Although suffering regular criticism and always under review the ECB domestic Competition at F/C level continues to be between 18 County Cricket Clubs.
   These clubs and their competitions do not constitute a self sustaining sports business neither attracting sufficient spectator and membership revenue nor sponsorship. This results in 90% of ECB's surplus revenues being handed over to the County Clubs under the pretext of 'cost of sale/activity'. These funds could, of course, have been used differently for the promotion and delevopment of the game countrywide at all levels.The new business Strategy of ECB 2008 should change this radically.
   Since ECB was invented it has given these clubs some ten times as much cash as it has given  over  the same period to the Cricket Foundation  to sustain the County Boards with their development of the grass roots game. This is some anomaly but derives and will persist because the 18 Counties control ECB.
   It should also be noted that several non First Class Counties like Devon, Staffordshire and Norfollk remain powerhouses of the grass roots game yet receive a pittance from ECB for development. 
   There remains great nostalgia for County Cricket and it is followed as opposed to watched by several millions cricket lovers.
   Much debate continues about the ways and means of regenerating spectator support for the County game, the latest of which is an evening 20 over slog introduced in 2003 which has proved very popular. The success of Twenty20 appeared to take the authorities by surprise. It did not need vast research by anyone to demonstrate that if you put on cricket matches at a time when the public can attend they will indeed flock to see  them.  Market it well and make the evening a fun event and even more will follow.
   While it remains commendable that ECB and the counties are thinking about these matters the impression remains that they are flaffing about. The utter failure to use the Twenty20 formula as a means of spreading cricket match  watching nationwide is just one example. Twenty20 should be a nationwide competion including all the minor counties and anyonelse who can put up a suitable financial guarantee and ground facility,even Manchester United FC.   
   Much of the current argument is between the 'haves' and the 'have nots', those counties without a Test match  allocation and those with.This results in a major difference in  annual revenue and hence the capability or not of paying stars, local or imported. Traditionally some of the counties like Kent, which have supplied a long line of Test players, has never been a test host. This allocation which is under regular review is in the gift of ECB and its 'controllers'-The First Class Forum.
  Another enduring debate is the one concerning the number of 'foreign players' in County Cricket. Some say the foreigners stifle home grown talent. Others criticise the excessive use of scarce funds in recruiting foreign star players.Yet on the other side one may argue that the foreigners raise the standard helping to improve emerging local talent especially when centrally contracted players play so little for their home county.
   Domestic Cricket in England/Wales needs a much more radical restructuring but that will only result from much deeper and wiser research, analysis and investment than is currently undertaken and should not be over focused on the 18 first class County clubs. However the unanswered question is just why it is always considered necessary that England needs so many more first class playing cricketers to achieve a good international team. Even with four foreigners per team that leaves 126 places for locals. This compares to 66 in Australia. There remains an unanswered question as to why one needs 18 counties playing First class cricket and why only eighteen rather than 38/40  playing one dayers and Twenty/20.  
   Despite the extraordinary beaurocratic growth of ECB one continues to live in hope that a fresh over view of the game will be made and the place of the First Class Counties and Minor Counties plus Huntingdonshire,Isle of White  and even London in it.  Hopefully David Collier is the man to see that through.  The 2008 new strategy document would seem to suggest a totally new business like approach to cricket and county cricket development and it is timely.       
   And yet whatever the level of one's nostalgia for the traditional county game the question that must be addressed is that why should eighteen 1st class county clubs and their minor cousins take the lion's share of England generated surplus income without which they would sink quickly. Surely that money could be and should be invested better.  Secondly is it in the best interests of all cricket in England and Wales for these county clubs and their 100,000 members to have a stranglehold over ECB rather than the 6500 affiliated clubs and their million members that constitute the County Boards that guarantee ECB.
   The mind boggling sums of money being spent on Twenty20 in India would suggest the potential for a quantum leap for ECB,18 first class counties,20 odd other counties and other cricket entities. Hopefully ECB and its partners will grab the opportunity and lead it rather than just react rather grumpily as has been their wont historically.  Indeed the 2008 season has seen an endless series of rumours and statements essentially responses to the 20/20 razzamatazz of IPL. It is time however that someone cut Modi's ego down to size. Just because you participate in a very successful inaugural 20/20 competition is no justification for telling the rest of World Cricket what to do and what its players should do. 
   In the meantime the UK domestic season expands with increasing problems of wear and tear for England qualified and aspiring international  players.