Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2016 10:51:31 GMT
I'm more confused about Sussex's position than ever now I've looked at Twitter.
Jon Filby gushes : "Vic Marks has nailed it".
Dave Brooks replies: "He may have been a bits and pieces cricketer much loved in the 70's, but he is a proper nailed on journalist" and adds the hashtag 'thanksvictor'.
So Filby and Brooks disssent from May's view and agree with Vic Marks that there should only be one T20 competition and it could be either an 8 team city tournament or the 18 county T20 Blast? Really?? The terms "nailed on" and "nailed it" can surely only mean that they do...
I don't know which I find more odd:
(i) that Mr May wants the CC cut so that Sussex can play in two T20 tournaments
or
(ii) that Messrs Filby and Brooks support the Vic Marks plan, which could mean Sussex playing no T20 cricket whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Sept 26, 2016 10:58:54 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. I agree, BM. I have since withdrawn my tongue from my cheek.
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Sept 26, 2016 11:04:00 GMT
I'm more confused about Sussex's position than ever now I've looked at Twitter. Jon Filby gushes : "Vic Marks has nailed it". Dave Brooks replies: "He may have been a bits and pieces cricketer much loved in the 70's, but he is a proper nailed on journalist" and adds the hashtag 'thanksvictor'. So Filby and Brooks disssent from May's view and agree with Vic Marks that there should only be one T20 competition and it could be either an 8 team city tournament or the 18 county T20 Blast? Really?? The terms "nailed on" and "nailed it" can surely only mean that they do... I don't know which I find more odd: (i) that Mr May wants the CC cut so that Sussex can play in two T20 tournaments or (ii) that Messrs Filby and Brooks support the Vic Marks plan, which could mean Sussex playing no T20 cricket whatsoever. Jim doesn't normally respond to follow up questions, but I think it's essential that he clarifies the club's stance on this. If they don't close ranks, the members' forum will be extremely interesting.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Sept 26, 2016 11:04:27 GMT
No amount of money from the ECB will compensate for Sussex CCC playing less cricket. What's the point of having an extra £1.3m if Sussex aren't involved in the competition, our best players are away playing in it and the remaining cricket is 'second class' ?
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Sept 26, 2016 11:08:12 GMT
No amount of money from the ECB will compensate for Sussex CCC playing less cricket. What's the point of having an extra £1.3m if Sussex aren't involved in the competition, our best players are away playing in it and the remaining cricket is 'second class' ? If Sussex are playing less cricket (because they're not playing when the new tournament is on) why would the cricket they do play become second class?
|
|
|
Post by joe on Sept 26, 2016 11:38:44 GMT
No amount of money from the ECB will compensate for Sussex CCC playing less cricket. What's the point of having an extra £1.3m if Sussex aren't involved in the competition, our best players are away playing in it and the remaining cricket is 'second class' ? If Sussex are playing less cricket (because they're not playing when the new tournament is on) why would the cricket they do play become second class? I meant because the ECB intend to reduce the County Championship thereby undermining its importance.
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Sept 26, 2016 11:54:21 GMT
If Sussex are playing less cricket (because they're not playing when the new tournament is on) why would the cricket they do play become second class? I meant because the ECB intend to reduce the County Championship thereby undermining its importance. Sorry, Joe. I assumed if there was only one T20 tournament, then the CC would not be reduced.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2016 11:57:47 GMT
If Sussex are playing less cricket (because they're not playing when the new tournament is on) why would the cricket they do play become second class? I meant because the ECB intend to reduce the County Championship thereby undermining its importance. Where did they say that? It is being reduced to 14 games next season. But there are no plans for further reductions beyond that, although if Jim May gets his prefered option of two T20 comps both featuring all 18 countuies, then yes, the CC would be reduced to 12 or quite possibly 10 matches. This is why I have struggled to understand the peculiar triangulations of Mr May's position. I know he is the chairman; but his view doesn't appear to be shared by anybody else involved in Sussex cricket, from the board room to the supporters.
|
|
jim
2nd XI player
Posts: 182
|
Post by jim on Sept 26, 2016 17:44:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Sept 27, 2016 14:30:35 GMT
Whilst other counties are at least attempting to discuss this matter with their supporters, there is still a resounding silence from Yorkshire. The recent meeting and proposals have never made it onto their website. Curious.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Sept 27, 2016 15:43:23 GMT
jim,
Thank you for your clarity and dignified response. So, Sussex are seeking a revamp of the present T20 Blast instead of a City-Based Tournament (CBT) and not, as borderman suggests, yet a further 18 county T20 competition. Your view makes more sense now.
