|
Post by hhsussex on Mar 1, 2015 15:52:17 GMT
Did anyone else hear the interview with Colin Graves on Five Live this morning? He said that the discussion paper was leaked and wasn't intended for public consumption at this stage. He also said he was not personally in favour of 3 day CC cricket, but that it wasn't just his opinion that would count in the end. Unfortunately, I fear the journos will focus primarily on his comments about KP. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/31681746Thanks flashblade. Unfortunately that's just what has happened.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2015 16:17:42 GMT
I like the idea of a discussion paper that isn't meant for public consumption because they don't want it to be discussed.
|
|
|
Post by theleopard on Mar 2, 2015 8:11:05 GMT
Whilst f-c cricket fans are perceived as intransigently traditional, the limited overs audience has proved fairly fickle down the years. Twenty years ago, there were Kent and Lancs members struggling to get in to the B&H Cup Final....these days, one can stroll along the Wellington Road two minutes before play commences and pay on the gate. The massively popular 40 over game - originally viewed by some as an abomination of brevity and thrash - eventually came to be regarded as a dull format with falling crowds and had to be augmented by a yet shorter, snappier version. Why did crowds for these formats fall?
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Mar 2, 2015 8:22:41 GMT
My memory is not what it was but I suspect crowds decreased once the fixtures were moved from Sunday afternoon to any old day of the week to appease the paymaster Sky. Another consequence of removing cricket from free to air tv.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Mar 2, 2015 10:42:44 GMT
However sad and upsetting the present state of play, cricket is decreasing in popularity and this decline must be halted as soon as possible. This must be tackled from the very top downwards and in recent years we have had an ECB not fit for purpose.
Their backward thinking has turned England, at times, into a laughing stock, whether it be the handling of Pietersen, their choice of hierarchy or now, the huge gulf that has occurred in the shorter game between us and other top cricketing nations.
Colin Graves, hopefully, is a forward thinker. Yet, the proposals recently discussed on this Forum are more wishful thinking as no-one knows how the ECB debate will go. The old guard might win the day still.
And the idea that an EPL will somehow magically make things alright is, perhaps, a little naive. England is not Australia. Their cricketing nation and set up is so different to ours. One can see major problems ahead - difficulties which could tear the very fabric apart of English cricket as the backward and forward thinkers clash.
English cricket survives in its present form because of the SKY and ESPN media deals. Without their recent £400m there would not be 18 counties in existence. So, the idea that cricket should go onto terrestrial TV is not feasible unless supporters are willing to have no-more than 12 counties at best.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2015 22:24:58 GMT
According to The Observer, a 75 per cent 'yes' vote by the counties will be required to set up an IPL: "The golden goose is an eight-or-10 team English Premier League tournament for Twenty20. It also looks the biggest obstacle to overcome. A 75% majority vote among the 18 counties will be required to create a short, high-intensity competition that gets the tills ringing and the broadcasters willing to shell out more. Like passing a bill in parliament, there is little point in Graves or Harrison attempting to push through such dramatic change unless the counties are on board. The players, at least, are crying out for it, even if their numbers drop as a result." www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/mar/21/cricket-rulers-england-colin-graves-kevin-pietersen
If this is true, that means a total of just five counties could veto the proposal. The Kent chief executive has already announced that Kent will be one of them. I hope we can have an assurance that Sussex will not join the reactionaries ; Zac said a few weeks ago that Sussex were open to the idea if adequate compensation was on offer.
