Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 20:51:16 GMT
The latest off-the-record briefing out of the ECB is that county chief excutives are against change but county chairmen are broadly for
it.
Who knows what the truth of that may be , but on the surface it is classic divide-and-rule tactics.
Claiming that county CEOs and chairmen are divided on the reforms allows Gaves and Harrison to take the matter for final adjudication to the ECB management board, on which the 18 counties currently have only four direct representatives (Middx, Somerset, Notts and Surrey).
For the record, here are the 14 who will ultimately take the decisions that will either save county cricket or toll its death knell:
Colin Graves – ECB Chairman
Giles Clarke CBE – ECB President
Ian Lovett – ECB Deputy Chairman – chairman of audit committee, chairman of Middlesex CCC
John Pickup - chairman of recreational assembly
Peter Wright - chairman of cricket, chairman of Nottinghamshire CCC.
Richard Thompson - chairman of commercial committee, chairman of Surrey CCC
Tom Harrison - ECB chief executive officer
Brian Havill - ECB finance director
Baroness Rachael Heyhoe-Flint OBE - women’s game representative
Matthew Fleming - MCC representative
Professor Lord Patel of Bradford OBE - independent director
Jane Stichbury CBE - independent director
Jim Wood - chairman of Devon Cricket Board
Andy Nash – chairman of Somerset CCC
|
|
|
|
Post by invicta1977 on Sept 3, 2015 7:14:24 GMT
The latest off-the-record briefing out of the ECB is that county chief excutives are against change but county chairmen are broadly for it. Who knows what the truth of that may be , but on the surface it is classic divide-and-rule tactics. That does sound a tad implausible. The chief executives (ie the bean-counting businessmen) are firmly against the brave new income-rich plan whilst the traditionally reactionary chairmen are largely in favour. This story has more intrigues than The Borgias. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2015 7:39:38 GMT
Well county chairmen are more directly involved with the governance of the ECB than the CEOs, of course, and therefore more likely to take a broader view of the best interests of the game, while the CEOs, who are salaried hirelings, are more likely to defend narrow, parochial interest. The chairman of Middx is ECB deputy chairman to Graves , the chairman of Surrey is chair of the ECB's commercial committee and the chairman of Notts chairs the ECB cricket committee so in addition to their county responsibilities they are all ECB insiders and part of the Graves hierarchy. Dodgybell has this morning gone into print with the brefing that county chairmen have agreed to a reduced championship for 2016 with T20 moving back to a block, despite opposition from county chief executives. Allegedly the ECB held one meeting with CEOs which produced a thumbs down, then convened another meeting with county chairmen who gave the proposals the thumbs up... www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2015/content/story/916845.html |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Sept 3, 2015 7:43:14 GMT
The latest off-the-record briefing out of the ECB is that county chief excutives are against change but county chairmen are broadly for it. Who knows what the truth of that may be , but on the surface it is classic divide-and-rule tactics. That does sound a tad implausible. The chief executives (ie the bean-counting businessmen) are firmly against the brave new income-rich plan whilst the traditionally reactionary chairmen are largely in favour. This story has more intrigues than The Borgias. There is a different interpretation to be put on this and it is supported by the phrasing of GD's report in cricinfo www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2015/content/story/916845.htmlIt is that the proposals are a clasic compromise, a fudge that benefits neither those who believe there is a clear case for radical change nor those who wish to maintain the staus quo. That would explain why "..as recently as Tuesday - when the ECB held the first of two meetings at Lord's - the county chief executives rejected [the proposals]. Reducing the championship fixture list by 2 games "to make more room in the schedule for more rest, recovery and practise" is a nod in the direction of the recent PCA poll of players. Cutting some Friday night games from the T20 structure so that "... more games will be played in a block" makes no commercial or strategic sense. Either the games are played in one block, to build momentum, maximum advertising and consumer interest or carry on with what the ECB claim is a successful tournament that is gradually increasing attendances. It will only create further confusion amongst spectators, and greater disinterest from those who have yet to be captivated by the appeal of the Friday night spectacle. It also raises the intereasting prospect that if the block contains some displaced Friday night games it is likely that there will be less rest, recovery and what GD spells as "practise". There is no word in any of this about the 50 over game, which is rather important since the current tournament eats up a large chunk of August which could be devoted to blocks, championship, r r and p or even to the development of world class tiddleywink skills, so if the compromise is to include this rubbish, hated by almost all of the participants and spectators (apart from invicta1977 and a couple of others!) then no wonder the chief executives are incensed. The chairmen are at fault in not listening to theiur business managers who are effectively saying: "Don't go for this supposedly face-saving compromise because it will alienate members, piss off the existing gate customers and fail to attract any new supporters". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2015 7:48:59 GMT
