alythman
2nd XI player
everyone is welcome on here but some are more welcome than others
Posts: 25
|
Post by alythman on Feb 12, 2016 7:12:56 GMT
I would have thought that the franchise system just means that Sussex have no chance of ever being in the top tier,as the franchise hosts will just hold all the aces, in terms of being able to attract and retain players and having all the political power. At least the proposed system gives Sussex something to strive for, and glad we have people who are fighting our corner, rather than blindly accepting a permanent future of second best
Thought I needed to give an opposite view as no-one on here seems prepared to give a counter argument. This forum has got Sussex ccc in its title after all, so surprised no-one on here seems to mind Sussex having a permanent place in the also rans
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Feb 12, 2016 10:00:01 GMT
Alythman,
I wouldn't take the Nick Hoult article that seriously, anyway. Like George Dobell, Hoult gets carried away with speculation as when there is nothing concrete, what else is left to write about?
I am disappointed by Graves and Harrison (G&H) for dithering and showing little metal. Important decisions have to be made about the future survival of county cricket and the longer it takes the more difficult the eventual outcome becomes.
Imho, the status quo will remain and county cricket wins the day. Given the 18 county set up, changes are hard at the best of times, but major ones as the media have speculated about are almost impossible. For G&H to continue using the Press as a litmus paper test is pointless now. You either reduce the Championship games or not; create an EPL or not etc.. Just do it!
Whatever the decision, there will be an outcry and some clubs and their county hierarchy will drag their feet and use the local media to express their concerns and upset. The idea that major changes can occur quietly is nonsense.
So, to repeat, I see little innovation or adjustment ahead. The one area which could be used to broker a deal - the one that a majority of cricket followers would be happy to see the back of - is the RLC. But, that is the competition the ECB want to keep the most!
Stalemate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2016 10:34:50 GMT
Completely disagree with that,s&f.
The proposals will be ratified on March 7, and will begin this season in the preparatory aspects with the full programme starting in 2017.
Both Hoult and Davd Hopps report that the counties have been lined up to accept and so from 2017 we wil have:
1. An elite eight team CC div one (possibly rebranded CC Premier League), consisting of I'd guess seven TMGs - Yorks, Lancs, Middx, Surrey, Notts, Warwicks, Durham - plus, sticking my neck out, a newly promoted Sussex. They will play a reduced CC programme of 14 matches rather than the present 16.
2. A Premier T20 league of nine, consisting of the eight quarter-finalists in 2016 plus the next best. This is a bit of a gamble, as the Graves/Harrison/Strauss master plan depends on eight TMGs making the quarter-finals and the ninth TMG being runner up. I doubt they will get all nine in year one and one or two 'undesirables' will creep through. But they will settle for six or seven and expect promotion and relegation to deliver a full hand over the next year or two.
3. The T20 will be played in a single block in high summer and the 50 over comp pushed to the start of the season, so we can get it out of the way before we've all properly woken up from our winter hibernation.
Given that several counties were never going to agree to city-based franchises, this is as good as it was going to get - and it's pretty darned good, in my book. It should deliver increased quality in the top divisions of both T20 and CC and allow the non-TMGs happily to carry on pottering about in the lower tier.
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Feb 12, 2016 10:38:06 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2016 10:55:51 GMT
Eight teams in div one and they all play each other twice = 14 games.
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Feb 12, 2016 11:01:59 GMT
borderman I have just reread the article more slowly and can still see no reference to altering Championship cricket. Perhaps I am having a senior moment or just seeing what I want to see
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2016 11:39:11 GMT
One hinges upon the other - the only way a block of mid summer is freed up for an enhanced T20 comp. with 16 matches instead of the present 14 is cutting out two CC matches. It's this trade-off that has brought the counties on board, because every one of them is delighted to drop one money-losing home four day match in return for an extra cash-generating home T20 fixture - which is what, in effect, they are being offered.
Also possible, by the way, that Divs One and Two of the CC may end up with different sponsors.
