Now it is time for the ECB to investigate what happened to Durham

GEORGE DOBELL writes an open letter to the ECB's head of integrity, James Pyemont, to request an inquiry into the treatment of Durham in 2016, contrasting the county's experience with the recent action taken against Yorkshire by the governing body

FAO: James Pyemont, ECB head of integrity.

Dear James,

I'm writing to request you open an investigation into the decision to strip Durham of the ability to host Test cricket, and a possible perception of a conflict of interest which may have played a part in that decision.

In case you don't recall, the club lost their right to host Test cricket in October 2016. It was part of a raft of punishments (including relegation in the County Championship, a 48-point penalty the following season, and points penalties in the limited-overs competitions) the ECB imposed in return for a financial rescue package.

It always seemed overly punitive. For one thing, Durham had been encouraged not only to build a ground fit for international cricket, but they had been encouraged to participate in a bidding process which contributed to their problem. Indeed, with nine or so venues vying for Tests (Lord’s, The Oval, Southampton, Trent Bridge, Cardiff, Edgbaston, Old Trafford, Headingley and Durham) it was inevitable that some would miss out and others would be seduced into over-paying for games. In the case of Cardiff, this had almost equally catastrophic financial consequences.

At the same time, the level of debt incurred by Durham was, by comparison to its rivals, quite minor. But whereas some (such as Cardiff, who saw much of their debt written off) were able to renegotiate their repayments and others (such as Yorkshire) effectively found a sugar daddy, Durham were obliged to turn to the ECB for help.

Durham were not blameless. They had overspent on players – they breached the salary cap at one stage – and they had gambled on an allocation of major matches that wasn't forthcoming. Their ownership structure – they were not a members' club – did nothing to encourage the ECB that they deserved a consequence-free bailout, either.

^{Durham's Riverside ground hosts a game at the 2019 World Cup}

But it is worth comparing the treatment of Durham then to Yorkshire now. While Yorkshire have been accused of what many of us would consider far more serious shortcomings – 'crimes' may well be the apposite word – they have had their right to host major matches reinstated after promising a range of reforms which have yet to take effect.

It doesn't mean the Yorkshire decision is wrong – quite the opposite; it may well help enshrine the positive changes which are taking place at the club – but it does make you wonder if that decision to punish Durham was fair, proportionate and constructive. It always seemed to punish people – players and supporters, most of all – who were blameless.

Another issue is the way the decision was made. Chairing the meeting which confirmed those Durham sanctions was Colin Graves, who was ECB chair at the time and whose family trusts were owed in excess of £20m by Yorkshire. And with Durham – a rival for major matches in the north of England - out of the equation, Yorkshire had a better chance of an attractive package of major matches from the ECB. There was also less competition for ticket sales in the north of England.

In the subsequent ECB board meeting which confirmed the decision to strip Durham of their ability to host Tests, those members of the board who were also county chairs – the likes of Andy Nash (Somerset) and Richard Thompson (Surrey) - were recused to avoid any hint of a conflict of interest. Graves remained, though. He was present when the plan – a plan that he was involved in creating and which resulted in an improved market position for Yorkshire - was ratified by the board.

Graves had previously committed to recusing himself in such situations. In March 2016, the ECB provided a statement to ESPNcricinfo (in response to some sustained questioning on the issue) which stated that Graves "declares an interest and abstains from any vote or decision which could be deemed a conflict of interest (as is a statutory duty)". Indeed, on one occasion (the ratification of the major match allocations) he did briefly leave the room and allow Lord Patel to chair a section of the ECB board meeting. But he didn't when Durham had their Test status removed.

Graves may argue – and you may conclude that he is quite right – that his trusts were run entirely independently of his influence. Nobody disputes the legal validity of this status.

But we know that, with a better allocation of games, Yorkshire were in a much stronger position to repay the money owed to the Graves trusts. We also know that the trustees of the Graves trusts had enough influence at Yorkshire to veto any appointment or removal to the board. Indeed, Roger Hutton, the former Yorkshire chair, says he was prevented from sacking individuals at the club (who were also board members) by those trustees. 

He told the DCMS hearing: "One of my difficulties as chair is I can't remove a director from the board without the consent of the Colin Graves Trust. I spoke to his trustees and it was made clear to me they were supportive of people in the club that I felt were partly to blame." The ECB has subsequently made it a condition of allowing Yorkshire to host international cricket that such powers are rescinded.

^{Yorkshire have had their right to host international cricket restored, providing some conditions are met}

I will leave it to you to decide whether that sounds like complete independence. You may like to ask the other members of the ECB board at the time if they were aware of the extent of these trustees' influence on the Yorkshire board. One of them has confirmed, in writing, that they were not. You might also want to ask if Graves was involved in visiting Durham and negotiating with officials involved there to draft the deal ahead of the board meeting. It could be the ECB board gave him permission to do this – the Companies Act does allow for such dispensations – but, given the potential perception of a conflict of interest that could follow, you do have to ask if that would have been wise and appropriate.

You will also be aware that guidance from the Good Governance Institute, which the ECB says it follows, insists that decision-making should not only be free of conflicts of interest, but free from the perception of possible conflicts of interest. Again, I will leave it to you to decide whether there is any possibility of a perception of a conflict of interest in a man whose family trusts are owed around £20m making decisions which could improve the debtor's chances of making the requisite repayments.

It's probably also pertinent to ask when the ECB's integrity unit became aware of this possible perception of a conflict of interest and why it has not been investigated previously.

That's why this is an open letter - in which I suggest the decision to exclude Durham from Test cricket should be reviewed because of a perception of unequal treatment between Durham and Yorkshire. For if the last year has taught us anything, it is that airing issues in public ensures they gain the attention they deserve.

Yours sincerely,

George Dobell