What is English cricket arguing over?

After months - years, even - of discussions, the chairmen and chief executives of the 18 first-class counties and the MCC meet at Lord's on Wednesday to discuss the options for the future of the domestic T20 competition, with the ECB executive looking by "a consensus" by the time ends. Though five options were presented to the counties, two scenarios (Option 2 and Option 4) have emerged as the most likely.

Option 2 Two divisions of nine teams with three promoted and relegated each year. Broadcasters to focus on top division.

For

• Ensures all 18 counties remain involved.
• Ensures more geographic spread of competition.
• Retains successful 'appointment to view' formula.
• Retains integrity of County Championship.
• Promotion and relegation offers added context and drama.
• Builds on growth of current event, for which audiences have grown by 63% since 2012.
• Ensures domestic T20 cricket remains relevant in smaller cities and towns where it has proved most popular
• Allows broadcasters to focus on top division to ensure clearer narrative for viewers less familiar with the game.
• Played through the second two-thirds of the season, so minimises damage of poor spell of weather.
• Does not demand too much of spectators' time or money in short period.

Against

• Some counties feel that all 18 should have the opportunity to win every year.
• Not as popular among broadcasters so therefore offers to bring in less money. It has been valued at around £30m less attractive to broadcasters, though that number is disputed.
• Would continue difficulty of attracting overseas players for duration of tournament.
• Little availability of England players
• Could diminish opportunities for lucrative local derbies (though 'local derby day' one suggested amendment to plan).
• Works in other domestic sports such as football and rugby.
• Players and coaches state the standard improves if tournament played in a block.

Option 4 An eight-team city-based competition played in a July window plus a continuation of the existing 18-team competition played a little earlier in the season.

For

• The ECB executive (and their 'independent' broadcast analysts) suggest the city-based competition could bring in up to £40m in new revenue, although it is disputed whether all this money will be new or partially replacement
• All counties would still be able to host T20 cricket.
• All counties would benefit from increased revenues (at least in the short term).
• Window renders it easier to sign overseas players for duration of tournament.
• Enables the continuation of the popular Friday night (with slight geographic variances) cricket
• Might enable small counties to retain their best players as new competition would provide incentive to earn place in eight-team tournament.
• Matches broadcast every night of the week help build narrative and public interest.
• Condenses the best players into a small league.
• Rebranding may help improve image of English T20.

Against

• Threatens to compromise standard of domestic cricket - and in turn the production line for the England teams - by either withdrawing around 80-100 players from Championship cricket for a month or demanding a window when no other cricket is played during July.
• Playing in a window leaves the competition at the mercy of the weather and demands a great deal of at-ground spectators.
• England players hardly available until 2020 at earliest. If they are to be made available, England's international commitments will have to be cut meaning a reduction in broadcast revenue from that source.
• Threatens to marginalise the smaller counties and reduce the status and value of the existing competition to "the LDV Vans tournament" of English cricket.
• ECB calculations show that around 25% of the population live around the eight grounds that would be utilised. The comparison figure in Australia is 65%. Top-quality T20 cricket therefore less available to vast number of people.
• Might limit opportunities for young or largely unknown players and threatens to render many players less relevant and possibly unemployed.
• Threatens to cut the number of counties by stealth.
• Specifically conflicts with ECB constitution that states that all 18 teams must be involved in all competitions.
• Likely to prove unpopular with current county members.
• Little evidence to suggest that spectators in England and Wales warm to newly branded teams and city-branding likely to prove unpopular with football supporters (Aston Villa supporters may well baulk at idea of following Birmingham, for example).