Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2017 18:02:00 GMT
Well I think eight of the ten Test playing nations now have such high-profile, high-octane, high-quality international tournaments. The only exceptions are Zimbabwe - and England, where we have this monstrously cumbersome thing involving 18 teams that starts on blasted freezing evenings in May in front of 2-3,000 people,and then lumbers along for what seems like months on end until everyone has lost the will to live. Eventually you get a final at Edgbaston sometime in August, by which time everyone has forgotten how the teams even got there... England invented T20 but after mucking around with Stanford, picking a senseless fight with Modi over the IPL and generally pissing about in every conceivable way, now finds itself at the back of the queue with Mugabe's basket-case of a country. How the hell did that happen? BM the English version you describe does not apply this year, with the tournament now played in a block from July 8, with a break in Aug for one CC game. Much more sensible format in my opinion. Also these dates would not clash with bi annual global football tournaments, and cover the summer school holidays. Much more sensible in my opinion, and it will be interesting to see the impact. Yes, it will be interesting - but it still lumbers on for two months from July 7 to the final in Sept. It's going to be a kind of half-way house for three seasons until the CBT starts in 2020 and the 18 county Blast reverts to Friday nights in May. What is rdiculous is that we are not moving to the new two comp. set-up this coming season. It's hard to believe that the existing Sky deal is an insurmountable obstacle. There are rumours that Sky isalready pushing the ECB to sell them the rights to the CBT now, hoping to stitch it up without going head-to-head in a bidding war with BT Sport. What I'd like to see come 2020, is the CBT on Sky and the on-going 18 county T20 Blast on BT Sport. Although after the way BT Sport has snatched next winter's Ashes from Sky, perhaps it will be the other way round? I've been hugely impressed with BT Sport this winter (possibly coloured by ther enormous advantage that they don't employ Naseer 'you can see what it means to him!' Hussain ...)
|
|
|
Post by philh on Feb 5, 2017 20:46:44 GMT
Interesting point. And, will the medium term effect mean that: 1) There will be year round T20 tournaments 2) Players will either play T20 or 3/4/5 day cricket Will this lead to insufficient crowds to watch 3/4/5 cricket and it will be played by amateurs with a few semi-professionals? Hopefully, 3/4/5 day cricket will last for my lifetime. Like all cricket followers, I enjoy watching the highest quality cricket to be had. But over the 18 summers I've been a regular watcher of four day matches and member of Kent, I have come to realize that I equally enjoy 3 or 4 day matches between any two competitive sides (maybe that's what comes of being in Div 2 of late). If they are relatively balanced, someone from each side will put in an entertaining batting or bowling performance, in just the same way as might happen in an Ashes match. For that reason, I am content to (and do) watch county second eleven matches and, if the domination of T20 kills the county championship, so be it. If spared till it happens, I will chuck in my membership and spend my dotage watching county seconds matches, (and save a few bob in the process). [ That's actually a fair point. As long as it survives at some decentish level I'll be fine
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Feb 8, 2017 8:25:30 GMT
Another breathless reveal from Elizabeth Ammon. Does anyone have access and can at least paraphrase the story to see if there is something new here?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 8:55:43 GMT
It's just the latest draft, 90 per cent the same as the last draft in December, with a few tweaks and a bit more detail, such as there would be play-offs to qualify for the final rather than semi-finals.
What's new is that she claims there is a different proposal on the ownership of the eight city teams. The notion that they would all be owned centrally by the ECB has allegedly been replaced by a new scheme in which each of the eight would be formally owned by a seperate legal entity, controlled by the two or three counties closest to the host venue - but its a bit of hybrid set-up as the budgets would still be provided by the ECB so all eight teams would be financially equal and subject to a salary cap.
If that happens, it's a step back towards 'super counties', presumably in a bid to get Surrey on board. I guess it means Sussex would have some input into the team playing at the Ageas and Kent would be loosely part of a conglomerate with Surrey and Essex, probably playing at least some of its games at the Olympic Stadium. I think I prefered the previous option on this, tbh.
There's mention of counties loaning players to the tournament getting compensation in excess of the portion of the salary covering their absence, so extra cash for the counties on top of the £1.3 million p.a. and helpful in terms of strecthed playing budgest around the shires.