Pretty sure the 50 overs cup will be moved to the start of the season, hh, where it always was (and 40 over comp). The switch to August is a relatively recent experiment and will surely be junked.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Sept 3, 2015 7:56:33 GMT
Pretty sure the 50 oves cup will be moved to the start of the season, hh, where it always was. The switch to August is a relateively recent experiment and will surely be junked. I'm not sure borderman, and the fact that it isn't mentioned suggests it is part of this fudge. Nick Hoult in the Telegraph states "The ECB has proposed cutting the number of championship matches from 16 to 14 next year to enable white ball 50-over and Twenty20 cricket to be played at the height of the summer months when pitches will be at their best " and "The ECB has proposed a schedule that would restrict 50-over cricket to the early part of the week (again making it harder to fill grounds) and Twenty20 from Thursday to Sunday. " |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2015 8:07:13 GMT
50 overs in June, T20 in July/August? Surely doesn't make sense to run the two white ball comps concurrently.
Playing T20s on Sat and Sunday is great and presumably means that games won't be under those horrible floodlights. Starting CC matches on Sunday has not been a success.
And will they increase the number of T20 games from 14 to 16, restoring the everyone-plays-everyone-twice symmetry that they are about to take away from the CC? Kent have been campaigning for an increase to 16 games for more than two years now...
You take away eight money-losing days in the CC and add two money-making days in the T20, so you still reduce the programme by six days but give counties a financial fillip, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Sept 3, 2015 12:22:23 GMT
I attended a Yorkshire members forum this morning in which a very glum Chief Executive (Mark Arthur) spelt out the current situation regarding the reduction in Championship matches etc. He stated that Yorkshire had made there own proposals for the retention of 16 matches but they do not have a vote on the matter and must accept what is decided by the ECB. He seemed resigned to the reduction to 14 matches, the only question being whether it would be implemented next season. The mood of the meeting was very hostile towards team England and the ECB and there was even a call for Yorkshire to declare UDI. It seems our fate is sealed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2015 12:30:59 GMT
I attended a Yorkshire members forum this morning in which a very glum Chief Executive (Mark Arthur) spelt out the current situation regarding the reduction in Championship matches etc. He stated that Yorkshire had made there own proposals for the retention of 16 matches but they do not have a vote on the matter and must accept what is decided by the ECB. He seemed resigned to the reduction to 14 matches, the only question being whether it would be implemented next season. The mood of the meeting was very hostile towards team England and the ECB and there was even a call for Yorkshire to declare UDI. It seems our fate is sealed. Yes, after the ECB got ambushed and overturned on the Morgan report, Graves and Harrison were determined that wasn't going to happen again and they have cleverly worked a situation in which they have effectively removed the counties veto and decisions about future scheduling and tournaments are down to the ECB's management board (on which the counties have only four places out of 14). Mind you, it sounds like the counties rasther idiotically sleepwalked into a trap. One meeting of county CEOs which rejected their plans, and another meeting of county chairmen where they were supported - how did that happen? Oh look, says a gleeful Tom Harrison, the counties can't even agree within their own internal organisations, so we will have to take the decision for them! |
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Sept 3, 2015 13:10:52 GMT
Mark Arthur said this morning at the Members forum that Yorkshire would never be interested in franchise cricket because Yorkshire is the best brand in the world, more well known than even the MCC. That is a direct quote!
|
|
|
|
Post by moderator1 on Sept 3, 2015 13:12:56 GMT
This thread contains discussions about the proposed reduction of championship matches from as early as 2015, and corresponding changes to the scheduling of T20 matches and the 50 over competition. Press reports suggest that the Management Board of the ECB will rule on these changes at the end of September following earlier discussions with the Chairmen and CEOs of the first class counties. Some of these discussions have recently been made in "Championship to be reduced from 16 matches to 12 in 2016...", others on the same topic in "Big and other Bashes....T20 options". To keep the discussion focused and reflect the various points of view I have moved these most recent posts here and will close the other threads until further notice.
