Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 15:18:10 GMT
The story all over the ground at Canterbury today is that Tredwell has asked Kent to release him from the final year of his contract in order to join Sussex on a permament basis.
Kent have reportedly said 'no', which is surprising as they have always made great play of only wanting players in the dressing room who want to play for Kent and as a result have in the past immediately released every want-away player.*
I'd say it's impossible for Tredwell to stay at Kent now he's informed them he no longer wants to play for them, and despite Kent's current hardball posturing, his release will be negotiated and he will be a full-time Sussex player next season.
* on edit: the one exception was Ryan McLaren, who was called up for his first Test tour by South Africa; to take up the invitation he had to relinquish his kolpak status and abandon county cricket. Kent refused and insisted that he played out the third year of his contract as a kolpak. It was a disaster. A righteously pissed-off McLaren , furious that his employer was blocking him from playing Test cricket, malingered in the treatment room for most of the season and when he did get on the field, was a shadow of his former self. In the post-mortem to this debacle, Kent concluded they would never again force a reluctant player to see out his contract; two seaons later they agreed to release Martin van Jaarsvelsd early when he told them he wanted to leave (he then joined Glamorgan) and a similar attitude was adopted in 2012 when Azhar Mahmood asked to break his contract.
It's hard to believe Kent will force a disgruntled Tredwell to stay and see out his contract; you can't do that with an England player who needs first team cricket (and preferably first division cricket) to keep his international career on the boil. I'd say the current refusal is nothing more than posturing by a Kent committee anxious to show the county's membership that they have ambitions to be more than just a 'feeder' club for div one counties. But at the end of the day Kent only have themselves to blame: if they hadn't dropped Tredwell in favour of Riley, their one and only current England player would not be asking to leave.
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Aug 29, 2014 16:20:45 GMT
Sounds as if Kent's posturing will be counter productive. It will only stiffen Tredwell's resolve, and the club will end up admitting that there's no point in trying to keep him against his wishes.
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Aug 29, 2014 16:21:28 GMT
The story all over the ground at Canterbury today is that Tredwell has asked Kent to release him from the final year of his contract in order to join Sussex on a permament basis. Kent have reportedly said 'no', which is surprising as they have always made great play of only wanting players in the dressing room who want to play for Kent and as a result have in the past immediately released every want-away player.* I'd say it's impossible for Tredwell to stay at Kent now he's informed them he no longer wants to play for them, and despite Kent's current hardball posturing, his release will be negotiated and he will be a full-time Sussex player next season. * on edit: the one exception was Ryan McLaren, who was called up for his first Test tour by South Africa; to take up the invitation had to relinquish his kolpak status and abandon county cricket. Kent refused and insisted that he played out the third year of his contract as a kolpak. It was a disaster. A righteously pissed-off McLaren , furious that his employer was blocking him from playing Test cricket, malingered in the treatment room for most of the season and when he did get on the field, was a shadow of his former self. In ther post-mortem to this debacle, Kent promised themselves they would never again force a reluctant player to see out his contract and two seaons later released Martin van Jaarsvelsd from his contract when he told them he wanted to leave. It's hard to believe that they will force an unhappy Tredwell to stay and see out his contract; I'd say it's posturing by the Kent committee designed to show the membership that they have ambitions to be more than just a 'feeder' club for div one counties. That Kent didn't choose Tredwell, 37 ODIs and all, for this quarter-final match must have closed the door for him or for Kent on his future there. Good. Tredwell has played well on most occasions during his loan period, and always with some heart and spirit for Sussex. It may also mark the end of the significance of the benefit system, as the prospect of a benefit was widely reported as being held out by Kent as a tempter for Tredwell to stay with them. For the sake of Sussex, who need a player of his worth, and for Tredwell, who obviously deserves better than this misguided patronage, I hope that this can be resolved quickly: next week would be good, so that he can stay on loan with Sussex and help us rebuild a season, and perhaps contribute to a resurgent team.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 17:08:25 GMT
