Proposed new English franchise tournament

How bizarre. I wrote a comment asking why no statement just as the club placed one on their website. So, I have now amended the piece and looked at what other counties have published. At present, Kent STILL haven't released a statement which is shoddy of them.

Surrey's reasons are obvious. ‘We don’t need it. We are fiscally fine as we are.’ Yet, the other two, Kent and Sussex, both financially need the alleged proposed annual £1.5m a year handout to compete against the other 15 counties. 

From the majority 16-3 YAYS,  Derbyshire's explanation. “The Club believes that any proposal for the domestic structure that provides long-term financial sustainability and encourages more people to play and support cricket is good for the game. The Club, therefore, welcomes the ECB’s review of the domestic T20 competition and believes that today’s meeting was very constructive.”

Warwickshire also: “Warwickshire CCC has welcomed the ECB’s review of the domestic T20 competition and the club believes that today's meeting was very constructive and a positive step towards attracting more people to play and support the game of Cricket and also to create a commercially sustainable model for the future.”

The other YAY counties have published similar explanations.

Even the anti-Surrey has written: “Whilst we would have very much preferred for an option involving all counties to have remained on the table for further discussion – and a lot more detailed work needs to be done before anything can be finalised – we are looking forward to working constructively with the ECB in the direction of travel that has been agreed at today’s meeting.”

Finally, we have now Sussex's statement.

"...We recognise the current financial risks to Counties, including over dependence on international income, and the opportunities to develop interest in the game, including the changing media landscape. The Board is open to considering change in the schedule but our strong preference is that domestic tournaments should feature all 18 First Class Counties.... There is much work to carry out on many issues before the game will be in a position to give agreement to the proposed new schedule. Sussex Cricket will continue to participate in this process in a constructive way."

Everyone agrees this 16-3 vote is the beginning of a series of negotiations ahead but one suggests the counties do not have that much say if they are willing to accept £1.5m each a year. It is disappointing that Sussex lie in a tiny minority of three, although not surprising given the present culture, particularly when the most traditional and conservative cricket group of all, the MCC, also voted for the City-Franchise. In fact, given the high T20 Blast attendances at Lord's this season, the MCC represent a far more broad and open-minded group than many of the counties. For, they have seen first hand, the huge crowds that can be attracted to a major T20 tournament.

A concern is that Nick Hoult has suggested the Franchise competition may not begin until 2020 rather than the previously mooted 2018 due to better media/TV negotiations. Personally, the sooner this tournament begins the better as the process of decreasing the present £90m+ county debt can begin and we can attract new people to our wonderful game to help boost the survival of county cricket for another 25 years.

band,

Is it too early to know the following
1) Is it, like Ausralia Big Bash going to be on free to air TV
2) Will players selected be w/d from county games to play in it.

I usually take my information from Nick Hoult as he is the messenger boy for the ECB, for when a leak is required, Hoult's your
man.

My understanding is the ECB wish to model their tournament on the BBL where free to air TV is part of the plan. Players will be
auctioned and chosen by each Franchise. Hopefully, those available will include England cricketers, a good selection of Overseas
Stars and the cream from the counties. The tournament will last a month - presumably during the months of June and July. There will
be eight teams, each based at a TMG around the country. One suspects London will have two at Lord's and The Oval and the others
may include the Ageas Bowl, Swalec, Trentbridge, Edgbaston, Old Trafford and Headingley. The contentious decision may be Durham. Will 
they be left out and allowed to go bankrupt? 

The major problem with this City-based tournament is that clubs like Sussex, Kent, Northants, Leicestershire, Derbyshire and Worcestershire
could be left behind. As the tournament may reward non-TMG ambition like Somerset who have upgraded their venue to ODI status; Gloucestershire
revamping theirs to ODI prominence via money from a major housing development; and Essex with the Olympic Stadium. If some of the matches are
"farmed out" and each of these clubs are offered monies for hosting games, then Sussex becomes less competitive, posing the question. Could not
more ambition have been shown with the use of the Spen Cama Legacy?

The overall hope is that this Franchise tournament will attract many new people to cricket eg. like the Big Bash; far more money will enter the English
game which can then help decrease the county debt, where there is presently far too much reliance from international revenues; and most importantly of all,
the county Championship can survive for another 25 years. 

Yes, plenty of back-pedalling and "of course we didn't really mean that". The reply I've received from Sussex, for example, includes this "We will now focus on analysing, challenging and understanding the implications . This will take some time and as you are no doubt aware will not be a simple task".

The first sentence suggests that they voted no because they didn't think it would get through. Now that it has happened they have to try and make sense of it - a bit like Brexit. The second sentence implies that they aren't ready for Article 50 to be activated at the October ECB Board meeting. This is borne out by Jim May's remarks to the Argus that “Sussex’s preference is to have a competition where all the counties are involved. That is our stated position but we accept the collective decision of the first class counties and will play a constructive part in trying to make it work." www.theargus.co.uk/sport/14744754.Sussex_oppose_new_T20_plans___but_will_help_make_it_work/

Again there is no commitment to consult so that seems to be something that the ECB would like to see happen but that the counties have no intention of doing. So no change there then: the suits in the committee will work out what's best for the market and then be hurt and angry when the market doesn't want what they have decided on.

Yes. Stripped of salutations it reads

All that was agreed at yesterday’s meeting was to further explore one of the options which the press has outlined .
We have committed to communicate with our members as soon as we have the relevant and meaningful information. We will of course outline any meetings etc at that stage. We will now focus on analysing, challenging and understanding the implications . This will take some time and as you are no doubt aware will not be a simple task.

Question: does "Communicate with" equal "Consult"?

Thanks, legside lizzie, for highlighting a very good article on the clumsy, secretive, and autocratic ways of the ECB - 

cricketvixen.wordpress.com/2016/09/15/putting-a-bandaid-on-a-burnt-bridge/