Was it worth the millions?

Was all the effort worth it?

Were the years of jostling, the vast debts incurred and the public money diverted worth the effort?

Because, here we are, every bit of 20-years into an arms race that rendered almost half the competition (Hampshire, Durham, Yorkshire and Glamorgan) all but insolvent and we appear to be back where we started. With the six traditional venues hosting every Test in the most recent major match allocation.

It wouldn't be accurate to say all that money - and we are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds here - was wasted. If nothing else, the competition to host Test cricket forced clubs that had been complacent to improve their facilities and stop taking the spectator for granted. Remember the leaking roof at Edgbaston or the rotting seats at Old Trafford? Remember the days when a bit of rain in the North London morning would wash out play in the afternoon at Lord's?

They're gone and they're not missed. Improved facilities throughout England and Wales should provide a better experience for spectators and, in terms of the indoor schools and outdoor training areas, aid the development of future generations of players.

It would be wrong to see such matters purely through the prism of Test cricket, too. The fact is several grounds - notably Cardiff - were more keen to host white-ball cricket in the belief that the new T20 competition, in particular, offers the best opportunity for growth and revenue. The fact that they have a vastly improved facility - as do Bristol and Taunton - can only be an asset.

The competition remains, too. Hampshire haven't given up the hope of hosting further Tests and, should one of the traditional six stumble or fall, they will be there to pick up the pieces. Durham, Glamorgan et al. aren't saying 'never' either.

But whether all that money has been put to the best possible use is another question entirely. Might those millions instead have helped develop a cricket stadium with a roof? Or might the game in England and Wales have been stronger had much of that money been forsaken to ensure the game retained the oxygen of publicity that could have been provided by free to air broadcast coverage? Even millionaires suffocate without oxygen.

Remarkably, however, the latest allocation did something almost unprecedented: it left almost all the counties just about satisfied. Sure, one or two were more satisfied than others and the sense remains that Durham have been treated disproportionally harshly in recent times. But, by spreading the allocations and allowing the clubs to plan well in advance (they now have a fair degree of certainty which games they are hosting until the end of 2024), the ECB have handled a tricky situation adeptly.

It was noticeable however, that, in the ECB's press release announcing the allocations, it was mentioned that Colin Graves, the ECB chairman, "chose to be excused from the room" during the board meeting to verify the Host Venue panel's recommendations in recognition of his on-going relationship with Yorkshire.

Graves, it might be remembered, rescued Yorkshire from insolvency with loans in excess of £20m. And, bearing in mind the club's outstanding record of providing players for the England teams, it is an intervention for which cricket-lovers far beyond Yorkshire's boundaries should be grateful.

But that intervention left the club with vast debts to service. And while Graves has jumped through every hoop to satisfy legal requirements as regards his independence - he no longer benefits from those Trusts which are, instead, in the names of family members - the fact is those debts cannot be serviced unless Yorkshire are guaranteed a significant income from a strong allocation of major matches.

As a result, there might be a perception from some - a perception that Graves seems to understand in light of his decision to leave the room - that he remains somewhat partial regarding Yorkshire matters. It might be noted that the trustees of the Graves Family Trusts retain a veto over who can join, or be removed from, the Yorkshire board.

So his decision to leave the room raises a few questions.

Did Graves excuse himself from the room when the decision was made to take Test status from Durham? Because Yorkshire indirectly benefited from that decision as it effectively reduced the competition to host Test cricket in the north of England.

Did Graves excuse himself from the room when the decision was made to reject the ECB's own working party's recommendation to reorganise domestic T20 cricket on the basis of promotion and relegation? Because Yorkshire, with a disproportionate reliance upon the value of their local derby match against Lancashire, had more at stake than most as a result of that discussion.

And did he excuse himself from the room during all the meetings that decided the new T20 competition was to involve eight teams based at the largest eight venues? Because the decision to include Yorkshire - who have failed to exploit the growth of T20 as well as several domestic rivals - guarantees them an income and power that might, once again, reasonably be argued to help them meet their financial commitments.

Because if he didn't leave the rooms on those occasions, why did he this time? And if it was appropriate to leave this time, why wasn't it before? Just a week ago, Lord Patel of Bradford - an independent board member - told ESPNcricinfo he didn't know anything about such Trusts.

Few seriously believe that Graves' involvement in cricket is anything other than benevolent. He could have used his time and his money to far greater personal benefit elsewhere and it is telling that Rod Bransgrove, even in the midst of his personal disappointment at missing out on the right for his Hampshire ground to host an Ashes Test in 2023, remained steadfastly supportive of the integrity of Graves and the process by which the allocations were made.

But strong governance doesn't leave such matters to chance or to the conscience of individuals; it has systems in place to deal with such possibilities. And the uncomfortable suspicion could remain that, while so many decisions pertaining to the future of English cricket appear to benefit Yorkshire, the ECB has left themselves open to accusations of, if not conflicts of interest, at least the perception of possible conflicts of interest.