https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/six-team-county-championship-division-one-and-blast-reduction-among-recommendations-of-high-performance-review-1335971

Fifteen of the 17 recommendations can be voted on by the ECB board and implemented without recourse to the counties. The remaining two, however, relating to the T20 Blast and the restructuring of the County Championship, will require a two-thirds majority in a ballot of the 18 counties, and will almost certainly be met with opposition from members who face a reduction in first-class fixtures, and executives who rely on revenues from home Blast matches in particular.

The proposal as it stands is for a six-team first division, and a 12-team second division, split into two conferences, the winners of which will face each other in an end-of-season promotion play-off. The first-class season would begin in May, with matches to be held in June, July and September, either side of a window for the Hundred in August.

Read more at https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/six-team-county-championship-division-one-and-blast-reduction-among-recommendations-of-high-performance-review-1335971

RH

On Monday, 26 September 2022 at 11:57:05 UTC+1, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/six-team-county-championship-division-one-and-blast-reduction-among-recommendations-of-high-performance-review-1335971
>
> Fifteen of the 17 recommendations can be voted on by the ECB board and implemented without recourse to the counties. The remaining two, however, relating to the T20 Blast and the restructuring of the County Championship, will require a two-thirds majority in a ballot of the 18 counties, and will almost certainly be met with opposition from members who face a reduction in first-class fixtures, and executives who rely on revenues from home Blast matches in particular.
>
> The proposal as it stands is for a six-team first division, and a 12-team second division, split into two conferences, the winners of which will face each other in an end-of-season promotion play-off.

So one team out of 12 would be promoted. I don't think the counties likely to be among those 12 will like the look of those odds.

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:50:12 PM UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On Monday, 26 September 2022 at 11:57:05 UTC+1, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/six-team-county-championship-division-one-and-blast-reduction-among-recommendations-of-high-performance-review-1335971
> >
> > Fifteen of the 17 recommendations can be voted on by the ECB board and implemented without recourse to the counties. The remaining two, however, relating to the T20 Blast and the restructuring of the County Championship, will require a two-thirds majority in a ballot of the 18 counties, and will almost certainly be met with opposition from members who face a reduction in first-class fixtures, and executives who rely on revenues from home Blast matches in particular.
> >
> > The proposal as it stands is for a six-team first division, and a 12-team second division, split into two conferences, the winners of which will face each other in an end-of-season promotion play-off.
> So one team out of 12 would be promoted. I don't think the counties likely to be among those 12 will like the look of those odds.

If there all in divs of 6 teams thats just 10 FC games in the CC per county, and it makes the top tier look
almost like a self perpetuating elite, if theres only 1 promotion per year. Years will go by without
much change. Doesnt seem a dynamic future. Surely by having 3 divs you just increase the amount
of poorer teams stuck in the doldrums.

mike

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 09:08:46 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:50:12 PM UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>> On Monday, 26 September 2022 at 11:57:05 UTC+1, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/six-team-county-championship-division-one-and-blast-reduction-among-recommendations-of-high-performance-review-1335971
>> >
>> > Fifteen of the 17 recommendations can be voted on by the ECB board and implemented without recourse to the counties. The remaining two, however, relating to the T20 Blast and the restructuring of the County Championship, will require a two-thirds majority in a ballot of the 18 counties, and will almost certainly be met with opposition from members who face a reduction in first-class fixtures, and executives who rely on revenues from home Blast matches in particular.
>> >
>> > The proposal as it stands is for a six-team first division, and a 12-team second division, split into two conferences, the winners of which will face each other in an end-of-season promotion play-off.
>> So one team out of 12 would be promoted. I don't think the counties likely to be among those 12 will like the look of those odds.
>
>If there all in divs of 6 teams thats just 10 FC games in the CC per county, and it makes the top tier look
>almost like a self perpetuating elite, if theres only 1 promotion per year. Years will go by without
>much change. Doesnt seem a dynamic future. Surely by having 3 divs you just increase the amount
>of poorer teams stuck in the doldrums.

The HPR is the answer to the question "How would you structure English
cricket to produce the best possible England teams?"

It is not a very good answer to the question "How would you structure
English cricket to produce a dynamic county game and hope that it does
enough to allow you to pick England teams which can win things?"