I think the meeting to approve it is in March and this has been circulated as draft for consultation in advance of that meeting, and will almost certainly be subject to further amendment.
Detailed plans for the ECB’s new Twenty20 competition can be revealed today after a briefing memo sent to county executives was seen by The Times.
The revolutionary tournament, set to start in 2020, aims to create an English league that will rival the Indian Premier League and Australia’s Big Bash League (BBL), but has caused controversy among the counties. The eight-page document confirms that:● Eight teams will have 15-man squads that include three overseas stars, with 13 of those players picked during a draft that the ECB hopes will be televised. The two other players in each squad will be picked as “wild cards” after the NatWest T20 Blast has been played.● All county cricketers, plus overseas players who enter themselves, will be put into the draft unless they request not to be. They will be placed into different salary bands.● The tournament will run from mid-July, after the conclusion of the T20 Blast and alongside a 50-over competition.
Despite the outline of the competition, there is no mention of where the eight teams might be based, an issue that is likely to cause ructions as some counties will miss out on hosting matches. Hosting decisions will not be taken until at least the end of March.
A number of county chiefs had expressed concern over the original proposal that the eight teams would be solely owned by the ECB. In an effort to alleviate some of those worries, the latest proposal about the governance of the competition is that the eight sides would be separate legal entities, but each will be controlled by two to three first-class counties. So for example, a team based in Nottingham may be controlled by Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire.
Head coaches and directors of cricket from counties who work in the new tournament will not be permitted to coach at their local county venue. The memo explains that this is borne out of a desire that the proposed competition is not a facilitator for player movement from smaller counties to the larger Test-venue counties.
Coaches and support staff from county cricket will be eligible to work in the new competition should their counties be happy to release them.
Each of the eight teams will be allocated the same fixed budget for players, a separate budget to cover coaching costs and a salary cap similar to the one in place in the BBL.
Originally the ECB had hoped that players would not play for the team at their “home” club so that each new team would have a totally separate identity from the county side based at that venue. However, this was a bone of contention among some of the larger counties, who did not wish to see all their star players based at other venues, so the ECB has rowed back on this proposal.
Teams will be able to call up players from the county 50-over competition in case of injuries and, similarly, players can be released back to the county 50-over competition should their coaches in the new T20 competition want them to play competitive cricket. It is anticipated that players would be released by their counties to join the new team squad not more than a week before the T20 competition begins and would be given back to their counties as soon as their team are eliminated.
Players will be signed on an initial one-year contract with an option to extend for a second year. A proportion of a player’s existing county salary will be deducted if he plays in the new competition and it is anticipated that the salary from taking part will more than make up for any shortfall in his county salary.
The new competition will be played over 38 days — England players will not be available, as Tests will be played at the same time. There will be 36 games, rather than the 35 expected initially. This is because there will not be semi- finals. The finalists will be decided on the results of three play-off games. The team who finish top of the table will play against the second-placed team in “the qualifier” for a place in the final. The third and fourth-placed teams will play each other in “the eliminator”. The winner of the eliminator and loser of the qualifier will then go head to head for the other spot in the final.
The memo sets out that each team will be run by an operations board comprising an independent chairman and chief executives from the two or three counties who control the team. The board will be in charge of appointing a general manager and coaches.
It is believed that the consultancy firm tasked with coming up with the venue options is not just looking at Test grounds for hosting and there is a potential move away from the competition being purely city-based, with some host teams having one or more of their four home group games at a second or third venue. Each first-class county will also receive a guaranteed minimum amount of revenue from the proceeds of the competition.
While the tournament is three years away, the ECB needs the details signed off before it puts the broadcast rights for this, international cricket and the other domestic competitions from 2020 onwards out to tender, which it wants to do at the end of next month.
The broadcast tender document will specify that a certain number of the matches — possibly ten — must be shown live on free-to-air television and that highlights and clips should be available on other digital outlets such as YouTube or Amazon Prime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 9:19:57 GMT
Final sentence about YouTube and Amazon Prime is interesting - but it needs live mobile coverage as well as clips and highlights. I've been saying for some time that mobile rights are at least as important as TV rights as 75 per cent of teenagers say they never, ever watch a conventional TV set.
