|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Sept 16, 2016 10:45:40 GMT
Bm,
Thank you for that insight.
So Kent abstained; Surrey refused because they are in a unique position to be financially better off without a City-Franchise. So, Sussex are the only county out of 19 (+MCC) to realistically say no.
Not sure what that says about our club and the hierarchy who run it. Visionaries or out of touch with cricketing reality?
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Sept 22, 2016 9:29:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Sept 22, 2016 10:03:19 GMT
Very glad to see that and encourage all who have a view to participate fully and promote an open discussion of the issues. It isn't easy for any institution to stand outside itself and look critically at what needs to change. I find the wording of the announcement rather defensive, but that is only to be expected, and I hope that the further meeting with the ECB on 29 September will provide much more to inform discussion at the 12 October meeting. Given Zac Toumazi's impending departure, who is representing Sussex from an executive perspective in these talks? It wouldn't be reasonable to expect Toumazi to negotiate for things he knows he won't be here to deliver, or to defend to the Board, so will everything now devolve to Jim May?
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Sept 23, 2016 14:45:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Sept 23, 2016 14:51:12 GMT
Yes, a somewhat more neutral posture in this invitation, compared to Sussex. Interesting that Essex were one of the 16 counties in favour of the new competition, bearing in mind the success of Friday Nights at Chelmsford.
|
|
jim
2nd XI player
Posts: 182
|
Post by jim on Sept 25, 2016 19:03:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Sept 25, 2016 19:23:40 GMT
Do you share that opinion, jim?
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Sept 25, 2016 19:25:51 GMT
Jim, in order to promote a balanced discussion, perhaps you could also give us a link to an article which makes the counter argument? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Sept 26, 2016 8:22:54 GMT
jim,
Many thanks for that article link written by Vic Marks. I was tweeted the same one from Jon Filby at a similar time.
I like Marks. He is well respected within the cricketing community but his concerns over the Championship are unfounded, imho. Naturally, the sentiment and emotion behind the format has grown in recent days after one of the most exciting endings to the top Division in living memory.
I say unfounded because the last thing the ECB will want as part of their pitch to the 18 counties is for the new City-Franchise to affect it. This June Sussex CCC played only one Champo game and in July two. Whatever month is chosen I am convinced "no" counties will play Championship games, particularly when there are now two less matches. The fixture list will accordingly be devised to stop this. Just as, up the road, there will be no International games during that month so that all the England squad are available to play.
My concern is the 'T20 Blast'. Will matches be played during the month of the City-Franchise? As having two T20 events occurring at the same time may have a detrimental effect on both.
Therefore, August is the obvious month for a City-Franchise as Marks moots. The kids will be on holiday; the qualifying T20 Blast and RLC matches will have ended; and players can take a complete break from the Championship. The only format to suffer will be home Internationals; where both the T20 Blast Final Day and RLC Cup Final can then be played in September.
Question: So, what will the county cricketers not involved in the City-Franchise do during August? Recover from niggling injuries, work with their batting and bowling coaches in the nets, go overseas to play, star for local CCs like Eastbourne, Worthing etc.. the possibilities are many.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2016 9:21:27 GMT
Do you share that opinion, jim? Unless he has changed his mind in the past week or so, then we know he does not. Mr May has said several times that he is in favour of a second T20 competition but he wants it to include 18 county teams split into two divisions rather than just 8 teams (option two in the ECB discussion document). Therefore he has told us he wants more T20 - loads more. Under his favoured option Sussex (and every county) would play something between 22 and 30 T20 matches per season, rather than the current 14. This would entail cutting the CC programme from next season's 14 matches to 12 or even 10 matches from 2018. Yet the option he voted against two weeks ago for 8 teams would not mean the CC had to be cut at all, as it could continue during the window in which the EPL was being played. Mr May could get no other county, with the possible exception of Surrey, to agree with him on this and I don''t believe there are any Sussex supporters who favour the further reduction in the number of CC matches which Mr May's prefered option entails. Perhaps he has changed his mind and is now opposed to a second T20 competiton of any description and has suddenly become a stour defender of maximising the number of games in the four day county championship. If so, it's one hell of a flip-flop! Marks in his article says we only need one T20 tournament but he is prepared to entertain the possibility that it might not be the 18 county T20 Blast. He writes: "I’m not entirely sure of the best solution but am increasingly convinced that it involves either a new, all-singing, all-dancing eight-team competition or a version of the current NatWest Blast." So he is preprared to consider the new eight team tournament REPLACING the existing 18 county T20 Blast. If that happened Sussex would play no T20 cricket whatsoever. Is that what Mr May wants? By posting a link to this article - the implication of which is that Mr May is in broad agreement wth it - Sussex's position appears to be more confused and all-over-the-shop than ever...
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Sept 26, 2016 9:45:19 GMT
Bm,
Having spoken to Jon Filby over the weekend, my understanding is that the Sussex CCC hierarchy do not want a City-Franchise Tournament. Period. But are open to other alternative schemes. The problem being, as you point out, the idea of having two 18 county T20 competitions does not seem feasible or likely, cemented by the fact that 15 counties + the MCC disagree with Sussex and wish to pursue the City-Franchise based idea, although and quite rightly, via lengthy discussion and negotiation.
As Chris Adams wrote in a recent Evening Argus column, “I understand (the club) concerns… you have to admire them for standing up for what they believe in.” But if few other counties believe in what you want, the majority always win the day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2016 10:00:25 GMT
So you are saying that Mr May and Sussex do not agree with Vic Marks at all because Marks' article reveals that he is not opposed to an eight team city tournament - he is merely opposed to having two T20 competitions (which is the direct opposite of Mr May who seems to favour as many T20 competitions as the ECB can fit in as long as Sussex play in all of them). Moreover, Marks tells us he is prepared to consider an eight team EPL replacing the existing T20 Blast, leaving Sussex playing no T20 cicket at all...
BTW, don't call it a "franchise tournanment". The difference between what the ECB are planning and franchised cricket is huge.
This new competition will be owned and administered by the ECB, with profits to be distributed throughout the game (i.e. not franchised) rather than into the pockets of private companies and wealthy individuals (which would be franchised).
I'm not being pedantic. It's an absolutely fundamental distinction.
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Sept 26, 2016 10:01:39 GMT
Is it a coincidence that Sussex is the oldest cricketing county and has probably the best museum on the circuit?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2016 10:04:24 GMT
Is it a coincidence that Sussex is the oldest cricketing county and has probably the best museum on the circuit? Museum is certainly excellent, but there are others at least as impressive, such as the one at Edgbaston.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Sept 26, 2016 10:40:44 GMT
Bm, BTW, don't call it a "franchise tournanment". The difference between what the ECB are planning and franchised cricket is huge. This new competition will be owned and administered by the ECB, with profits to be distributed throughout the game (i.e. not franchised) rather than into the pockets of private companies and wealthy individuals (which would be franchised). You are absolutely right. Farewell the "F" word. Welcome the "C" word. My confusion comes over the BBL Franchises where the teams are owned by the individual States rather than individual people eg. IPL. There is growing pressure though to change the BBL ownership to private like the IPL. But yes, the EPL will be different from both these models as each City team will be owned by the ECB. No doubt problems may occur when the MCC, for example, can point out that Lord's can hold a lot more people than Headingley, Durham or Trentbridge. Should they not gain more of a financial holding rights slice than the rumoured £300,000 per TMG. www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/big-bash/big-bash-league-201516-multimilliondollar-franchises-nows-the-time-to-privatise-argues-players-chief-20160112-gm44ax.html
|
|