American firm

The board’s position is that £25m ought to keep non-host clubs afloat for the foreseeable future, and allow them time to establish other revenue streams beyond the handful of days’ cricket each summer that generate meaningful income.

Yet there is no doubt that, assuming the Hundred proves a success, the host counties – who already benefit from hosting Test cricket – stand to earn more in the long term. And it is that fear that the ‘haves’ will pull further away from the ‘have nots’ that triggered the Northampton meeting.

If the ECB take the non-host counties’ existential concerns seriously, there may yet be scope for compromise. One possibility, long mooted, has been to alter the ECB constitution, which currently requires a two-thirds majority – or 12 of the 18 counties – to vote through any change. If that was reduced to 11 or 10, it would hand the non-hosts greater sway. Another option would be to allow the non-hosts to stage more T20 cricket, and mitigate the shortfall caused by the loss of a home fixture.

Whatever happens – and despite the once-in-a-generation fee generated by the Hundred auction – the wailing and gnashing of teeth is not over.