The story all over the ground at Canterbury today is that Tredwell has asked Kent to release him from the final year of his contract in order to join Sussex on a permament basis. Kent have reportedly said 'no', which is surprising as they have always made great play of only wanting players in the dressing room who want to play for Kent and as a result have in the past immediately released every want-away player.* I'd say it's impossible for Tredwell to stay at Kent now he's informed them he no longer wants to play for them, and despite Kent's current hardball posturing, his release will be negotiated and he will be a full-time Sussex player next season. * on edit: the one exception was Ryan McLaren, who was called up for his first Test tour by South Africa; to take up the invitation had to relinquish his kolpak status and abandon county cricket. Kent refused and insisted that he played out the third year of his contract as a kolpak. It was a disaster. A righteously pissed-off McLaren , furious that his employer was blocking him from playing Test cricket, malingered in the treatment room for most of the season and when he did get on the field, was a shadow of his former self. In ther post-mortem to this debacle, Kent promised themselves they would never again force a reluctant player to see out his contract and two seaons later released Martin van Jaarsvelsd from his contract when he told them he wanted to leave. It's hard to believe that they will force an unhappy Tredwell to stay and see out his contract; I'd say it's posturing by the Kent committee designed to show the membership that they have ambitions to be more than just a 'feeder' club for div one counties. That Kent didn't choose Tredwell, 37 ODIs and all, for this quarter-final match must have closed the door for him or for Kent on his future there. Good. Tredwell has played well on most occasions during his loan period, and always with some heart and spirit for Sussex. It may also mark the end of the significance of the benefit system, as the prospect of a benefit was widely reported as being held out by Kent as a tempter for Tredwell to stay with them. For the sake of Sussex, who need a player of his worth, and for Tredwell, who obviously deserves better than this misguided patronage, I hope that this can be resolved quickly: next week would be good, so that he can stay on loan with Sussex and help us rebuild a season, and perhaps contribute to a resurgent team. Hh the reason kent have not chosen Treds for this game, I am watching, is because he is with the Eng squad who play Ind tomorrow at Nottingham. Surprised you have not appreciated this.
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Aug 29, 2014 17:14:20 GMT
Well, well, well, this is an interesting development. Tredwell would be an excellent signing in my eyes, though quite where it would leave Zaidi, I don't know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 17:23:34 GMT
Sounds as if Kent's posturing will be counter productive. It will only stiffen Tredwell's resolve, and the club will end up admitting that there's no point in trying to keep him against his wishes. You can usually rely on Kent's traditional lack of HR skills to get it wrong! The odd thing is that those who are misused by the county so often end up forgiving and going back. Their chairman of cricket and current president Graham Johnson was sacked (and infamously refused to play at one point in his final season). Another current committee man, John Shepherd, was sacked acrimoniously, and went on to play some of his best cricket for Glos. The same applies to the county's part-time bowling coach Mark Ealham, who was sacked at the height of his powers and went on to play some fantastic cricket for Notts. Batting coach Matt Walker was also sacked and went on to see out his playing career at Essex. So my prediction is Tredwell will leave in considerable rancour, will be the mainstay of Sussex's bowling for half a dozen seasons - and then in retirement will go back to Canterbury as a bowling coach!
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Aug 29, 2014 18:11:11 GMT
That Kent didn't choose Tredwell, 37 ODIs and all, for this quarter-final match must have closed the door for him or for Kent on his future there. Good. Tredwell has played well on most occasions during his loan period, and always with some heart and spirit for Sussex. It may also mark the end of the significance of the benefit system, as the prospect of a benefit was widely reported as being held out by Kent as a tempter for Tredwell to stay with them. For the sake of Sussex, who need a player of his worth, and for Tredwell, who obviously deserves better than this misguided patronage, I hope that this can be resolved quickly: next week would be good, so that he can stay on loan with Sussex and help us rebuild a season, and perhaps contribute to a resurgent team. Hh the reason kent have not chosen Treds for this game, I am watching, is because he is with the Eng squad who play Ind tomorrow at Nottingham. Surprised you have not appreciated this. Quite right and I should have realised this - to be honest I have no great interest in England one day stuff and didn't know when they were playing again. I still think that Kent have played their hand badly over Tredwell and that we should (with emphasis on should) be very much the winners here. I hope so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 21:21:42 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 21:33:03 GMT
But cricinfo says: "Suggestions that Tredwell has asked to be released from his contract and allowed to join Sussex, where he has been on loan for Championship cricket, were rebuffed by the club."
