I'm glad the tournament finished on a high with my chosen team, the Trockets, taking the men's trophy in a close finish. All those wickets tumbling was beginning to worry me.
It did take ages after the cut off to finish the match though. Was it just one extra fielder that had to come in and isn't there supposed to be a further penalty after a set time?
As predicted. Reduce the CC to 10 games and still play some of those in September but invent a fifth competition to run alongside that is of no threat to the Hundred. Then make sure that no England games take place in August so kids can't watch the highest level of cricket being played during the height of summer.
As predicted. The CC concentrated and improved to ensure a better, more consistent standard of cricket. Red ball cricket to be played throughout the year, as requested by many county members. A One Day tournament that expands the teams to ensure the participation of teams beyond the staid, predictable "18 counties". The T20 competition to take place in a single block, ensuring white-ball players can focus on one format at a time. And the Hundred continues, generating more, vital income, but without preventing the players not good enough for the Hundred from playing red-ball cricket during August.
As predicted. The CC concentrated and improved to ensure a better, more consistent standard of cricket. Red ball cricket to be played throughout the year, as requested by many county members. A One Day tournament that expands the teams to ensure the participation of teams beyond the staid, predictable "18 counties". The T20 competition to take place in a single block, ensuring white-ball players can focus on one format at a time. And the Hundred continues, generating more, vital income, but without preventing the players not good enough for the Hundred from playing red-ball cricket during August.
Let's see if the counties support it.
And which of those could they not have done without reducing the value of the County game by inventing a new form of rounders? All of them is the answer. The ECB executives wouldn't have been in receipt of their big bonuses had that happened - and that despite The Hundred losing money year in year out!
As predicted. The CC concentrated and improved to ensure a better, more consistent standard of cricket. Red ball cricket to be played throughout the year, as requested by many county members. A One Day tournament that expands the teams to ensure the participation of teams beyond the staid, predictable "18 counties". The T20 competition to take place in a single block, ensuring white-ball players can focus on one format at a time. And the Hundred continues, generating more, vital income, but without preventing the players not good enough for the Hundred from playing red-ball cricket during August.
Let's see if the counties support it.
And which of those could they not have done without reducing the value of the County game by inventing a new form of rounders? All of them is the answer. The ECB executives wouldn't have been in receipt of their big bonuses had that happened - and that despite The Hundred losing money year in year out!
And you, with respect, have no idea what "County members" want as evidenced by the fact that you throw in the comment "Red ball cricket to be played throughout the year, as requested by many county members". They want to see their County play in the CC in August not another "mickey mouse" competition of North v South.
Commenting after the publication of ECB’s High Performance Review led by Sir Andrew Strauss, Kent Cricket’s Chair, Simon Philip, said: “The Strauss Review is a wide-ranging and comprehensive document. However, it should be remembered that it has been prepared through the prism of High Performance only.
“The two key areas for our Club – domestic structure and scheduling – remain within the discretion of the 18 First Class Counties. Within this group, we will now consider issues such as the needs of all our Members, supporters, players and stakeholders, the financial impact, the unintended consequences and the possibly irrevocable change to the essential nature of County Cricket.
“Kent Cricket is a fundamental part of our community, committed to supporting the growth of the Men’s and Women’s game at all levels.
“We continue to deliver success on the field, produce players for England and support one of the largest recreational and schools cricket populations in the country.
“We will not allow our Club to be rendered irrelevant.”
Unfortunately for Kent, there is a requirement of another six Counties to vote against this but with so many of the Test playing Counties with their snouts well and truly in the trough this may be hard to achieve. The other aspect is that reduced Blast matches and reduced CC matches equals reduced county revenue with potentially not a single county match, of any description, when kids are available to watch their home team play.
The ECB have not guaranteed their payment beyond 2024 so what happens if they agree to this and the ECB in a few years time turn around and say that they will be reducing that payment or even paying nothing.
The £50 million spent on The Hundred could have been spent on the Blast to enhance it.
Current top 6 inc Northants and Essex who aren’t test grounds.
Looking at the reaction from the counties it looks like they like the RL50 at the same time as the hundred as it allows them to blood new players.
If the RL50 was played at any other time we may not have seen the guys that did so well for us this year…..
Comments from the counties appear to be the HP review ideas are the right thing for high performance ie England and improving the standards , but not good for the County members or potentially finances. I wonder how hard the counties CEO’s will fight if the ECB wave the cheque book around again.
