|
|
Post by hhsussex on Mar 22, 2017 6:49:25 GMT
In sharp contrast to the more balanced discussion here the David Hopps article for Cricinfo has produced some absolute corkers of comments, a bit reminiscent of the school of Mary Whitehouse response to anythng new and innovative on television or the stage in the 70s. The commenters locations or tribal loyalties are interesting too.
They range from the splutteringly contemptuous MaidstoneEast:
"If May's views have not been misrepresented here, then frankly the man is a complete idiot"
Through the portentous and indeed constipated TerentBridge11:
"It is being increasingly clear that it is the beginning of the end for counties"
The usual conspiracy theories about the ECB are aired:
"The counties have been out-manoeuvred by the ECB not least as a result of the secrecy in which this whole process has been conducted. The ordinary cricket fans won't see the proposals until after they've been effectively agreed at next week's meetings. Some clubs are organising "consultations" with members but the horse will have bolted. "
Then there are non-sequiturs like this:
" I am a Notts man. I will have nothing to do with any city based franchise."
And there are some magnificently mixed metaphors:
"It is up to Surrey, Essex, Kent - perhaps Yorkshire if they do not follow Graves's lead - to stop this circus before county cricket signs its own death warrant."
|
|
|
|
Post by tigertiger on Mar 22, 2017 7:52:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Mar 22, 2017 9:07:11 GMT
This extract is not untypical of the Surrey Supporters Club reaction from their ProBoard site ovalworld.freeforums.net/thread/587/kent-left"I don't care where the ECB have their southern-based city teams, but Richard Gould must make it crystal-clear to them that if we are not being permitted to compete as Surrey then no games will be staged at The Oval.
I very much doubt that they would cut their noses off to spite their face by threatening to take international cricket away from us, and even in the unlikely event they did then we could continue to thrive from the commercial activities generated by the OCS throughout the year."I think that strong emotional response reveals two things. Firstly, that many county members and supporters simply don't grasp what is being proposed: it is NOT Surrey under a disguise that will play at the Oval, any more than Notts with a false beard will play at Trent Bridge. It is about stripping away the tribal loyalties from a ground and accepting it as a venue for watching high quality cricket. Ironically the second revelation in the quote above is precisely about recognising the value of the venue through the revenue generated without reference to the tribal loyalties of the contest. In the end Surrey CCC will have to act in the best interests of the hospitality engine they have created. |
|
|
|
Post by tigertiger on Mar 22, 2017 9:56:58 GMT
This extract is not untypical of the Surrey Supporters Club reaction from their ProBoard site ovalworld.freeforums.net/thread/587/kent-left"I don't care where the ECB have their southern-based city teams, but Richard Gould must make it crystal-clear to them that if we are not being permitted to compete as Surrey then no games will be staged at The Oval.
I very much doubt that they would cut their noses off to spite their face by threatening to take international cricket away from us, and even in the unlikely event they did then we could continue to thrive from the commercial activities generated by the OCS throughout the year."I think that strong emotional response reveals two things. Firstly, that many county members and supporters simply don't grasp what is being proposed: it is NOT Surrey under a disguise that will play at the Oval, any more than Notts with a false beard will play at Trent Bridge. It is about stripping away the tribal loyalties from a ground and accepting it as a venue for watching high quality cricket. Ironically the second revelation in the quote above is precisely about recognising the value of the venue through the revenue generated without reference to the tribal loyalties of the contest. In the end Surrey CCC will have to act in the best interests of the hospitality engine they have created. I wonder what Kia's view is ... they are still sponsoring the ground in 2020. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Mar 22, 2017 10:08:43 GMT
Hhs,
Allow Surrey to flounce off in a huff, I've never heard such arrogant tosh in my life. The tournament only lasts a month and other
cricket will still be played, so the sacred "Kia Oval Surrey" name will continue to be publicised.
My excitement is the possibility that a game or two of this CBT could be played at Hove with the help of temporary seating. What
an excellent idea to spread the matches around the South. I am not clear what the allowed 'official' capacity is at Hove. Obviously,
if the local Council states "7,000 maximum" then there's a problem, but if measures can be taken to expand this to 10,000, then
there is hope.
Which asks the question: Should Sussex consider redeveloping their seating capacity if the opportunity arises?
|
|
|
|
Post by burgesshill on Mar 23, 2017 8:44:58 GMT
Why are you guys so convinced this is such a wonderful idea?
