Yeah historical relegation inaccuracies aside, I'm with scaly here. I'm not sure how you can apportion all of the blame to Durham (which is what has happened here) when the institutional architecture of the ECB is so pathological. I mean, they highly incentivise massive investments into stadium redevelopments to add to the seemingly-infinite pool of international venues -- and in the case of Durham and Chester-le-Street, outright mandated it as a condition of joining the CC in the first place. And then they force the counties to bid against one another, literally paying to get a return on the investment the ECB pushed the counties to develop and fund -- with the massive downward pressure on profitability that bidding for games naturally entails.
I mean, there's no way that system doesn't create massive instability in county finances.
That's not to say Durham is entirely innocent, but I think it's misleading to act as if this is a black/white, right/wrong issue where Durham are **** administrators and the ECB aren't at all culpable for any of the problems arising in the first place.
It could have been Yorkshire, it could have been Warwickshire or Hampshire or Gloucestershire or Glamorgan. Durham didn't have the benefit of a Graves-esque private benefactor, nor did they get a favourable loan like the Bears. The perils of geography have affected their ability to diversify with Chester-le-Street to the same extent other counties have. And it's the north, so the weather is ****.
There's a whole stack of different facets to why Durham needed this bailout; last I checked, nobody has ever levelled accusations that Durham have done anything wrong administratively. A combination of the ECB system, the nature of Durham, geography and a bit of misfortune have contrived to leave Durham in this position, and I can't see how the ECB taking money away from them and literally writing off two seasons (albeit one post-hoc) is going to help Durham solve the problem...or prevent it from happening again elsewhere.