We are unlikely to be able to maintain a consistently successful
high-quality Test team with the present structure, as is painfully
obvious. If you don't care about that as an objective, then you won't
want any change. If it's all you care about, then you'll support the
Strauss recommendations.

The real question posed by this review is how far we are prepared to
dilute the search for the best possible Test team if the counties
won't go along with it.

Cheers,

Mike

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 2:45:53 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> We are unlikely to be able to maintain a consistently successful
> high-quality Test team with the present structure, as is painfully
> obvious.

Been saying that for decades...

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 11:49:35 PM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 2:45:53 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > We are unlikely to be able to maintain a consistently successful
> > high-quality Test team with the present structure, as is painfully
> > obvious.
> Been saying that for decades...

The time when the Championship was a single division and had a two year qualifying period for those wishing to play for a county not of their birth (which meant few foreigners in CC) was the period of England's greatest overall success - 1950 to 1970 .
Next!
RH

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 5:45:53 PM UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 09:08:46 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:50:12 PM UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> >> On Monday, 26 September 2022 at 11:57:05 UTC+1, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/six-team-county-championship-division-one-and-blast-reduction-among-recommendations-of-high-performance-review-1335971
> >> >
> >> > Fifteen of the 17 recommendations can be voted on by the ECB board and implemented without recourse to the counties. The remaining two, however, relating to the T20 Blast and the restructuring of the County Championship, will require a two-thirds majority in a ballot of the 18 counties, and will almost certainly be met with opposition from members who face a reduction in first-class fixtures, and executives who rely on revenues from home Blast matches in particular.
> >> >
> >> > The proposal as it stands is for a six-team first division, and a 12-team second division, split into two conferences, the winners of which will face each other in an end-of-season promotion play-off.
> >> So one team out of 12 would be promoted. I don't think the counties likely to be among those 12 will like the look of those odds.
> >
> >If there all in divs of 6 teams thats just 10 FC games in the CC per county, and it makes the top tier look
> >almost like a self perpetuating elite, if theres only 1 promotion per year. Years will go by without
> >much change. Doesnt seem a dynamic future. Surely by having 3 divs you just increase the amount
> >of poorer teams stuck in the doldrums.
> The HPR is the answer to the question "How would you structure English
> cricket to produce the best possible England teams?"
>
> It is not a very good answer to the question "How would you structure
> English cricket to produce a dynamic county game and hope that it does
> enough to allow you to pick England teams which can win things?"
>
> We are unlikely to be able to maintain a consistently successful
> high-quality Test team with the present structure, as is painfully
> obvious.

There are a number of assumptions here that need to be questioned.

1. Is the perf of the england team the only thing that we care about or
matters in the national game? Perhaps it is for some, but there are 000s
of teams in the country, from Schools & small clubs and villages upto
county level. Without these there would be no FC cricket and no england
team.

2. Are all the woes of the england side the fault of the CC game and/or
CC structure? Many of their recent disasters overseas seem down to
captaincy and management decisions and individual errors. When
they make the wrong selection of players or decision at the toss or drop
catches that lead to defeats thats hardly the fault of the CC.

>If you don't care about that as an objective, then you won't
> want any change. If it's all you care about, then you'll support the
> Strauss recommendations.

I suspect that if the ECB follow this line, that is, if you oppose the
proposed changes, you dont care about the national team, this
will only anger people more and increase the opposition. Most
people care about both, but if you downgrade most of the CC
to minor counties, this will be harmful to the national game.

>
> The real question posed by this review is how far we are prepared to
> dilute the search for the best possible Test team if the counties
> won't go along with it.

Well that may turn out to be the case but many would ask a different
question: are these changes to the CC the only way to achieve this?
I'm not sure how much your remarks are tic, because by introducing
the 100, the ECB has completly disrupted the season with a artificial
tournament which has nothing to do with these stated objectives.

In general, institutional reform [if the counties and the CC can be termed
institutions for this] always seems imposed from on high, rarely in
response to what people actually want. Instead of concentrating more
power in fewer teams and having them play each other twice a season,
why not invest in the poorer weaker teams to make them better and so
provide a more competitive FC championship?