Which given Kent's well-earned fame for being economical with the actualité is as near as dammit confirmation that it is true!
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Aug 29, 2014 23:04:21 GMT
In short this translates as Kent probably want financial compensation from Sussex for the remainder of his contract. The fact that Riley is out of contract having signed a three year contract in 2011 probably has something to do with it. Will Surrey sign Riley as a long-term replacement for Batty?
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Aug 30, 2014 7:14:01 GMT
How will Sussex find room in the budget for Tredwell, and seamer we need? Get in those two, Tredwell and a seamer to share the workload with Magoffin, one can play in all formats, and we're back in business. Not too many of our out of contract players are expendable, so it would really need some creative thinking from Robbo to stretch the budget.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2014 8:10:06 GMT
In short this translates as Kent probably want financial compensation from Sussex for the remainder of his contract. The fact that Riley is out of contract having signed a three year contract in 2011 probably has something to do with it. Will Surrey sign Riley as a long-term replacement for Batty? Tredwell to Sussex, Riley to Surrey and Spriegel to Kent? The best bowlers certainly need to be playing in the first division or at TMGs if they want to progress their careers. Although if Riley went to Surrey, would Tredwell still want to leave Kent? Possibly not, unless he has so lost faith in Kent for dropping him that he feels his bridges are already burnt. Kent will want to ensure they keep one of Riley/Tredwell but risk losing both of them, which may be why they are saying 'no' to Tredwell's request to be released at present. It has happened before: in 2008 Kent were trying to persuade Neil Dexter to stay and offered a three year contract, but knew that Middx was also courting him. At the same time, Matt Walker was out of contract and was told there was only a new contract for him at Kent if Dexter left for Middx. This did not sit well with Walker, who refused to be kept dangling while Dexter's position was resolved and signed for Essex. Kent ended up with egg on their faces as they lost both players and they will be distraught at the thought that it could happen again and they end up with Matt Spriegel as their spin option next season.
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Aug 30, 2014 10:17:57 GMT
Spriegel won't take 38 wickets in a season like Riley has. It sounds like Tredwell wants to leave Kent if he asked to be released. He could have waited to see if Riley went to Surrey but choose not to.
Jonboy I don't see how the budget is going to stretch to another seamer although I don't expect Lewis to be released with him not having played a first team game for over two months. The problem is Liddle and Zaidi still have a year to run on their contracts. Big improvements are needed from Hamilton-Brown and Anyon next season.
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Aug 30, 2014 11:22:04 GMT
I could see Lewis returning to Gloucestershire, they wanted him last season but couldn't afford him. Now they've lost Will Gidman, things might be different. We do have players We certainly do have players who will still be under contract, but are unlikely to figure too much, which is why I said, Robbo may have to be a bit creative
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Aug 30, 2014 11:42:23 GMT
I could see Lewis returning to Gloucestershire, they wanted him last season but couldn't afford him. Now they've lost Will Gidman, things might be different. We do have players We certainly do have players who will still be under contract, but are unlikely to figure too much, which is why I said, Robbo may have to be a bit creative There is nothing Robinson can do if no other county wants them. He either pays them off or keeps them for the final year of their contract. I could also see Lewis returning to Gloucestershire as they have lost Gidman and Saxelby. This has left with Payne, Miles, Howell (now seems to be more of a bowler), Fuller (who has hardly played), McCarter (who bowled well at Hove in T20), Norwell and Matt Taylor.
|
|