By Andy Frombolton
In 2019 the ECB launched its action plan for Transforming Women and Girls cricket “underpinned by [2 years of] robust research and consultation”. Central to professionalising elite women’s domestic cricket was a new [8 team] regional structure built on “collaborative cross-County working”. “Each region,” it was stated, “will have its own identity, allowing cricket fans in the region the opportunity to support their local women’s team.”
The plan reassuringly added: “It won’t signal the end of an individual County’s relevance” – although how the ECB had the confidence to make this statement is unclear since it subsequently starved county cricket of funds and deemed it so irrelevant in the exciting world of regional cricket and The Hundred that it wouldn’t even organise proper national T20 and 50 over competitions. Fortunately for the ECB the dedication and determination of a small cadre of dedicated individuals at those counties not hosting a region ensured that women’s county cricket didn’t wither away.
The 2019 Action Plan did caveat: “[This] it is not the destination. …[W]e will continue to evaluate the structure” … and … “potentially the number of regional teams”.
And so here we are, just 4 years later, with the ‘WOMEN’S PROFESSIONAL GAME STRUCTURE 2.0’ – and, guess what, those unloved Counties are back. Why? Because apparently a regional structure doesn’t provide “strong and clear ownership or accountability” nor “provide stability and a sense of belonging for the women’s teams and female players” (which is somewhat at odds with the numerous statements from many players in the past few days saying how upset they are about the break up of the current regional structure).
John Maynard Keynes said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” But what has changed? The ITT argues there are “some significant challenges inherent to the underpinning delivery structure” which are “now prohibitive to future growth”. Or, put another way, the ECB is saying that 2 years of [* refers to the ECB’s list*] desk research, consultation, primary research and engagement with primary stakeholders and subject matter experts culminated in a structure which within 4 years is apparently incapable of accommodating the very growth or fan loyalty that it sought to deliver?
Exactly when did this realisation come to the ECB isn’t clear but the ITT states that it is the result of 6 months of consultation, so let’s assume early 2023. Working back from a self-imposed deadline that all the changes would be in place for the 2025 season enforced an accelerated tender and selection process which started (formally) with a tender document at the end of January and the selection of winning bids less than 3 months later. That’s less than ten weeks for parties to decide whether to bid, develop proposals and make a pitch to the ECB.
As it us, the fans and supporters, who are ultimately paying for it, we should expect the rationale to be explained and for the selection process to be professionally-managed and transparent.
Recap. The Project Darwin Invitation-to-Tender (ITT)
It’s obviously imperative that what comes next is well-thought-out, robust and flexible enough to accommodate whatever happens not just in the next 4 years, but across the next decade. What was the envisaged structure?
- The ITT defined the criteria and timeline which would be used to select those counties to be granted Tier 1 status for the period 2025-2028.
- The ITT was also specific about the number of Tier 1 counties – eight – and stated that Tiers 1, 2 and 3 would be closed, i.e. no promotion or relegation, for at least the first 4 years. Beyond this period the ITT referenced the possibility of promotion and relegation, i.e. the elevation and demotion of (the same number of) teams between divisions, which is fundamentally distinct from ‘expansion’ (where the number of teams in a league or division grows).
- The ITT was very clear that achieving a geographically-even distribution of the 8 proposed Tier 1 counties would be paramount in any decision.
This would mean that if, for instance, Kent submitted the best proposal of all the bidders, there could be no prospect that any of the adjacent counties (Sussex, Middlesex or Essex) would also be awarded Tier 1 status even if theirs was objectively the 2nd best bid.
- When the ITT was issued, two key documents (the County Partnership Agreement 2025-2028) and the Venue Agreement weren’t even finalised. I stated at the time this pointed to a rushed and ill-conceived bid process – although it is only now becoming clear just how embryonic the ECB’s thinking was.
What’s just been announced?
Many people worried that the bid process might be a charade and that the end result would simply see the current regional hosts re-appointed.
Then came the first media leak – Durham had beaten Yorkshire (Northern Diamonds), Essex had beaten Middlesex (Sunrisers) and Somerset had beaten Gloucester (Western Storm).
It looked like the ECB had made some radical selections and that regional incumbency had not been any guarantee of success.
… But then came the official announcement and swiftly it became apparent that all was not quite as it seemed.
For the ECB had deviated significantly from the ITT against which the counties bid.
- Yes, there would initially be 8 Tier 1 counties.
- But two years later, 2 more anointed counties (Yorkshire and Glamorgan) would be added …
… regardless of their performances and results in 2024 and 2025.
And, in the interim these 2 counties would receive new additional funding to help them prepare.