It would be totally unacceptable if say, a combination of Kent, Leicestershire, Northants, Derbys and Worcs - all of whom I think attract tiny crowds of between 1,500-2,500 at their Friday night T20 Blast matches - attempted to veto it. If it is blocked, though, I don't think that will be an association of the five smallest counties as Derbyshire have already come out in support of an EPL, and Wasim Khan , the new Leics CEO, is far too savvy and forward-thinking to align himself with the would-be wreckers. But , say, Kent, Northants and Worcs would still only need two other counties to prevent the 75 per cent majority which The Observer says is required. A golden opportunity was blocked when the smaller counties rejected the last proposal in 2009. I hope those parochial county committee men who are thinking of standing in the way of progress understand that they will never be forgiven if they screw up English cricket's best chance of survival yet again.
|
|
|
Post by invicta1977 on Mar 22, 2015 13:06:57 GMT
According to The Observer, a 75 per cent 'yes' vote by the counties will be required to set up an IPL: "The golden goose is an eight-or-10 team English Premier League tournament for Twenty20. It also looks the biggest obstacle to overcome. A 75% majority vote among the 18 counties will be required to create a short, high-intensity competition that gets the tills ringing and the broadcasters willing to shell out more. Like passing a bill in parliament, there is little point in Graves or Harrison attempting to push through such dramatic change unless the counties are on board. The players, at least, are crying out for it, even if their numbers drop as a result." www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/mar/21/cricket-rulers-england-colin-graves-kevin-pietersen
If this is true, that means a total of just five counties could veto the proposal. The Kent chief executive has already announced that Kent will be one of them. I hope we can have an assurance that Sussex will not join the reactionaries ; Zac said a few weeks ago that Sussex were open to the idea if adequate compensation was on offer.
It would be totally unacceptable if say, a combination of Kent, Leicestershire, Northants, Derbys and Worcs - all of whom I think attract tiny crowds of between 1,500-2,500 at their Friday night T20 Blast matches - attempted to veto it. If it is blocked, though, I don't think that will be an association of the five smallest counties as Derbyshire have already come out in support of an EPL, and Wasim Khan , the new Leics CEO, is far too savvy and forward-thinking to align himself with the would-be wreckers. But , say, Kent, Northants and Worcs would still only need two other counties to prevent the 75 per cent majority which The Observer says is required. A golden opportunity was blocked when the smaller counties rejected the last proposal in 2009. I hope those parochial county committee men who are thinking of standing in the way of progress understand that they will never be forgiven if they screw up English cricket's best chance of survival yet again.
The details given in that article are still pretty vague . What does an '8 to 10 team Premier League' actually entail? Stand alone teams financed solely by private investment, or a Big Bash style affair with the ruling body exercising a fair degree of control? Will the PL be the only T20 tournament in England, or will a lower tier of county matches continue? I suspect the answers to these questions may go some way in shaping the responses from the less enthusiastic counties - until a clear and detailed proposal is placed on the table, it's difficult to expect the clubs to offer a definite yea or nay. Wisden commented some years ago that Lord Tesco, whilst an astute businessmen, proved a poor politician in his time at the ECB. I suspect Graves and Harrison will need to display considerable political dexterity in any bid to introduce a PL.
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Mar 23, 2015 9:05:10 GMT
According to The Observer, a 75 per cent 'yes' vote by the counties will be required to set up an IPL: "The golden goose is an eight-or-10 team English Premier League tournament for Twenty20. It also looks the biggest obstacle to overcome. A 75% majority vote among the 18 counties will be required to create a short, high-intensity competition that gets the tills ringing and the broadcasters willing to shell out more. Like passing a bill in parliament, there is little point in Graves or Harrison attempting to push through such dramatic change unless the counties are on board. The players, at least, are crying out for it, even if their numbers drop as a result." www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/mar/21/cricket-rulers-england-colin-graves-kevin-pietersen
If this is true, that means a total of just five counties could veto the proposal. The Kent chief executive has already announced that Kent will be one of them. I hope we can have an assurance that Sussex will not join the reactionaries ; Zac said a few weeks ago that Sussex were open to the idea if adequate compensation was on offer.
