|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 10, 2020 13:24:37 GMT
Is there an underlying assumption that members will be "appeased" if 4 day cricket is played. even if they can't go and watch it??
|
|
|
|
Post by joe on Jul 10, 2020 14:48:17 GMT
Sussex to host a 2 day Red ball friendly v Hants 27/28th July.
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jul 10, 2020 16:42:08 GMT
Reading the BBC quote it sounds like they threatened to withdraw / withhold ECB funding or not allow them to part in the T20 or face exclusion from future county competitions. Interesting comment. I must be reading the wrong BBC article...the one I have seen makes absolutely no mention of this (implied or otherwise). Are you able to supply a link of your actual source of article, in order to satisfy my curiosity? From my point of view, I hope that there was a healthy debate on all the various issues (not sure there was any real need for the high level of acrimony that was apparently reported). Not sure why my county felt the need to be one of the 4 renegade counties (7 actually voted against the proposal). Much better to accept the majority view, so glad that some pragmatic common sense has finally surfaced. There is only one article. What made the four counties change their mind so quickly when they had absolutely no inclination to play red ball cricket yesterday? Seven cannot have voted against it as it required a two thirds majority. |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jul 10, 2020 16:43:47 GMT
Is there an underlying assumption that members will be "appeased" if 4 day cricket is played. even if they can't go and watch it?? Counties dont give a **** about the members. The big counties wanted to play it. They probably threatened to expel the four permanently. For Gloucestershire and Hampshire there was the threat of no future international cricket and for Leicestershire and Northants they are the two easiest counties to dispense with. |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 10, 2020 18:49:11 GMT
Is there an underlying assumption that members will be "appeased" if 4 day cricket is played. even if they can't go and watch it?? Counties dont give a **** about the members. The big counties wanted to play it. They probably threatened to expel the four permanently. For Gloucestershire and Hampshire there was the threat of no future international cricket and for Leicestershire and Northants they are the two easiest counties to dispense with. Well, I don't approve of the big counties bullying the smaller counties, do you? |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 10, 2020 18:51:11 GMT
Interesting comment. I must be reading the wrong BBC article...the one I have seen makes absolutely no mention of this (implied or otherwise). Are you able to supply a link of your actual source of article, in order to satisfy my curiosity? From my point of view, I hope that there was a healthy debate on all the various issues (not sure there was any real need for the high level of acrimony that was apparently reported). Not sure why my county felt the need to be one of the 4 renegade counties (7 actually voted against the proposal). Much better to accept the majority view, so glad that some pragmatic common sense has finally surfaced. There is only one article. What made the four counties change their mind so quickly when they had absolutely no inclination to play red ball cricket yesterday? Seven cannot have voted against it as it required a two thirds majority.The BBC reported that this particular vote was to be based on a simple majority. |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jul 11, 2020 6:34:09 GMT
Counties dont give a **** about the members. The big counties wanted to play it. They probably threatened to expel the four permanently. For Gloucestershire and Hampshire there was the threat of no future international cricket and for Leicestershire and Northants they are the two easiest counties to dispense with. Well, I don't approve of the big counties bullying the smaller counties, do you? I don't approve of this however the reality is the bigger you are the more you are able to influence things. |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jul 11, 2020 6:34:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 11, 2020 9:14:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by burgesshill on Jul 11, 2020 11:22:49 GMT
Well, it's wrong. You might need two thirds to change something. But this wasn't about changing something, because it was simply, 'How do we want to proceed?' Everyone agreed a straight majority would do. It had to do, otherwise you could have been stuck in deadlock forever,with no-one able to get a two thirds majority. |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jul 11, 2020 16:03:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jul 12, 2020 7:23:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 12, 2020 8:09:12 GMT
Most counties couldn't afford to unfurlough their players until they had some indication of whether/when there was going to be a cricket season. Can't compare with horse racing, because horses were never furloughed in the first place. They continued to be trained, presumably? |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jul 12, 2020 8:55:58 GMT
Most counties couldn't afford to unfurlough their players until they had some indication of whether/when there was going to be a cricket season. Can't compare with horse racing, because horses were never furloughed in the first place. They continued to be trained, presumably? That is correct. The decision to furlough was a choice. Ascot has ruled itself out of a trial on 25th July. Goodwood on 28th July looks the most likely starting point for a trial. It has 4,000 members and with 4 owners per horse would need 5,000 to be allowed although it can take 20,000 people. www.google.com/amp/s/www.racingpost.com/news/needing-the-5000-goodwood-hopes-to-have-members-at-one-day-of-glorious-meeting/441858/amp |
|
|
|
Post by burgesshill on Jul 12, 2020 9:30:32 GMT
Interesting, but that begs the question, how did they use to cope? It's only in the last 20 years or so that players have been on full 12 month contracts with pre-seaon training starting as early as November. In the not so distant past players would turn up for pre-season training the last week of March, after 6 months of doing something else to pay the bills. And there were fewer injuries then, because they had fewer miles on the clock, as they hadn't spent all winter knackering themselves training. |
|