|
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Sept 3, 2015 13:51:20 GMT
Thanks mod for the consolidation. It was getting a bit messy knowing where to post.
|
|
|
|
Post by freddy838 on Sept 3, 2015 15:01:54 GMT
Pretty sure the 50 overs cup will be moved to the start of the season, hh, where it always was (and 40 over comp). The switch to August is a relatively recent experiment and will surely be junked. That would just be stupid and a hindrance to developing an ODI team if players go back to playing in early season conditions. |
|
|
|
Post by invicta1977 on Sept 3, 2015 17:09:58 GMT
I attended a Yorkshire members forum this morning in which a very glum Chief Executive (Mark Arthur) spelt out the current situation regarding the reduction in Championship matches etc. He stated that Yorkshire had made there own proposals for the retention of 16 matches but they do not have a vote on the matter and must accept what is decided by the ECB. He seemed resigned to the reduction to 14 matches, the only question being whether it would be implemented next season. The mood of the meeting was very hostile towards team England and the ECB and there was even a call for Yorkshire to declare UDI. It seems our fate is sealed. Yes, after the ECB got ambushed and overturned on the Morgan report, Graves and Harrison were determined that wasn't going to happen again and they have cleverly worked a situation in which they have effectively removed the counties veto and decisions about future scheduling and tournaments are down to the ECB's management board (on which the counties have only four places out of 14). Mind you, it sounds like the counties rasther idiotically sleepwalked into a trap. One meeting of county CEOs which rejected their plans, and another meeting of county chairmen where they were supported - how did that happen? Oh look, says a gleeful Tom Harrison, the counties can't even agree within their own internal organisations, so we will have to take the decision for them! How surprising that the beancounters should bulldoze through what they want. But it's a bizarre scenario, akin to a business which has two brands - one which is successfully fulfilling its goals, another which is falling in its aims and is need of revitalisation. So, what to do? How about we mess around with the proven successful brand, potentially rendering it less attractive to the customers, whilst doing a half-botched refurbishment job on the other? An opportunity missed. Very poor. |
|
|
|
Post by emsworth on Sept 4, 2015 9:33:58 GMT
I attended a Yorkshire members forum this morning in which a very glum Chief Executive (Mark Arthur) spelt out the current situation regarding the reduction in Championship matches etc. He stated that Yorkshire had made there own proposals for the retention of 16 matches but they do not have a vote on the matter and must accept what is decided by the ECB. He seemed resigned to the reduction to 14 matches, the only question being whether it would be implemented next season. The mood of the meeting was very hostile towards team England and the ECB and there was even a call for Yorkshire to declare UDI. It seems our fate is sealed. The Chairman of the Yorkshire members, a Stephen something or other, was interviewed by Kevin Howells yesterday on R5, and said the CEO's had voted 17 to 1 against any change in the schedule. Whatever your views on the LVCC reduction, there can be no question at all that the ECB's process doesn't pass any of the most basic smell tests of corporate governance, a sine qua non for a group masquerading as the National Governing body, and responsible for distributing public money (a miniscule £5m pa, but enough to enable the DCMS Sports committee to rip them a new one). Clearly the financial contribution of members, perhaps £10m overall in direct subs, is dramatically less important than it once was. But it does serve to meet some of the £100k+ CEO salaries that are now commonplace around the counties, so perhaps a few targeted e-mails might not go totally amiss? The fact that it is not commercially viable is entirely irrelevant. It is a pastime, enjoyed, if often vicariously, by many many thousands, and is a completely reasonable way of counties spending the dividend that comes from International cricket. So, does anyone (Mr Soft and Fluffy for example?) have a list of e-mail addresses they could publish on here, so we can distribute them as widely as possible, so as many people as possible can get in the ears of these people who are seeking to destroy the oldest and best sports competition in the world (?), based on their entirely untested fantasy that there is some vast market for City based stadium cricket (at twice the price of the Big Bash, and without the essential publicity of free to air tv as in Oz), despite the proven commercial failure of playing T20 in a block, due to peoples unwillingness to buy 3 tickets in a week. |
|