The ECB pumped 200 million into the 100 that would have better spent on
existing competitions and teams. Meanwhile accommodating the 100 has
had a negative impact on the county schedule and existing competitions,
like the RLC, now downgraded to almost a 2nd XI tourny when it used to
be the showcase and season finale.

mike

On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 04:04:27 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 5:45:53 PM UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:

>>If you don't care about that as an objective, then you won't
>> want any change. If it's all you care about, then you'll support the
>> Strauss recommendations.
>
>I suspect that if the ECB follow this line, that is, if you oppose the
>proposed changes, you dont care about the national team, this
>will only anger people more and increase the opposition. Most
>people care about both, but if you downgrade most of the CC
>to minor counties, this will be harmful to the national game.

I failed to make my point properly, sorry. I was positing the two
extreme positions: I've known people who really couldn't give a stuff
about the England team as long as they get to watch a lot of
Gloucestershire, and I know people who couldn't care at all about
county cricket.

If the only thing that concerns you is county cricket, you don't want
any change. If the only thing you want is strong England teams, then
you do what Strauss recommends without alteration.

Most people, I suspect, are somewhere between those poles. I know I
am. I lean towards the strong England teams model more than the no
change version.

I like the general shape of the season as proposed by the HPR, given
that the 100 is set in stone until 2027. But I share a lot of the
doubts other people including yourself have expressed about how
sustainable it is.

Cheers,

Mike

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 12:04:28 PM UTC+1, mike wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 5:45:53 PM UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 09:08:46 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> > >On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:50:12 PM UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm..fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> > >> On Monday, 26 September 2022 at 11:57:05 UTC+1, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> > https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/six-team-county-championship-division-one-and-blast-reduction-among-recommendations-of-high-performance-review-1335971
> > >> >
> > >> > Fifteen of the 17 recommendations can be voted on by the ECB board and implemented without recourse to the counties. The remaining two, however, relating to the T20 Blast and the restructuring of the County Championship, will require a two-thirds majority in a ballot of the 18 counties, and will almost certainly be met with opposition from members who face a reduction in first-class fixtures, and executives who rely on revenues from home Blast matches in particular.
> > >> >
> > >> > The proposal as it stands is for a six-team first division, and a 12-team second division, split into two conferences, the winners of which will face each other in an end-of-season promotion play-off.
> > >> So one team out of 12 would be promoted. I don't think the counties likely to be among those 12 will like the look of those odds.
> > >
> > >If there all in divs of 6 teams thats just 10 FC games in the CC per county, and it makes the top tier look
> > >almost like a self perpetuating elite, if theres only 1 promotion per year. Years will go by without
> > >much change. Doesnt seem a dynamic future. Surely by having 3 divs you just increase the amount
> > >of poorer teams stuck in the doldrums.
> > The HPR is the answer to the question "How would you structure English
> > cricket to produce the best possible England teams?"
> >
> > It is not a very good answer to the question "How would you structure
> > English cricket to produce a dynamic county game and hope that it does
> > enough to allow you to pick England teams which can win things?"
> >
> > We are unlikely to be able to maintain a consistently successful
> > high-quality Test team with the present structure, as is painfully
> > obvious.
> There are a number of assumptions here that need to be questioned.
>
> 1. Is the perf of the england team the only thing that we care about or
> matters in the national game? Perhaps it is for some, but there are 000s
> of teams in the country, from Schools & small clubs and villages upto
> county level. Without these there would be no FC cricket and no england
> team.
>
> 2. Are all the woes of the england side the fault of the CC game and/or
> CC structure? Many of their recent disasters overseas seem down to
> captaincy and management decisions and individual errors. When
> they make the wrong selection of players or decision at the toss or drop
> catches that lead to defeats thats hardly the fault of the CC.
> >If you don't care about that as an objective, then you won't
> > want any change. If it's all you care about, then you'll support the
> > Strauss recommendations.
> I suspect that if the ECB follow this line, that is, if you oppose the
> proposed changes, you dont care about the national team, this
> will only anger people more and increase the opposition. Most
> people care about both, but if you downgrade most of the CC
> to minor counties, this will be harmful to the national game.
> >
> > The real question posed by this review is how far we are prepared to
> > dilute the search for the best possible Test team if the counties
> > won't go along with it.
> Well that may turn out to be the case but many would ask a different
> question: are these changes to the CC the only way to achieve this?
> I'm not sure how much your remarks are tic, because by introducing
> the 100, the ECB has completly disrupted the season with a artificial
> tournament which has nothing to do with these stated objectives.
>
> In general, institutional reform [if the counties and the CC can be termed
> institutions for this] always seems imposed from on high, rarely in
> response to what people actually want. Instead of concentrating more
> power in fewer teams and having them play each other twice a season,
> why not invest in the poorer weaker teams to make them better and so
> provide a more competitive FC championship?
>
> The ECB pumped 200 million into the 100 that would have better spent on
> existing competitions and teams. Meanwhile accommodating the 100 has
> had a negative impact on the county schedule and existing competitions,
> like the RLC, now downgraded to almost a 2nd XI tourny when it used to
> be the showcase and season finale.
>
> mike