Current top 6 inc Northants and Essex who aren’t test grounds.
Looking at the reaction from the counties it looks like they like the RL50 at the same time as the hundred as it allows them to blood new players.
If the RL50 was played at any other time we may not have seen the guys that did so well for us this year…..
Comments from the counties appear to be the HP review ideas are the right thing for high performance ie England and improving the standards , but not good for the County members or potentially finances. I wonder how hard the counties CEO’s will fight if the ECB wave the cheque book around again.
These aren't going to be implemented 'til 2024 so the top six will be based on next season's table. It looks likely that Warwickshire and Gloucester will be going down and replaced by Notts and Middlesex - so six of the ten will be Test hosting grounds. I wouldn't bet against next season's top six containing five of those.
The "bribe" is the reason that the payment to the Counties hasn't been announced for beyond 2024. The ECB need 12 Counties to vote in favour and with the Hundred hosts guaranteed to vote positively and the balance of the Test hosting grounds likely to also do so, that will probably mean that only three of the other nine Counties will have to do so.
I have been saying this about Morgan for the last two years and the competition.
"Eoin Morgan is like a well-groomed American presenter trying incredibly hard to sell you a miracle new life-changing sandwich toaster" | Barney Ronay.
And inevitably no sponsor wants their name associated with a competition that has been reduced to 2nd Class status even if it is one that, unlike The Hundred, leads to players representing their country in a World Cup with the very same regulations as the one played at county level:
The ECB has received a £400m private equity approach that would see it relinquish majority ownership of The Hundred while raising funds to inject into the sport's cash-strapped counties - sky sports
Well, well, well. It appears that there has been a bit of "creative accounting" going on at the ECB.
The Hundred made a loss of £9 million in its first two years, according to a new report into the financial health of English cricket. The 120-page report by Fanos Hira, a chartered accountant who is chairman of Worcestershire was compiled with the help of the new ECB chairman Richard Thompson, and casts doubt on the ECB’s claim last year — before Thompson’s arrival — that the Hundred made an £11.8 million profit.
Perhaps the now departed Harrison should pay back his bonus? Or was that paid to him because he ensured, in the final few days before his departure, that new TV rights until 2028 were signed and consequent disruption of the County game is ensured for another five years.
Well, well, well. It appears that there has been a bit of "creative accounting" going on at the ECB.
The Hundred made a loss of £9 million in its first two years, according to a new report into the financial health of English cricket. The 120-page report by Fanos Hira, a chartered accountant who is chairman of Worcestershire was compiled with the help of the new ECB chairman Richard Thompson, and casts doubt on the ECB’s claim last year — before Thompson’s arrival — that the Hundred made an £11.8 million profit.
Perhaps the now departed Harrison should pay back his bonus? Or was that paid to him because he ensured, in the final few days before his departure, that new TV rights until 2028 were signed and consequent disruption of the County game is ensured for another five years.
So absolutely and completely loathe this ridiculous format.
Well, well, well. It appears that there has been a bit of "creative accounting" going on at the ECB.
The Hundred made a loss of £9 million in its first two years, according to a new report into the financial health of English cricket. The 120-page report by Fanos Hira, a chartered accountant who is chairman of Worcestershire was compiled with the help of the new ECB chairman Richard Thompson, and casts doubt on the ECB’s claim last year — before Thompson’s arrival — that the Hundred made an £11.8 million profit.
Perhaps the now departed Harrison should pay back his bonus? Or was that paid to him because he ensured, in the final few days before his departure, that new TV rights until 2028 were signed and consequent disruption of the County game is ensured for another five years.
How were the disbursements to the countries accounted for in the "loss"?
Well, well, well. It appears that there has been a bit of "creative accounting" going on at the ECB.
The Hundred made a loss of £9 million in its first two years, according to a new report into the financial health of English cricket. The 120-page report by Fanos Hira, a chartered accountant who is chairman of Worcestershire was compiled with the help of the new ECB chairman Richard Thompson, and casts doubt on the ECB’s claim last year — before Thompson’s arrival — that the Hundred made an £11.8 million profit.
Perhaps the now departed Harrison should pay back his bonus? Or was that paid to him because he ensured, in the final few days before his departure, that new TV rights until 2028 were signed and consequent disruption of the County game is ensured for another five years.