Telegraph:
"As expected, the championship will be reduced from 16 to 14 matches with a top division of eight teams, and a second of ten.
The changes will come into effect in 2017 but a decision has to be made before the start of this season because results in this summer’s Natwest T20 Blast and championship will determine which division counties play in next year.
It is likely the eight teams reaching this year’s Natwest T20 Blast quarter-final will qualify for next summer’s division one with the ninth team the next best performing side.
In the championship this summer two teams will be relegated from division one but only one side promoted from division two.
The move to two divisions in the Natwest T20 Blast will increase the number of Twenty20 games from currently 14 per county to 16 with sides playing each other once home and away.
But by removing two four-day fixtures from the Championship schedule it frees up more time at the height of summer to play Natwest T20 Blast games when schools and families are on holiday with a large block of matches to be played in July and August."
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Feb 12, 2016 11:49:49 GMT
The problem being I trust the wise and careful old owl of David Hopps more than the young cricket writer pretender Nick Hoult.
David Hopps (quotes)
: "if recommendations from an ECB working party are accepted next month..."
: "The proposed rejection of an eight-team franchise..."
: "A report in the Telegraph has now confirmed that the long-awaited consultation paper has been circulated to the counties. County chief executives will be asked to support what is essentially a proposal of minimal disruption to England's professional game before the decision goes before the Board on March 7."
: "Modest adjustment these proposals might be..."
etc, etc, etc..
These are still "proposals", that is all - there is nothing concrete, yet. And given how the reduction of 16 Championship matches to 14 was considered a done deal for this the 2016 season, I shall wait for something concrete before I believe anything. The word "proposals" and "If" do little to ring my bell. Ask me again after March 7th.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2016 12:03:21 GMT
I think the difference is that Nick Hoult was leaked a copy of the document. Hopps hasn't actually seen it.
It will either all happen or none of it can happen, because you cannot have the enhanced T20 tournament without the reduced CC.
That's the cleverness of what Graves/Harrison/Strauss have come up with and how they've got the counties on board who were previously so hostile . Ask Jim May if he would like to swap a loss-making CC game at Hove for an extra T20 pay day. He will bite your hand off. Same answer from Kent - and from every other county CEO the length and breadth of the country.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Feb 12, 2016 12:18:05 GMT
Bm,
I agree with your sentiment. As a political tool, it is a sound one. I do accept the Championship will be reduced to 14 games. That is a cert. But everything else, I'll await until after March 7th.
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Feb 12, 2016 12:29:58 GMT
If the CC 2nd division has 10 teams, how will a 14 match programme work? So much for the 'integrity' of the competition.
|
|
alythman
2nd XI player
everyone is welcome on here but some are more welcome than others
Posts: 25
|
Post by alythman on Feb 12, 2016 12:32:40 GMT
It seems to me that (assuming it is true) we have a sensible solution, and one where the counties and ECB have worked together reasonably well to come up with a workable model.