It would be very interesting to see what those in senior position within the ECB take home remuneration in terms of salary, bonus and shares (in the Hundred) . I

Here are a few pointers:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-7036389/ECB-chief-Tom-Harrison-enjoys-114-000-PAY-RISE-role-Hundred.html

ECB chief executive Tom Harrison received a six-figure pay rise as a reward for pushing through the game's new 100-ball competition.

The ECB's accounts for 2018-19 show that the governing body remunerated Harrison, its highest paid director, a total of £719,175 - up £114,301 from the previous year.

The 19 per cent increase coincided with the 18 first-class counties being persuaded to accept The Hundred competition as the centre piece of a new five-year plan for the sport.

Senior ECB executives to share £2.1m bonus despite Covid job cuts
This article is more than 1 year old
CEO Harrison and Hundred MD Patel among recipients
Body says it is a ‘retention tool for key senior leaders’
The ECB chief executive, Tom Harrison, was paid £512,000 last year despite taking a voluntary pay cut.
The ECB chief executive, Tom Harrison, was paid £512,000 last year despite taking a voluntary pay cut. Photograph: Getty Images
Exclusive by Ali Martin
@Cricket_Ali
Mon 23 Aug 2021 19.01 BST
Tom Harrison and a group of senior executives at the England and Wales Cricket Board are poised to share a projected £2.1m bonus pot despite making 62 job cuts last year in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The most recent ECB accounts show that a five-year Long-Term Incentive Plan is due to be settled in cash in 2022, with the Guardian having learned that Harrison, the board’s chief executive who was paid £512,000 last year despite a voluntary pay cut, and Sanjay Patel, managing director of the Hundred, are among its intended recipients.

The ECB has declined to confirm which executives are included and how many will share the final dividend, citing confidentiality surrounding employee contracts. One senior county official has claimed that “six or seven” individuals could benefit from a scheme that was set up in 2017 and initially forecast to be worth more than £3m.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/aug/23/senior-ecb-executives-to-share-21m-bonus-despite-covid-job-cuts.Senior ECB executives to share £2.1m bonus despite Covid job cuts
This article is more than 1 year old
CEO Harrison and Hundred MD Patel among recipients
Body says it is a ‘retention tool for key senior leaders’
The ECB chief executive, Tom Harrison, was paid £512,000 last year despite taking a voluntary pay cut.
Exclusive by Ali Martin
@Cricket_Ali
Mon 23 Aug 2021 19.01 BST
Tom Harrison and a group of senior executives at the England and Wales Cricket Board are poised to share a projected £2.1m bonus pot despite making 62 job cuts last year in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The most recent ECB accounts show that a five-year Long-Term Incentive Plan is due to be settled in cash in 2022, with the Guardian having learned that Harrison, the board’s chief executive who was paid £512,000 last year despite a voluntary pay cut, and Sanjay Patel, managing director of the Hundred, are among its intended recipients.

The ECB has declined to confirm which executives are included and how many will share the final dividend, citing confidentiality surrounding employee contracts. One senior county official has claimed that “six or seven” individuals could benefit from a scheme that was set up in 2017 and initially forecast to be worth more than £3m.

So there you have it soaring remuneration to people who back a scheme (including the Hundred) which will demolish CC as we have known it for 140 years. .
RH