That trend is accelerating and my guess is that by 2020 there will be more people wanting to watch the new tournament on mobile platforms than on a large square box in their living rooms. It could simply be via Sky Go or BT mobile, but to maximise revenue I think the ECB should follow the BCCI's example and sell mobile rights as a seperate package.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Feb 8, 2017 14:49:34 GMT
Still early days, in my view, with much to be thrashed out. The one aspect which I can't agree with is this:
The new competition will be played over 38 days — England players will not be available, as Tests will be played at the same time.
Surely, if you want the best T20 tournament in the world, England players have to be involved. Agreed the BBL is similar to the proposals but given how late the City-Based Tournament is coming to an already saturated and jaded party, you need to offer something different, and embracing England Internationals will be that difference.
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Feb 8, 2017 15:16:45 GMT
Still early days, in my view, with much to be thrashed out. The one aspect which I can't agree with is this: The new competition will be played over 38 days — England players will not be available, as Tests will be played at the same time.Surely, if you want the best T20 tournament in the world, England players have to be involved. Agreed the BBL is similar to the proposals but given how late the City-Based Tournament is coming to an already saturated and jaded party, you need to offer something different, and embracing England Internationals will be that difference. There will have to be compromises but they need not mean the best English T20 players are excluded. Already we've seen Mills come through to world renown playing only T20, and batsmen like Lynn in Australia and Miller in South Africa are specialising in T20 and finding it to be a fulfilling career. This game is taking shape as a close variant to cricket, running alongside it, and the numbers who will be equally expert at both codes will diminish as time goes on. It is very unlikely that Root, if he takes on the England captaincy, will play in all variants of the game within a year or two.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Feb 8, 2017 15:25:23 GMT
I take your point but it would still be great to see players like Stokes, Buttler, Ali, Duckett, Woakes, Bairstow, Anderson, Broad, apart from Root, take part in the T20 Tournament. Surely, this would encourage larger attendances and media viewing. www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-england-2016-17/content/squad/1063363.html
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Feb 8, 2017 16:00:39 GMT
I take your point but it would still be great to see players like Stokes, Buttler, Ali, Duckett, Woakes, Bairstow, Anderson, Broad, apart from Root, take part in the T20 Tournament. Surely, this would encourage larger attendances and media viewing. www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-england-2016-17/content/squad/1063363.htmlPerhaps, but if you wanted all the England squad to be available you wouldn't be able to play Tests at the same time, so if the English Blast takes place from say 20 July - 25 August then the Tests will have to be played during June/July and late August/early September - depleting the counties of still more players and losing the continuity of scheduling. It is because of these clashes of interest and the need to make compromises, and to make the results workable in practice, that the competition is going to take so long to put in place. I don't expect anything to be finally agreed by March, and fully expect that powerful negotiators - Sky, BT, Surrey - will hold off from final positions for as long as possible. Like borderman I preferred the idea of all the entities being owned by the ECB and quite divorced from existing county loyalties. I hope that principle will be reverted to because as soon as the idea of Super-Surrey or Super-Yorkshire is raised it immediately alienates all the rest. There is enough petty balkanisation going on in the world at the moment without cricket adding to it, and the real appeal to a new family market will be weakened as soon as it brings in all these old and distracting loyalties.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 16:25:45 GMT
The fact that Test cricket is going to be played simultaneously with the CBT increases the chances of both BT Sport and Sky being involved in the coverage.
36 games in 38 days is virtually a game to televise every day and the intensity and individual focus of that in which every game is an event is fantastic, compared to the sprawling county Blast in which up to eight matches take place on the same evening.
But it causes a clash with the Test coverage. I can see Sky giving up home Test coverage to BT Sport (who already have the Ashes down under next winter) and going gung-ho for 36 T20 games in 38 days.
Or perhaps the CBT will be split between the two broadcasters in the same way that both Sky and BT Sport currently screen Prem League football matches?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 19:49:30 GMT
It would be remiss not to say well done to Lizzy Ammon.
She has consistently beaten the 'boys' over this story and she has done it again today.
Nick Hoult is limping badly behind her in second place and The Dodgy One is trailing so far out of sight that his nickname should be changed from Dobbers to Dobbin (a ridiculous 12 different articles on crincinfo today about Cook, but not a single one about Ammon's story - male noses pushed so far out of joint that they haven't even stolen let alone tried to better her exclusive).