The loss of a couple of championship games seems to be a small price to pay if it means that the smaller clubs still retain the opportunity of competing for the top honours, rather than the elite teams just being decided by the size of their ground (although it is probably stacked in their favour anyway)
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Feb 12, 2016 12:40:10 GMT
I think the difference is that Nick Hoult was leaked a copy of the document. Hopps hasn't actually seen it. It will either all happen or none of it can happen, because you cannot have the enhanced T20 tournament without the reduced CC.That's the cleverness of what Graves/Harrison/Strauss have come up with and how they've got the counties on board who were previously so hostile . Ask Jim May if he would like to swap a loss-making CC game at Hove for an extra T20 pay day. He will bite your hand off. Same answer from Kent - and from every other county CEO the length and breadth of the country. I think that is probably right, and everything follows from that. Once the counties a) Rejected the idea of franchises, although they probably will come in when this current compromise proves to be no more than a hiatus, and b) Failed to contest the ECB over retaining the unhappy and tedious 50 over competition, then there were few choices. Of course it could have been an opportunity for Graves and co to lead from the front and say "there is no bailout money any longer; in future you get loans based on meeting performance criteria or not at all". That would have shaken out one or two counties at the bottom of the pile, but unfortunately that would have upset the ECB because it would certainly have disbarred Glamorgan from the begging bowl - a major credibility issue for the determinedly inclusive England and Wales Cricket Board - and could probably have shone an unwelcome light on the precise nature of Graves' own loan arrangement with mighty Yorkshire, as well as exposing the shivering sands on which Old Trafford is currently built. That is why I think it is a particularly unhappy compromise in that it solves nothing, upsets the traditionalists by reducing the overall volume of first-class matches, loses forever a good marketing opportunity from local derbies, retains the feudal status of a number of counties that owe their continued survival to the lucky chances of 10 summers of war in the 20th century when memberships were paid but there were no outgoings,and misses the vital point of building a strong enough commercial base through exploiting its one marketable asset, the T20 game, in order to continue providing the kind of cricket that most of us here enjoy watching best of all. As for the whine of the month that set off this little flurry of speculation, the important issue is not that "the franchise system just means that Sussex have no chance of ever being in the top tier...", it is that, as some of us tried to point out last year, that the worst thing Sussex could have done was to be relegated at a time when the entry criteria have been so drastically narrowed. The deed is done now, and unless Sussex can get back at first bounce they have little chance of regaining any bargaining power. That is the reality; counties like Surrey have no love for franchises and will remain opposed to them right up until the time when there are no alternatives, and then they will turn the screws to ensure that they pay off the interest on their own loans. By losing that first division place to Hampshire Sussex threw away their cards, their influence, and a good deal of credibility. They will have to play outstandingly well this season and be supported by strong and determined management in order to have a hope of survival beyond the next few years.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Feb 12, 2016 15:56:43 GMT
Hhs,
as well as exposing the shivering sands on which Old Trafford is currently built.
Don't you mean Edgbaston? Lancashire are the financially strongest of the non-London TMGs.
an opportunity for Graves and co to lead from the front and say "there is no bailout money any longer; in future you get loans based on meeting performance criteria or not at all". That would have shaken out one or two counties at the bottom of the pile,
But it is a two-way street, surely? What keeps the ECB hierarchy awake at night, is the fear that another Packer or Stanford comes along waving ££millions to the counties with promises of a rich Franchise T20 tournament and another potential ‘Project Victoria’ scenario occurs where 7 or 8 counties form a break-away league. At the root of all ECB negotiations, I am sure that potential, although unlikely occurrence, must affect their thinking and, perhaps, why Graves and Harrison have shown weakness in their recent negotiating and why brains over brawn must win the day via shrewd political manoeuvres.
If you go in too heavy-handed and cause upset, it could open the door to another Lalit Modi.
|
|
nemmo
Captain 2nd XI
Posts: 285
|
Post by nemmo on Feb 12, 2016 17:45:34 GMT
One of the most chilling lines in that piece was definitely this one
"The working party also rejects the notion, strongly advanced by some of the bigger counties, that those city-based grounds with the biggest capacities should automatically be given First Division status on the grounds that these venues - if full to capacity - provide a better spectacle and a more attractive TV product."
The fact some larger counties (unnamed in the article) believe that placement into a division should not be based on the performance of their team but of the size of their ground. This is frankly disgusting.
Also surely a 2 division nation-wide T20 will mean far more travelling for the teams? What is the point in hacking out a 4 Day Game if you now have to travel considerably further, unless some very clever scheduling is worked out then this must be inevitable. Also there will be less room for away support and some local derbies will surely get missed out on by some counties. I honestly liked the 3 groups setup. Admittedly the groups were not very well balanced but there was little travelling and lots of away support.
As an aside when will the ECB management come to the realisation that their dream money spinning T20 will forever be a total pipedream until they bite the bullet and allow a free-to-air broadcaster a significant slice of the action. Without this any new T20 system or reforms will come to nothing. You only need to look at what happened with the Big Bash when it went on a non paid for channel.
|
|