On Sunday, during the interval of Middlesex’s home Metro Bank One-Day Cup match against Somerset at Lord’s, the Club held an extra members’ forum, to bring members up to speed with the latest developments on external investment into the Hundred and what this could mean for Middlesex Cricket.
A briefing document had been provided to members in advance of the forum, which can be seen here, to ensure they were appraised of the latest information on the subject, and at Sunday’s forum, the Club’s Chair, Richard Sykes, and Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Cornish, firstly summarised this document, before inviting questions from the members in attendance.
The questions raised at the forum by members were as follows:
Q: With potential franchisees not having full control over the franchises, it's possible that bidders will provide lower than anticipated bids, or indeed not bid at all. In those circumstances, what is the ECBs Plan B?
A: It is the Club’s understanding that a minimum price would be set for bids by the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB), which would be finalised in due course ahead of the bidding process opening to potential investors.
Q: If the Tier 2 teams, namely those not allocated one of the Hundred franchises, chose to play a Hundred tournament in place of the currently well-supported One-Day Cup, what impact do you expect that will have on the membership numbers for those clubs, assuming fees will remain the same or increase, but the amount of cricket available will effectively be reduced?
A: No decisions had been made yet on the format of future seasons, so it is possible the 50-over competition could continue but be played at a different time of the season. The Chair suggested that a survey to members would be worthwhile, to gather the views of members on what their preferences would be over the future domestic structure.
Q: Why can’t the existing T20 competition be enhanced, rather than having the Hundred as an additional competition?
A: The Chair explained that the Hundred was here to stay and wasn’t going anywhere, so we now needed to focus on getting behind it and making the Hundred work for the good of the wider game.
Q: How might the expansion franchises be determined in 2029?
A: There are four criteria being discussed as to how to decide whether to award a new franchise – financial viability for the competition as a whole, continuation of “best v best” for both the Men’s and Women’s game, a stadium with facilities for 8000 spectators (either on a permanent or a temporary basis), and the ability to attract new audiences into the game and increase active participation into the sport.
Q: If Middlesex win a Hundred franchise, where would the team play?
A: The Club has looked at using Lord’s, however, acknowledges that there is a restriction on the volume of cricket wickets available, so this would be unlikely. The London Stadium had been considered, however the fact that the Hundred requires exclusive use of the stadium for the duration of the competition also makes this an unviable option. The Club is currently reviewing other options.
Q: Kent has Beckenham as a second ground. Why can’t Middlesex have a ground like that to use when Lord’s is unavailable?
A: We continue to look for solutions for a second ground. It’s feasible that some of the Hundred funding could be used for this purpose, along with other external funding, and this remains an important focus for the Club moving forwards.
Q. Why are members not able to vote on the sale of the Hundred?
A: The sale of the Hundred does not constitute a change to the format of the competition, and consequently the ECB are looking to gain agreement from the FCCs by means of consensus such that no formal vote will be required of the FCCs. Consequently, Middlesex will continue to inform members and seek views, by means of forums such as today, but will not be seeking a vote by members on the matter.
Q: If there any truth that the ECB are using the Hundred to mastermind the downfall of the longer red-ball form of the game?
A: None at all, if anything, the revenue that the sale of the Hundred will generate will help to safeguard the future of the county game, including the longer form.
Q: With the Hundred monopolising the month of August, there is very little red-ball cricket played in the summer months, which impacts on the development of English spinners. Is the schedule likely to change in 2025 to combat this?
A: The Chair confirmed that at this stage, the understanding was that the schedule for 2025 would remain the same as this year, however there were plans to review in 2025 ahead of the 2026 season. All counties remain committed to preserving as much red-ball cricket as possible.
The Chair summarised at the end of the forum, stressing the importance of the Club looking to secure its own ground for use when Lord’s is unavailable, and the importance of maintaining a strong relationship with MCC.
He explained that the Club understands that a big priority for members remains the schedule and the preservation of four-day cricket, and we will look at producing a survey to learn members views and opinions on this matter.
He concluded with the view that revenue generated from the sale of the Hundred would make a hugely positive impact on the financial position of every first-class county, many of which are straddled with heavy debt. In Middlesex’s case, whilst we remain debt free, we do not own our own ground and have limited revenue streams available to us as a result, so in our case the revenue from the sale of the Hundred will play a huge role in securing our financial stability moving forwards.
The Club will be in touch with further information on a members’ survey.
Our thanks go to all the members who attended the forum on Sunday and we remain committed to keeping our members up to date with any relevant information on this subject.