How were the disbursements to the countries accounted for in the "loss"?
I assume you mean "counties" and not "countries".
I think you know the answer to that because we've been here before. They were included as a cost to The Hundred competition because of the decimation that Mickey Mouse competition was always going to cause counties including no 1st XI 50 over competition, no sponsor for that competition, just two "actual" 1st XI games in the six weeks school hols etc etc. Money was distributed to the counties well before The Hundred without that disruption.
Tom Harrison knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. So much so that the ECB found themselves in a position where they were forced to lay off 62 people, including 19 development officers - their payroll costs went up because they hired so many new people in the marketing department. In 2016 the ECB had reserves in excess of £70m. They don't have anything like that now.
They could have chosen to enhance the existing T20 comp which would have cost a lot less but they got greedy. And that greed has got the better of them and placed the game in this country in danger because Harrison left with us "pot committed" to The Hundred 'til 2028 with every chance that they will lose their limited number of "stars" to the far more lucrative US T20 comp. How will they attract fans to support teams that they have no affinity with and with such ordinary "cricket"? County fans tend to support their county come rain or shine. In the same way as Charlton fans do. The Hundred simply does not have that.
So, back to the point. They lied about how much The Hundred made. Why do you think they (and Harrison specifically) felt that they had to lie?
Well, well, well. It appears that there has been a bit of "creative accounting" going on at the ECB.
The Hundred made a loss of £9 million in its first two years, according to a new report into the financial health of English cricket. The 120-page report by Fanos Hira, a chartered accountant who is chairman of Worcestershire was compiled with the help of the new ECB chairman Richard Thompson, and casts doubt on the ECB’s claim last year — before Thompson’s arrival — that the Hundred made an £11.8 million profit.
Perhaps the now departed Harrison should pay back his bonus? Or was that paid to him because he ensured, in the final few days before his departure, that new TV rights until 2028 were signed and consequent disruption of the County game is ensured for another five years.
How were the disbursements to the counties accounted for in the "loss"?
I assume you mean "counties" and not "countries".
I think you know the answer to that because we've been here before. They were included as a cost to The Hundred competition because of the decimation that Mickey Mouse competition was always going to cause counties including no 1st XI 50 over competition, no sponsor for that competition, just two "actual" 1st XI games in the six weeks school hols etc etc. Money was distributed to the counties well before The Hundred without that disruption.
Tom Harrison knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. So much so that the ECB found themselves in a position where they were forced to lay off 62 people, including 19 development officers - their payroll costs went up because they hired so many new people in the marketing department. In 2016 the ECB had reserves in excess of £70m. They don't have anything like that now.
They could have chosen to enhance the existing T20 comp which would have cost a lot less but they got greedy. And that greed has got the better of them and placed the game in this country in danger because Harrison left with us "pot committed" to The Hundred 'til 2028 with every chance that they will lose their limited number of "stars" to the far more lucrative US T20 comp. How will they attract fans to support teams that they have no affinity with and with such ordinary "cricket"? County fans tend to support their county come rain or shine. In the same way as Charlton fans do. The Hundred simply does not have that.
So, back to the point. They lied about how much The Hundred made. Why do you think they (and Harrison specifically) felt that they had to lie?
I don't know. And I don't know how they establish the cost, revenue and 'profit' made by one ECB competition. It's a bit like coming up with a 'profit' figure that the EFL makes out of the Carabao Cup. It's all a bit impenetrable and pointless.
The counties take their slice - I think it equates to £3.9m each so far - and I don't think that's at risk. So, there's an argument to say does it really matter to the counties whether The Hundred is 'profitable' to the ECB, as long as they get their dough.
Did the Chartered Accountant who is Chairman of Worcestershire bring forward any suggestions as to why, despite the significant central payment from The Hundred, her club made a six figure loss last year?
It is the The Hundred's knock on effect to county cricket that is hitting them in the pocket specifically when they usually earn the most i.e. the school hols. Perhaps that would explain Worcester's loss. Payments have, as I've said, always been made to counties principally because they provide the pathway to the England team plus a conduit to the national side for fans. The Hundred franchises provide zero in that respect- no age group cricket, players, coaches, grounds, kit, training facilities, umpires, scorers etc etc.