- And the ECB’s intention is to add 2 more teams (selection criteria TBC) in 2029.
Together these changes represent significant and fundamental changes to the selection process and to the structure of the game as presented in the ITT.
The ECB’s explanation
The ECB’s justified these changes as follows: “The decision to select two additional Counties – Glamorgan and Yorkshire – as the ninth and tenth Tier 1 Clubs by 2027, and our stated aim to move to 12 teams in Tier 1 by 2029, is testament to the strength of the bids and the pace at which we all want to move to effect change.”
Professional and transparent?
In any commercial tender situation, the most basic expectation of any bidder is that key terms or conditions are fixed since these form the basis upon which a party will decide whether or not to bid and to make forecasts about likely investments and returns.
However, the ECB made numerous changes which constitute material revisions to the terms and conditions.
- Thought you were getting a 4 year (minimum) regional ‘monopoly’? Sorry! The ECB has decided to add 2 additional Tier 1 counties from 2027. Apologies if that totally undermines your business case or the rationale for bidding. (The Essex Chairman has admitted that expansion “wasn’t really talked about” until the winning bids were announced.)
- And since we didn’t mention the first expansion, bidders will have been similarly surprised by the goal of adding 2 more counties in 2029 (the timing and criteria for elevation both TBC). Sorry again!
- Does this mean you’ve abandoned the idea of promotion and relegation? Did we really propose that? We’ll get back to you.
- Just checking – winning bidders will receive £1.3m in the first year? And successful counties will be expected to contribute at least (an estimated) £400k a year towards the cost of hosting a Tier 1 team. No, we’ve decided to raise the funding to £1.5m. Surely a trifling £200k less contribution per annum wouldn’t have made that much difference to any county with tight finances?
- Apologies, that we didn’t mention the alternative option of being one of two further teams to be elevated in 2027 nor that in those intervening 2 years those 2 counties will be allocated extra money to prepare themselves for their promotion. So, whilst the original 8 will have spent at least £400k of their money during the first two years the next 2 counties will have been recipients of extra ECB funding. We can’t envisage how this might have changed any county’s bidding strategy – notwithstanding that this difference equates to some club’s entire annual profit last year.
- Remember how the ITT prioritised the regionally-distribution of Tier 1 counties over all other factors? Well, maybe we should have explained that this only applied to the first 2 years? After that time, we can add new Tier 1 teams wherever in the country we want – even if that totally undermines your planned fan base, your access to talent and the commercial value attributable to having a regional monopoly.
[Had the selection panel been tasked to identify 9 dispersed Tier 1 counties in England (plus Glamorgan), not 8 as now, from Day 1 this would unquestionably have generated different regional permutations and would not have seen 2 adjacent counties secure Tier 1 status.]
[Given the precedent that a new entrant can be a neighbour of an existing Tier 1 county, presumably the ECB will have no issue if e.g. Gloucester is one of the teams most warranting promotion in 2029 despite the resultant regional concentration of Glamorgan, Gloucester and Somerset? Ditto Worcester creating a Glamorgan, Worcester and Warwickshire ‘block’. What if both Gloucester and Worcester earned promotion? Similarly Kent and Sussex?]
I’m really unhappy with the way the ECB has run this tender!
Bidders might have hoped for an independent appeals process, but the ITT looks like it copied the terms for a competition on the side of a crisp packet to win a holiday.
Section 5.6: “The ECB Board is the only entity empowered to award Tier 1 women’s team status and its decision on such awards shall be final. The ECB Board shall have no obligation to give any reasons for its decisions or to enter into any correspondence or other communications in relation to its decisions.”
The link between having a Tier 1 team and securing a future Hundred franchise
Finally, it’s been widely suggested that by being awarded a Tier 1 team Somerset and Durham are guaranteed to get a Hundred franchise in the future.
I offer 3 observations:
- If so, why doesn’t the same argument apply with respect to Essex?
- Having a women’s franchise (Western Storm) didn’t secure Gloucestershire a Hundred franchise the first time around.
Politics trumped Equality and the franchise went to Cardiff/Glamorgan.
- The ECB is currently looking for private investment in The Hundred teams. Regardless of what anyone says, if / when the Hundred competition is expanded the ‘Number 1’ criteria for awarding additional franchises will be their attractiveness to investors.
Ultimately investors won’t care about the geographic-distribution of women’s franchises or a specific county’s commitment to equality, they will purely be interested in the ability to create and monetise a brand. If that means a third London (men’s and women’s) franchise is viewed as more valuable than one based in Durham, that’s what will happen. Similarly, if a Bristol-based franchise is deemed more desirable than a Taunton-based one, that too is what will happen.
Money will trump Equality.