As you are aware there is a vociferous minority within or close to the Sussex hierarchy who are attempting to influence an anti-City-Based agenda on to the Membership and the Club before any negotiation or discussion has actually taken place with the ECB. Do you feel this is a correct procedure? Shouldn't they wait until after October 18th when we'll know a lot more about the proposals? While, I am presently for a CBT, if I feel the schemes are not good enough or will greatly disadvantage Sussex, I may then change my mind. But I believe Nick Hoult at the Telegraph and his leaks which state that each county will be offered £1.5m a year from the media rights obtained. This to me is a very fair outcome if the tournament only lasts one month and will not effect the Championship.
As to other points. I believe Deloitte crunched their numbers and stated that a revamped T20 Blast would be worth only around £6m-£7m in media rights whereas a CBT might be valued at nearer £32m. If true, one can see why 15 counties and the MCC, perhaps, voted against your suggestion. Your idea suggests there will be little money to offer the counties and nothing can be then done to reduce the present £90m+ debt. We have read today that Durham had to be bailed out by the ECB this year to avoid potential bankruptcy and while Sussex are debt-free, thank goodness, this is primarily down to the Spen Cama legacy. Many other counties have not been so fortunate.
As to the increasing attendances attracted to the Blast - you mention 650,000 to almost 1m increase over the last four years - this must be applauded. But other number crunchers suggest there are over 9m people in England who would be interested in attending a T20 tournament if it was marketed and packaged in the right way. Certainly, this is what Cricket Australia and their State Big Bash League have discovered. Australian cricket is enjoying a financial rejuvenation because the BBL has tapped into a mass of people who have never attended a cricket game before. One hopes the CBT may do the same. As to the meeting on October 12th, please do not allow a personal agenda to dominate. Your job as Chairman is to offer both sides to the debate and allow Members and supporters to make their own decisions based on all known facts. Therefore, it is a shame that this meeting occurs 6 days before the ECB publicise their far wider range of proposals. Perhaps, only then, can a balanced discussion occur.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Sept 29, 2016 11:39:23 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2016 11:51:10 GMT
jim, Thank you for your clarity and dignified response. So, Sussex are seeking a revamp of the present T20 Blast instead of a City-Based Tournament (CBT) and not, as borderman suggests, yet a further 18 county T20 competition. Your view makes more sense now. No, I wasn't "suggesting" anything, s&f. I ws quoting Mr May's previously stated position. In The Cricketer article - which you posted on here - Mr May was quoted as saying that he sees "the need for a new competition" and that "a souped-up Sussex Sharks could play in one of two divisions of an EPL" while "the regulation side without the very elite of overseas superstars may still play every Friday at a packed Hove." If he now doesn't want Sussex to play in a second T20 competition - and indeed, doesn't want a second T20 competition of any description - then he has either changed his mind or been taken prisoner by a board that doesn't agree with him. It's all a bit like Jeremy Corbyn, the PLP and Trident renewal, isn't it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2016 12:36:48 GMT
Great statement from Bransgrove. This really sums it up: "This competition will require Members to look more openly at the game they love. For a month or so each summer, the best players from all Counties (should all Counties wish to participate) will join forces with the best overseas players in 8 new teams based at grounds with high attendance potential (not necessarily cricket grounds at present). These new teams will be run independently and all income derived will go into a newly-established company owned equally by all 18 First Class Counties (should they agree to participate) and MCC.
