Counties Will Oppose Changes (03 Nov 1995)

The cricket committee likely to accept financial rather than cricket arguments when discussing TCCB special report, writes Christopher Martin-Jenkins

AS THE England team in South Africa prepare for their attempt to win a Test series abroad for only the third time in 11 years, an important and highly relevant meeting is due to take place in London next Monday.

The promised autumn review of the county programme is being faithfully undertaken by the Test and County Cricket Board, and their cricket committee, who must dictate the possible changes from 1997, have their third and last get-together before making recommendations to the executive committee and the main Board in December.

Even before the outcry which followed England`s generally abysmal performances in Australia last winter - the fourth Ashes defeat in succession - the Board were committed to a review three years after the introduction of an all four-day County Championship in 1993.

It is their last major responsibility before the administration transforms into the English Cricket Board on Jan 1 but, from talking to several leading figures before I left for South Africa, it has become clear that there will be no significant changes, possibly none at all, to the structure of the professional game, at least until the current batch of contracts with the sponsors of county and international cricket have been concluded.

Exactly as predicted, when the Board reached new agreements with all their sponsors and linked their vastly increased deals to significantly extended television coverage, the commercial tail is continuing to wag the cricketing body of English cricket.

Everybody protests that cricket is his major concern, not the money

There is, in the words of David Acfield, chairman of the cricket committee, and Essex, "a lot of thought and hard work" going into the debate, but it is all coming to the same conclusion, namely that no-one is prepared to risk any diminution of the extraordinarily successful commercial position which the Board`s marketing arm has created.

Everybody protests that cricket is his major concern, not the money. It does not matter whether you talk to the full-time administrators like Alan Smith (chief executive), Tim Lamb (cricket), or Terry Blake (marketing); or to the Board`s business is conducted, like Acfield (cricket) or Brian Downing (marketing): they all convince themselves that they are acting in cricket`s best interests. No-one is prepared to admit the extent to which the debate is obsessed by finance.

Acfield comes close to it. The former Essex off-spinner, who has succeeded the still very influential Doug Insole as chairman of the county, expresses his personal belief, one shared by almost all objective viewers of the current structure, that there is one limited-overs competition too many. Smith has the same personal view; so does Downing.

When it comes to a collective decision, however, not one of them is prepared to rock the boat. Acfield admits that even the absurd sandwiching of a Sunday league match between the third and fourth days of a championship game is unlikely to be altered. He is candid about the main reason. "There`s not much point in having a new English Cricket Board responsible for youth cricket if we kick one of its main sources of revenue into touch. It`s not the right moment to change."

How this near-revolution in the game`s financial position has been wrought is a story in itself

Perhaps it never will be. Revenue to `Cricket Ltd` over the next four years will amount to an estimated #120 million. This year alone, as a result of the television deal with Sky and the BBC in particular, but also the greatly increased money resulting from the Blake/Downing led renegotiation of the deals with Cornhill Insurance, Texaco, Britannic Assurance, NatWest Bank, Benson and Hedges and Axa Equity and Law, even the non-Test counties are receiving some #900,000 each from the central pool. In four years their share has increased four-fold.

The Test match grounds, who unsuccessfully bid earlier this year for a greater hold on, and tighter control of, the game`s income, have seen their money from the pool increase from #400,000 a year to more than a million in the same period.

The rest of the money is expected to go to the hitherto hardly used Cricket Foundation, the charitable body whose income may be #9 million this winter, money which will be augmented by government finance as part of the national plan for cricket.

Whatever one might feel about the balance of the cricket played by our professionals, all this is good news for youth cricket in the 38 counties who are in the process of forming their own county boards to receive and spend the money on development of the game in their own areas.

How this near-revolution in the game`s financial position has been wrought is a story in itself. How the money should and will be spent is another.

The issue which the cricket committee must address on Monday, however, is whether there should be any change to the structure of the professional game in the interests, primarily, of a stronger England side, perhaps sacrificing a small part of all this wealth for that purpose.

It is true, but only half an argument, that county cricket has a perfect right to exist as a satisfying form of entertainment, and a viable business, in its own right, because it is, in reality, so dependent on the income which is generated by Test and English cricket.

On the other hand the England team is formed of county cricketers. The two are genuinely inter-dependent and the balance, everyone admits, is not easy to strike. Acfield`s committee have discussed various plans for the revision of the national game. At least until 1999, however, radical change will not be attempted.

Acfield says: "I don`t think it is the structure which is to blame for England`s mediocrity. It is the pitches - which are getting much better and giving spinners more of a chance - and the standard of the coaching.

"It is only our Test cricketers who play too much cricket; not the county players. I would rather give the chairman of selectors power to withdraw players from county matches in special circumstances - if he wants to rest a fast bowler for example. But I know what Essex would say if Ray Illingworth withdrew Mark Ilott from a game we needed to win go top of the championship."

The message is clear. Win or lose in South Africa this winter, and unless fresh minds are introduced when the English Cricket Board becomes reality, county cricket will not change.

Source :: Electronic Telegraph