Harrison agreed a new rights deal without consultation with the counties and without agreeing any ongoing payment. He then ran off to pastures new with his share of that £2.1m bonus. It wouldn't have looked good if he took that and it was demonstrated that The Hundred had made a loss would it? Hence the lies. That loss has been ratified by the current ECB Chairman. And that really isn't pointless.
It is the The Hundred's knock on effect to county cricket that is hitting them in the pocket specifically when they usually earn the most i.e. the school hols. Perhaps that would explain Worcester's loss. Payments have, as I've said, always been made to counties principally because they provide the pathway to the England team plus a conduit to the national side for fans. The Hundred franchises provide zero in that respect- no age group cricket, players, coaches, grounds, kit, training facilities, umpires, scorers etc etc.
Harrison agreed a new rights deal without consultation with the counties and without agreeing any ongoing payment. He then ran off to pastures new with his share of that £2.1m bonus. It wouldn't have looked good if he took that and it was demonstrated that The Hundred had made a loss would it? Hence the lies. That loss has been ratified by the current ECB Chairman. And that really isn't pointless.
Well, good luck to Worcestershire if they've sure they can fill a £2.1m deficit to break even (that's £1.9m from The Hundred and a £200k loss) by charging thousands of school kids to watch division two cricket. If they're sure they can do that, then they should campaign hard with all the other counties willing to take on the financial risk.
Well, well, well. It appears that there has been a bit of "creative accounting" going on at the ECB.
The Hundred made a loss of £9 million in its first two years, according to a new report into the financial health of English cricket. The 120-page report by Fanos Hira, a chartered accountant who is chairman of Worcestershire was compiled with the help of the new ECB chairman Richard Thompson, and casts doubt on the ECB’s claim last year — before Thompson’s arrival — that the Hundred made an £11.8 million profit.
Perhaps the now departed Harrison should pay back his bonus? Or was that paid to him because he ensured, in the final few days before his departure, that new TV rights until 2028 were signed and consequent disruption of the County game is ensured for another five years.
How were the disbursements to the countries accounted for in the "loss"?
It is the The Hundred's knock on effect to county cricket that is hitting them in the pocket specifically when they usually earn the most i.e. the school hols. Perhaps that would explain Worcester's loss. Payments have, as I've said, always been made to counties principally because they provide the pathway to the England team plus a conduit to the national side for fans. The Hundred franchises provide zero in that respect- no age group cricket, players, coaches, grounds, kit, training facilities, umpires, scorers etc etc.
Harrison agreed a new rights deal without consultation with the counties and without agreeing any ongoing payment. He then ran off to pastures new with his share of that £2.1m bonus. It wouldn't have looked good if he took that and it was demonstrated that The Hundred had made a loss would it? Hence the lies. That loss has been ratified by the current ECB Chairman. And that really isn't pointless.
Well, good luck to Worcestershire if they've sure they can fill a £2.1m deficit to break even (that's £1.9m from The Hundred and a £200k loss) by charging thousands of school kids to watch division two cricket. If they're sure they can do that, then they should campaign hard with all the other counties willing to take on the financial risk.
Could they not have given all the counties a cash injection and focused on promoting the 20/20 area of the game. Having highlights on free to view tv possibly along with free to view games of not just 20/20 but 1 and 5 dayers.
It is the The Hundred's knock on effect to county cricket that is hitting them in the pocket specifically when they usually earn the most i.e. the school hols. Perhaps that would explain Worcester's loss. Payments have, as I've said, always been made to counties principally because they provide the pathway to the England team plus a conduit to the national side for fans. The Hundred franchises provide zero in that respect- no age group cricket, players, coaches, grounds, kit, training facilities, umpires, scorers etc etc.
Harrison agreed a new rights deal without consultation with the counties and without agreeing any ongoing payment. He then ran off to pastures new with his share of that £2.1m bonus. It wouldn't have looked good if he took that and it was demonstrated that The Hundred had made a loss would it? Hence the lies. That loss has been ratified by the current ECB Chairman. And that really isn't pointless.
Well, good luck to Worcestershire if they've sure they can fill a £2.1m deficit to break even (that's £1.9m from The Hundred and a £200k loss) by charging thousands of school kids to watch division two cricket. If they're sure they can do that, then they should campaign hard with all the other counties willing to take on the financial risk.
Could they not have given all the counties a cash injection and focused on promoting the 20/20 area of the game. Having highlights on free to view tv possibly along with free to view games of not just 20/20 but 1 and 5 dayers.