It is estimated that the minimum distribution to all participants will be c£1.3million and, make no mistake, for many FCCs this is a life saver. Host grounds will also receive a fee for staging the events which could be in the region of £500,000.
This income will, without doubt, secure the future of a number of FCCs and, therefore, the existence of First Class Cricket for many years. For those Members who profess no interest in T20, this safeguards the Long Form game in a way that cannot be guaranteed without such an innovation. If we truly love this game, and we want to preserve it for our children’s children, we must make this decision now and take pride in the fact that we have secured the future of cricket. If we do not take this decision now, we can watch the game’s gradual erosion into a minority cult sport played by the wealthy few. Those of us in, or approaching, the autumn of our lives have a responsibility to protect the game from this inevitable decline."
That last sentence is rather profound and let us hope that Sussex''s 'old guard' take their long-term responsibility to the game rather more seriously than the parochial short-term view suggested so far by the various comments made by messrs May, Filby, Brooks et al. Two other interesting side issues arising from RB's statement: (i) "the best players from all Counties ( should all Counties wish to participate)..." suggests that counties can opt out and decline to release their players. However, Sussex would be very foolish to go down this route as (a) they would not get the £1.5 million payable to other counties (b) players such as Jordan and Wright would leave for a county that was prepared to release them to the new competition (ii) "grounds with high attendance potential (not necessarily cricket grounds at present)" This opens up the prospect of using drop-in pitches at venues such as the Olympic Stadium and Wembley, which I think is quite exciting...
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Sept 29, 2016 13:04:47 GMT
Great statement from Bransgrove. This really sums it up: "This competition will require Members to look more openly at the game they love. For a month or so each summer, the best players from all Counties (should all Counties wish to participate) will join forces with the best overseas players in 8 new teams based at grounds with high attendance potential (not necessarily cricket grounds at present). These new teams will be run independently and all income derived will go into a newly-established company owned equally by all 18 First Class Counties (should they agree to participate) and MCC.
It is estimated that the minimum distribution to all participants will be c£1.3million and, make no mistake, for many FCCs this is a life saver. Host grounds will also receive a fee for staging the events which could be in the region of £500,000.
This income will, without doubt, secure the future of a number of FCCs and, therefore, the existence of First Class Cricket for many years. For those Members who profess no interest in T20, this safeguards the Long Form game in a way that cannot be guaranteed without such an innovation. If we truly love this game, and we want to preserve it for our children’s children, we must make this decision now and take pride in the fact that we have secured the future of cricket. If we do not take this decision now, we can watch the game’s gradual erosion into a minority cult sport played by the wealthy few. Those of us in, or approaching, the autumn of our lives have a responsibility to protect the game from this inevitable decline."
That last sentence is rather profound and let us hope that Sussex''s 'old guard' take their long-term responsibility to the game rather more seriously than the parochial short-term view suggested so far by the various comments made by messrs May, Filby, Brooks et al. Two other interesting side issues arising from RB's statement: (i) "the best players from all Counties ( should all Counties wish to participate)..." suggests that counties can opt out and decline to release their players. However, Sussex would be very foolish to go down this route as (a) they would not get the £1.5 million payable to other counties (b) players such as Jordan and Wright would leave for a county that was prepared to release them to the new competition (ii) "grounds with high attendance potential (not necessarily cricket grounds at present)" This opens up the prospect of using drop-in pitches at venues such as the Olympic Stadium and Wembley, which I think is quite exciting... Yes, I think that is a good statement of the positive options. Those "should all Counties wish to participate" caveats have another inference though, and one that Sussex Members should be conscious of when listening to the defensive and rather negative views expressed by Messrs Toumazi and May, that if Sussex want to be obstinate and stay away from this then the caravan will move on without them. There will be no additional revenue to offset the massive year on year losses, no opportunity to influence future scheduling, no incentives for young players to build a career with Sussex, and very soon there will be no cricket worth watching at Hove. Perhaps that is what Sussex want, to let the professional game drift away from them so that they can sell off the rather valuable chunk of Hove real estate and put the proceeds into the community benefit society?
|
|