She's over-excitable, sometimes gets the wrong end of the stick and her tweets can be embarrassing. But nowhere near as embarrassing of those of Piers Morgan, Michael Vaughan, Dave 'Adrian Mole' Brooks , AEW Parsons and a thousnd other conceited men in cricket who think they know it all - and she is infinitely less embarrassing than the twat I'd make of myself if I ever went on Twitter .)
And to her huge credit she's a woman in a man's world and she's not only holding her own but often beating the men at their own game (and boy, do they still regard it as 'their' game.)
Despite the minor irritation her foibles sometimes cause, along with the splendid Emily Rainsford-Brent she's my kind of girl. Well done, legside lizzy...
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Feb 8, 2017 21:47:24 GMT
Steady on Bm... at this rate you'll be arranging a secret rendezvous!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 22:10:04 GMT
Steady on Bm... at this rate you'll be arranging a secret rendezvous! Nah, I've only got eyes for Emily, really!
|
|
Bazpan
2nd XI player
Posts: 191
County club member: Kent
|
Post by Bazpan on Feb 9, 2017 2:48:38 GMT
the sprawling county Blast in which up to eight matches take place on the same evening. Well whatever the county Blast is, it can't be both sprawling and overly condensed. But you've inadvertently suggested a good name for our City T20 tournament: the T20 Urban Sprawl. If I was the ECB or the tri-county cartels or whoever, I wouldn't waste any money on marketing consultants at this point. I'd just keep an eye on this thread and watch the necessary branding materialise. Others on here will have thoughts on this, so I'm just whiteboarding a couple more IPL-aping ideas on the fly. Of course we can't have DLF Maximums and Citibank Moments of Success, and all the prestige that comes with that. But perhaps we could, for example, call a six an Ocado Apogee, and a decent bit of fielding could be a Royal Bank of Scotland Instance of Competence, sort of thing. Our cheerleaders will always look a bit prosaic compared to the sin-soaked gyrations of IPL lovelies, so we need to go in a different direction rather than just be a third-rate emulation of the real thing. I'm thinking Strasbourg Dancing Plague of 1518. You've got your pro-EU vibe if you want, plus it feels quite English that the cheerleading should be lower-key, less demonstrative, but that it should go on for like ever with an undercurrent of slightly unhinged desperation. The strategic time-outs in the IPL are a bit of a black joke, for a couple of reasons. Firstly there's the counter-intuitive concept of introducing an arbitrary and needless hiatus into a format that's supposed to be all about non-stop compressed action. And then there's the other thing. Anyway just for once we could get ahead of the game here by making explicit what many suspect. Skip the time-outs, but when a player is about to do something for which he has been paid by a consortium of gentlemen who have placed sporting wagers on the contest, he would signal his intentions with a theatrical cheque-writing gesture. The announcer would then scream "It's time for a [insert sponsor's name] spot-fix!", and then the player would bowl a no-ball or a wide, or get himself stumped or just play a dot ball, etc.
|
|
A.S.
2nd XI player
Posts: 60
County club member: Kent
|
Post by A.S. on Feb 9, 2017 14:22:58 GMT
There's a report in The Times today (yes, Ms Ammon again) that "Middlesex fear huge losses from new T20". The headline might be better put "Middlesex fear they won't cash in from new T20, much like Sussex and Kent". The report says that "..... grounds who host one of the 36 matches will be paid a staging fee of about £75,000 with the ground also able to keep the profits from food and drink sold at the match". [Note the use above of the singular use of "match(es)", quite a gravy train for the TM grounds]. It goes on "Because Middlesex rent Lord's from MCC they would not receive any staging fees or concession profits and they believe that immediately puts them at a disadvantage". A disadvantage compared to who (or should it be whom)? Maybe the Oval, but not to Hove or Canterbury who, presumably, will not stage any matches, will lose their best players to the new T20 and suffer much depleted income during the competition from attendances and sponsorship. Why should there be special pleading from Middlesex, but not from Hove and Canterbury? Surely any effect on MCCC membership numbers, sponsorship income and ground use should be a matter of negotiation between MCCC and MCC (with the latter trousering staging and concession income) not MCCC and the ECB?
|
|