The ECB could have done that and promoted the women's game too either by putting on own matches prior or after the men's game. But then the likes of Harrison wouldn't have been able to justify their existence and sail off into the sunset with his millions. The whole idea was that they would invent a game that would rival the IPL (140 million viewers per game) but literally not one other country has bought into the Hundred.
Even the players are giving it a wide berth so much so that will become, if it hasn't already, no better in quality than the Vitality Blast. Now the IPL franchises have spread around the world and even reached the US with their Major League Cricket comp - the first of these tournaments to directly compete with our summer. Jason Roy is rumoured to have been offered £300,000 to partake. The ECB won't be paying Roy quite that amount to play in The Hundred because if they did they would lose even more than they are now.
During the height of our summer when school kids should be watching the 1st XI of counties (and not the 2nd XI as it is in the now sponsor less 50 over comp) and England playing they have some Mickey Mouse gimmick on offer. Just a reminder - the first time in the history of our home series of The Ashes that no match will take place in August - the Ashes used to start in the middle of July and finish at the end of August.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with you doing that. But how many other games will go to be it at the Hundred or county cricket or England? Would you have become interested in cricket had the ECB revamped the existing T20 comp, put on games for women on the same day, negotiated free to air coverage etc etc? If you do go to many of the Hundred games then brilliant. Even more so if you go to county or England games having never been to one previously.
The reason I ask is that the ECB have not been able to quantify how many new people they have attracted to cricket via the Hundred or reliable evidence of its commercial success. It has been a loss making gimmick of an idea.
Where the Hundred made total sense is as part of an ECB strategy of centralising its control of the game, and culling the first-class counties or even extinguishing them altogether in favour of a franchise-based system in eight major cities. In doing that it only served to alienate the core of English cricket supporters.
So I suppose the real definition of success is how many more people have been attracted to cricket and become committed to watching the game over those that have been prevented from doing so because of when their games are now being put on? Answers on a postcard because the ECB can't/won't say but what we do know is that the venture is costing the games millions in revenue especially for those counties who are not one of the hosts of the Hundred.
Comments
County Championship games could be reduced under ECB plans
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/62985372Let's see if the counties support it.
Commenting after the publication of ECB’s High Performance Review led by Sir Andrew Strauss, Kent Cricket’s Chair, Simon Philip, said: “The Strauss Review is a wide-ranging and comprehensive document. However, it should be remembered that it has been prepared through the prism of High Performance only.
“The two key areas for our Club – domestic structure and scheduling – remain within the discretion of the 18 First Class Counties. Within this group, we will now consider issues such as the needs of all our Members, supporters, players and stakeholders, the financial impact, the unintended consequences and the possibly irrevocable change to the essential nature of County Cricket.
“Kent Cricket is a fundamental part of our community, committed to supporting the growth of the Men’s and Women’s game at all levels.
“We continue to deliver success on the field, produce players for England and support one of the largest recreational and schools cricket populations in the country.
“We will not allow our Club to be rendered irrelevant.”
Unfortunately for Kent, there is a requirement of another six Counties to vote against this but with so many of the Test playing Counties with their snouts well and truly in the trough this may be hard to achieve. The other aspect is that reduced Blast matches and reduced CC matches equals reduced county revenue with potentially not a single county match, of any description, when kids are available to watch their home team play.
The ECB have not guaranteed their payment beyond 2024 so what happens if they agree to this and the ECB in a few years time turn around and say that they will be reducing that payment or even paying nothing.
The £50 million spent on The Hundred could have been spent on the Blast to enhance it.
Geared as usual towards the " haves" rather than the "have nots".
Looking at the reaction from the counties it looks like they like the RL50 at the same time as the hundred as it allows them to blood new players.
Comments from the counties appear to be the HP review ideas are the right thing for high performance ie England and improving the standards , but not good for the County members or potentially finances. I wonder how hard the counties CEO’s will fight if the ECB wave the cheque book around again.
The "bribe" is the reason that the payment to the Counties hasn't been announced for beyond 2024. The ECB need 12 Counties to vote in favour and with the Hundred hosts guaranteed to vote positively and the balance of the Test hosting grounds likely to also do so, that will probably mean that only three of the other nine Counties will have to do so.