It would be totally unacceptable if say, a combination of Kent, Leicestershire, Northants, Derbys and Worcs - all of whom I think attract tiny crowds of between 1,500-2,500 at their Friday night T20 Blast matches - attempted to veto it. If it is blocked, though, I don't think that will be an association of the five smallest counties as Derbyshire have already come out in support of an EPL, and Wasim Khan , the new Leics CEO, is far too savvy and forward-thinking to align himself with the would-be wreckers. But , say, Kent, Northants and Worcs would still only need two other counties to prevent the 75 per cent majority which The Observer says is required. A golden opportunity was blocked when the smaller counties rejected the last proposal in 2009. I hope those parochial county committee men who are thinking of standing in the way of progress understand that they will never be forgiven if they screw up English cricket's best chance of survival yet again.
The details given in that article are still pretty vague . What does an '8 to 10 team Premier League' actually entail? Stand alone teams financed solely by private investment, or a Big Bash style affair with the ruling body exercising a fair degree of control? Will the PL be the only T20 tournament in England, or will a lower tier of county matches continue? I suspect the answers to these questions may go some way in shaping the responses from the less enthusiastic counties - until a clear and detailed proposal is placed on the table, it's difficult to expect the clubs to offer a definite yea or nay. Wisden commented some years ago that Lord Tesco, whilst an astute businessmen, proved a poor politician in his time at the ECB. I suspect Graves and Harrison will need to display considerable political dexterity in any bid to introduce a PL. I would think that is why the famous "strategy conversation" document was compiled, in order to draw out the possible sympathies of the different county chairmen so that policy development could take place against the background of knowing that so many people were supportive of this strand of thinking, so many of another, until some kind of realistic synthesis could be made. Effectively what Graves and Harrison have to do is to develop that conversation so that the majority of county chairmen find themselves agreeing with a proposition that retains the recognition of what the old county club structure contributes to the development of the game, by providing a channel from schools through amateur clubs to professional games, whilst accepting that a new structure has to be created that will draw maximum crowds and sponsorship from a specialised, dynamic version of the game. The key to this would be to create assurances that the new role of the counties would receive ring-fenced sums of money from the PL revenues, provided that they ploughed it back into the development of the game in their own areas. Rather like Bevan and the NHS consultants, Graves and Harrison would stuff their mouths with gold.
|
|
|
Post by invicta1977 on Mar 23, 2015 9:46:30 GMT
The details given in that article are still pretty vague . What does an '8 to 10 team Premier League' actually entail? Stand alone teams financed solely by private investment, or a Big Bash style affair with the ruling body exercising a fair degree of control? Will the PL be the only T20 tournament in England, or will a lower tier of county matches continue? I suspect the answers to these questions may go some way in shaping the responses from the less enthusiastic counties - until a clear and detailed proposal is placed on the table, it's difficult to expect the clubs to offer a definite yea or nay. Wisden commented some years ago that Lord Tesco, whilst an astute businessmen, proved a poor politician in his time at the ECB. I suspect Graves and Harrison will need to display considerable political dexterity in any bid to introduce a PL. I would think that is why the famous "strategy conversation" document was compiled, in order to draw out the possible sympathies of the different county chairmen so that policy development could take place against the background of knowing that so many people were supportive of this strand of thinking, so many of another, until some kind of realistic synthesis could be made. Effectively what Graves and Harrison have to do is to develop that conversation so that the majority of county chairmen find themselves agreeing with a proposition that retains the recognition of what the old county club structure contributes to the development of the game, by providing a channel from schools through amateur clubs to professional games, whilst accepting that a new structure has to be created that will draw maximum crowds and sponsorship from a specialised, dynamic version of the game. The key to this would be to create assurances that the new role of the counties would receive ring-fenced sums of money from the PL revenues, provided that they ploughed it back into the development of the game in their own areas. Rather like Bevan and the NHS consultants, Graves and Harrison would stuff their mouths with gold. The smaller counties may want more than a share of PL revenues; given that the Big Bash is reputed to barely make a profit, they might demand guaranteed payback regardless of the competition's income. There may also be the matter of placating counties at the other end of the scale. Surrey reputedly made £3M from the T20 last year; what can be done to ensure that they at the very least make the same out of the new structure?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2015 9:55:46 GMT
Some smart comments here. But my main intention in quoting the Observer article was simply to draw attention to the claim that there is a 75 per cent bar on this, which theoretically gives the parochial interests of the five smallest counties the power of veto over a matter that is so critical to the future of English professional cricket.
