CricInfo Home
News Home

NEWS FOCUS
Rsa in Pak
NZ in India
Zim in Aus

Domestic
Other Series

A STRICTLY temporary truce has been declared in what still looks like developing into a nasty civil war in English cricket, with the six Test match grounds on one side and the England and Wales Cricket Board on the other.

At the heart of the dispute is the power of the ECB and, specifically, who gets to keep the cash generated by Test cricket. The ground owners are so incensed at the current position, under which the ECB retain the bulk of the money, that they are beginning to question the legitimacy of the ECB itself.

The authorities at the six grounds - Lord's, Headingley, Trent Bridge, Edgbaston, Old Trafford and the Oval - spend millions on maintenance, but complain that they get peanuts from the ECB. To meet safety requirements, Yorkshire have stripped out 4,000-odd seats on the Western terrace at Headingley, but get only £100,000 of the £1million the ECB collects from gate receipts.

The MCC have spent around £25 million over five years at Lord's, but receive just 25 per cent of Test ticket sales and have to give up the prime advertising sites to . . . the ECB.

It was all this that led to the formation of the Test Match Grounds Consortium six months ago. The aim was to negotiate a better cash deal with the ECB, but things got off to a bad start when the ECB refused to even acknowledge that the Consortium existed.

On Tuesday, the Consortium finally got to meet representatives of the ECB at Lord's. The word from both camps is that the encounter went well. A spokesman said the ECB have a great deal of sympathy for the Test match grounds but they have to take the wider picture into account. After all, the ECB must take of all cricket, not merely six Test venues.

But, far from being proving soothing, this is merely likely to add to the long-term flames. One source close to the Consortium said: ``At least they recognise we exist. But to talk of the wider picture is just the sort of nonsense that infuriates us. We are being made to appear greedy when all we are saying that is we have the burden of keeping up the Test grounds on which England play - and we need money to do that.''

Underneath all this is an even bigger cauldron of resentment about the ECB. Some high-powered members of the MCC have consulted top lawyers, including, I understand, Peter Leaver, chief executive of football's Premier League and himself a leading QC. Having looked at the ECB constitution, the lawyers have raised questions about whether the ECB is in fact a properly-constituted body - though the ECB maintain they are and whether they have the power to act as they do. The ECB's accounts also, apparently, do not give a great deal of information.

To some MCC members, all this reinforces the Electronic Telegraph's argument last week on mismanaged sports need the government to step in. If civil war does break out in cricket, Tony Banks himself may have to step in to solve it.

IS Jack Walker thinking of floating Blackburn Rovers on the Stockmarket? This is what 'Uncle' Jack told the Restrictive Practises Court when he gave evidence in the case brought by the Office of Fair Trading against the Premier League, in which the OFT is arguing that the collective selling of television rights is unfair.

Walker's Blackburn are so concerned about what might happen should the OFT win, and clubs be forced to make their own TV arrangements, that not only did a director of the club give evidence , but so later in the hearing, will former manager Roy Hodgson. Walker's appearance therefore brings the strength of the Blackburn's delegation up to three.

In his evidence Walker said it was his hope that the interest-free loans he has provided would be repaid and that there might come a time when Blackburn could be successfully floated. He did not say when that day might come, but it suggests that 'Uncle' Jack - who has injected around £70 million into Blackburn since 1992 - does not have a bottomless pit of money.

The case is due to run until after Easter by which time the legal fees will have risen close to £20 million. The talk is of a settlement before that. But with both sides claiming that they are winning, someone will have to make a major concession.

Perhaps they could get the Far Eastern syndicates , who must have made a hefty bet on the outcome, to fuse the court lights and have the case abandoned?