"Eoin Morgan is like a well-groomed American presenter trying incredibly hard to sell you a miracle new life-changing sandwich toaster" |
The ECB has received a £400m private equity approach that would see it relinquish majority ownership of The Hundred while raising funds to inject into the sport's cash-strapped counties - sky sports
The Hundred made a loss of £9 million in its first two years, according to a new report into the financial health of English cricket. The 120-page report by Fanos Hira, a chartered accountant who is chairman of Worcestershire was compiled with the help of the new ECB chairman Richard Thompson, and casts doubt on the ECB’s claim last year — before Thompson’s arrival — that the Hundred made an £11.8 million profit.
Perhaps the now departed Harrison should pay back his bonus? Or was that paid to him because he ensured, in the final few days before his departure, that new TV rights until 2028 were signed and consequent disruption of the County game is ensured for another five years.
I think you know the answer to that because we've been here before. They were included as a cost to The Hundred competition because of the decimation that Mickey Mouse competition was always going to cause counties including no 1st XI 50 over competition, no sponsor for that competition, just two "actual" 1st XI games in the six weeks school hols etc etc. Money was distributed to the counties well before The Hundred without that disruption.
Tom Harrison knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. So much so that the ECB found themselves in a position where they were forced to lay off 62 people, including 19 development officers - their payroll costs went up because they hired so many new people in the marketing department. In 2016 the ECB had reserves in excess of £70m. They don't have anything like that now.
They could have chosen to enhance the existing T20 comp which would have cost a lot less but they got greedy. And that greed has got the better of them and placed the game in this country in danger because Harrison left with us "pot committed" to The Hundred 'til 2028 with every chance that they will lose their limited number of "stars" to the far more lucrative US T20 comp. How will they attract fans to support teams that they have no affinity with and with such ordinary "cricket"? County fans tend to support their county come rain or shine. In the same way as Charlton fans do. The Hundred simply does not have that.
So, back to the point. They lied about how much The Hundred made. Why do you think they (and Harrison specifically) felt that they had to lie?
The counties take their slice - I think it equates to £3.9m each so far - and I don't think that's at risk. So, there's an argument to say does it really matter to the counties whether The Hundred is 'profitable' to the ECB, as long as they get their dough.
Did the Chartered Accountant who is Chairman of Worcestershire bring forward any suggestions as to why, despite the significant central payment from The Hundred, her club made a six figure loss last year?
Harrison agreed a new rights deal without consultation with the counties and without agreeing any ongoing payment. He then ran off to pastures new with his share of that £2.1m bonus. It wouldn't have looked good if he took that and it was demonstrated that The Hundred had made a loss would it? Hence the lies. That loss has been ratified by the current ECB Chairman. And that really isn't pointless.
I hope it ends (don't expect it).
I’m off to one in August with my bestie 🫣🤣🤣
Even the players are giving it a wide berth so much so that will become, if it hasn't already, no better in quality than the Vitality Blast. Now the IPL franchises have spread around the world and even reached the US with their Major League Cricket comp - the first of these tournaments to directly compete with our summer. Jason Roy is rumoured to have been offered £300,000 to partake. The ECB won't be paying Roy quite that amount to play in The Hundred because if they did they would lose even more than they are now.
During the height of our summer when school kids should be watching the 1st XI of counties (and not the 2nd XI as it is in the now sponsor less 50 over comp) and England playing they have some Mickey Mouse gimmick on offer. Just a reminder - the first time in the history of our home series of The Ashes that no match will take place in August - the Ashes used to start in the middle of July and finish at the end of August.
There was absolutely no need for the Hundred in the first place.
The negative effect that it has far outweighs any positive.
The reason I ask is that the ECB have not been able to quantify how many new people they have attracted to cricket via the Hundred or reliable evidence of its commercial success. It has been a loss making gimmick of an idea.
Where the Hundred made total sense is as part of an ECB strategy of centralising its control of the game, and culling the first-class counties or even extinguishing them altogether in favour of a franchise-based system in eight major cities. In doing that it only served to alienate the core of English cricket supporters.
So I suppose the real definition of success is how many more people have been attracted to cricket and become committed to watching the game over those that have been prevented from doing so because of when their games are now being put on? Answers on a postcard because the ECB can't/won't say but what we do know is that the venture is costing the games millions in revenue especially for those counties who are not one of the hosts of the Hundred.