Do we even know that the 75 per cent bar is true? Where did it come from? I've not seen it alluded to anywhere else, but is that what happened to the 2009 plan?
(invicta's point about Surrey is well made, btw; Richard Gould came out against an EPL in December for that very reason (although he dressed it up in less mercenary terms). It's why the EPL will have to be in addition to, and not instead of, a continuing county T20 competition of some kind...)
|
|
|
Post by timbo1988 on Mar 23, 2015 13:11:30 GMT
Is a English Big Bash or Premierleague really going to improve English fortunes. The biggest problem we have is there is not enough talent in the current English system and the selection of players for the World cup was very poor and not forward thinking enough. The T20 competition where we had 18 counties playing 10 matches over a short period in June/July was a very good competition, it attracted the best overseas stars and gave more players the chance to play.
If we had a 8-10 team competition then the number of players the ECB can pick from will be reduced and the lack of up and coming talent is a big problem. Less teams mean younger players will have less chance to play.
From a financial perspective I cannot see it being a success, firstly it will be city based all of whom already have County teams so you would expect people who want to watch cricket will go to that. Then you have the grounds such as Derbyshire/Sussex/Worcester who are not going to have a team are the members of the these teams going to watch a city team and have to travel a lot further I don't think so. Is it going to create a new fan base, maybe but the jury is out for me. The 8-10 teams have to make enough revenue to pay the 18 counties.
It works in Australia as you actually have more teams than state sides so more players and younger players get to play. Their population is city based so is geared to that setup.
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Mar 23, 2015 14:13:49 GMT
Some smart comments here. But my main intention in quoting the Observer article was simply to draw attention to the claim that there is a 75 per cent bar on this, which theoretically gives the parochial interests of the five smallest counties the power of veto over a matter that is so critical to the future of English professional cricket. Do we even know that the 75 per cent bar is true? Where did it come from? I've not seen it alluded to anywhere else, but is that what happened to the 2009 plan?(invicta's point about Surrey is well made, btw; Richard Gould came out against an EPL in December for that very reason (although he dressed it up in less mercenary terms). It's why the EPL will have to be in addition to, and not instead of, a continuing county T20 competition of some kind...) I don't know if it is written into the constitution or rules, but it seems sensible in a grouping of 18 bodies (plus the various associates) that significant changes should be adopted by a definite majority. 2/3rds would be mathematically more appropriate, since 13 out of 18 in favour of a motion would be 72.22%, so you would actually need 14 (77.77%) to cross the bar. With all of those I entirely agree with invicta that Graves and Harrison will have to do a lot of politicking to get any plan accepted that will yield significant change. The details of that politicking will undoubtedly have to cover the guaranteeing of revenue to both the haves and the have-nots. But that is the essence of the problem that needs to be faced, that we already have a multi-tier system where some Test match counties (Surrey, Middlesex, Notts, perhaps Warwicks) can get such big gates from a combination of Tests and other internationals, and T20 games of any description, that it simply wouldn't matter to them if they ended up playing combinations of themselves and the touring sides year after year: they would still make money. Then follows Lancashire and Yorkshire, and perhaps Glamorgan, who are desperately in debt of one kind or another and equally desperate to join the top tier to keep their snouts in the trough. Finally there are Hampshire and Durham, with very different levels of economics, but both concerned to draw the public out from their big urban concentrations to their semi-rural purpose-built stadia, on the same model as edge of town supermarkets. After that, the traditional shires grounds can only dream of what gates might be attracted. Sussex have a good team with a strong coach, very sound financial management, and the benefits of a large and wealthy population and excellent transport infrastructure, and yet they are struggling to keep up with the pack. Each year gets a little tougher, the costs and the expectations rise, and the more the top tier increases its profits and the base of the pyramid grows. This cannot be sustained and the drain on quality affecting the national game becomes more and more pronounced. If real change - not tinkering by making special exceptions for county A or B - cannot be brokered then we will probably end up with a rump of those top tier counties doing whatever their chairmen and financial advisors think is best to continue making money and retaining support, whether they play as Surrey or Notts, or from breakout groupings of London and Midlands Allstars. The rest will go to the wall because they didn't have the imagination to see any course other than carrying on as they always have done. And the game will be poorer and so will the spectators because when those counties die away so will the local leagues, the schools associations and the simple pleasures of the game.
|
|
|
Post by invicta1977 on Mar 23, 2015 14:56:52 GMT
Some smart comments here. But my main intention in quoting the Observer article was simply to draw attention to the claim that there is a 75 per cent bar on this, which theoretically gives the parochial interests of the five smallest counties the power of veto over a matter that is so critical to the future of English professional cricket. Do we even know that the 75 per cent bar is true? Where did it come from? I've not seen it alluded to anywhere else, but is that what happened to the 2009 plan?(invicta's point about Surrey is well made, btw; Richard Gould came out against an EPL in December for that very reason (although he dressed it up in less mercenary terms). It's why the EPL will have to be in addition to, and not instead of, a continuing county T20 competition of some kind...) But that is the essence of the problem that needs to be faced, that we already have a multi-tier system where some Test match counties (Surrey, Middlesex, Notts, perhaps Warwicks) can get such big gates from a combination of Tests and other internationals, and T20 games of any description, that it simply wouldn't matter to them if they ended up playing combinations of The rest will go to the wall because they didn't have the imagination to see any course other than carrying on as they always have done. And the game will be poorer and so will the spectators because when those counties die away so will the local leagues, the schools associations and the simple pleasures of the game. I'm hoping that 'the rest' will be basing their possible resistance less on a fear of change and more because they'll seek to 'Do a Scotland' - ie drag a heap of concessions from the ruling body in return for the desired vote. I think I'm more concerned with what appears to be a general assumption that an English T20 will be an automatic financial goldmine. The Big Bash, with its far larger crowds (admittedly paying a lot less per head) has been struggling to turn a profit, and that's without the outlay for the real cream of global T20 talent. I would imagine that substantial TV income would be vital to ensuring an English T20 is realistically viable; Scyld Berry suggested a few weeks ago that this would need the Indian market to come on board - with the caveat that Indian viewers will want to see their Indian heroes and that there's no guarantee that the BCCI would permit them to play in a rival tournament. (I don't know how much weight there is to this line of reasoning, but it's another point that requires consideration). Incidentally, re Middx....it'll be interesting to see what the MCC does with the hire costs of Lord's if an English PL transpires. If 'London North' is to be one of the nailed on outfits, there's surely only one ground in that region capable of housing a 20K+ crowd? Ker-ching!!!
|
|
|
Post by theleopard on Mar 23, 2015 14:57:37 GMT
How on earth did counties get by when there was no t20 cup, no huge SKY deal and far less international matches? I don't mean back in the 1970s, either. We're only talking about around a decade or so ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2015 14:58:13 GMT
I don't know if it is written into the constitution or rules, but it seems sensible in a grouping of 18 bodies (plus the various associates) that significant changes should be adopted by a definite majority. 2/3rds would be mathematically more appropriate, since 13 out of 18 in favour of a motion would be 72.22%, so you would actually need 14 (77.77%) to cross the bar. But this is what I don't understand. The Observer specifically said a 75 pert cent vote of the 18 counties is required, which if true means, as you correctly point out, just four counties can veto the other 14. But the ECB has not 18 members but 41. It also has a 14 strong elected board who should be allowed to get on with the job of balancing the interests of all its constituent parts. The decisions of the board should not be subject to veto by four backward-looking counties. I've not seen any evidence that this 75 per cent vote of the 18 counties is true. I'm not saying it isn't ; but I can find no reference to it anywhere else.
|
|