And why on earth would Hove get a game? (hardly one of the 8 biggest cities in the country)
If this fails, it'll damn nearly bankrupt the ECB. They have already admitted it will lose 15 million in the first year, because of start up costs. And, presumably, because they want everyone to get on board, that is at the optomistic end. If it is so wonderful, why do they have to threaten people to force this through (no 1.3 million hand out for any county that refuses to cooperate) And Sussex will lose 5 players for 6 weeks, whilst the 50 over comp is devalued to a 2nd XI competition. Confident membership will remain stable? I can't see it going up- can you? More likely down, when people realise half the first team will be AWOL for a large part of the season.
And what if it is a washout? Can't guarantee the weather.
They are gambling the family jewells, with no guarantee they are going have guessed correctly that tens of thousands will turn up to watch a team with no historical relevance at all? I hope you enjoy watching your combined Sussex, Hampshire and Kent side, because I can't see that many people having any interest in it at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Mar 23, 2017 9:36:07 GMT
Bh,
Thank you for being honest and showing your colours. You typify the alarmist outcry of those against the tournament.
To answer you queries.
1. The ECB presently have over £70m in reserves, so £15m won't bankrupt them.
2. Hove may get a game if crowds reach around 10,000.
3. £1.3m is NOT a threat - it is called a dividend.
4. Why will Sussex lose 6 players?
5. The 50 over is already a devalued competition.
6. As for interest, only time will tell. I remain optimistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by burgesshill on Mar 23, 2017 10:30:36 GMT
Bh, Thank you for being honest and showing your colours. You typify the alarmist outcry of those against the tournament. To answer you queries. 1. The ECB presently have over £70m in reserves, so £15m won't bankrupt them. 2. Hove may get a game if crowds reach around 10,000. 3. £1.3m is NOT a threat - it is called a dividend. 4. Why will Sussex lose 6 players? 5. The 50 over is already a devalued competition. 6. As for interest, only time will tell. I remain optimistic. Let's hope for your sake you are right, and a tournament no real cricket fan wants is a success. Because, if you are wrong, you will have wrecked county cricket forever. 70 million reserves less 15 million (ECB admit this) for first year losses. That is bound to be on the optomistic side of things (because they want everyone on board) So- what if they stick with this for 3 years in the hope it will make a profit, and it doesn't? That 70 million reserve will be down to about 20 million. The ECB have already said this is for 'new fans' which means 'people who know nothing about cricket, but like to drink a lot as part of an 'event' So- they are not real cricket fans- even the ECB admit that. But- if they don't turn up in the required numbers- then you have wrecked the county game forever. Why would Sussex lose 6 players? Only 3 overseas per team (so hardly the cream of world cricket) and 12 english players per 15 man squad. 12x8=96 divided by 18 counties equals 5 and a half players per county team on average- so yes- Sussex would lose half their first team for 6 weeks. This isn't a case of 'We'll try it, and if it doesn't work, never mind', because if it doesn't work, the damage will have been done. Why take a completely needless, wreckless risk, when you can't be sure it will be a success. And WHY are you so certain it will work? It's a massive, completely unnecessary gamble with the future of county cricket. Let's hope to goodness you are right, because if you are wrong the damage done will be irreparable. |
|
|
|
Post by lovelyboy on Mar 23, 2017 10:36:40 GMT
Bh, Thank you for being honest and showing your colours. You typify the alarmist outcry of those against the tournament. To answer you queries. 1. The ECB presently have over £70m in reserves, so £15m won't bankrupt them. 2. Hove may get a game if crowds reach around 10,000. 3. £1.3m is NOT a threat - it is called a dividend. 4. Why will Sussex lose 6 players? 5. The 50 over is already a devalued competition. 6. As for interest, only time will tell. I remain optimistic. Regarding point 2, I thought one of the reasons for this competition was to enable bigger capacity grounds to host all the games? What's the point of having the southern softies playing at Hove when Sussex Sharks good sell it out instead? |
|
|
|
Post by lovelyboy on Mar 23, 2017 10:39:31 GMT
Bh, Thank you for being honest and showing your colours. You typify the alarmist outcry of those against the tournament. To answer you queries. 1. The ECB presently have over £70m in reserves, so £15m won't bankrupt them. 2. Hove may get a game if crowds reach around 10,000. 3. £1.3m is NOT a threat - it is called a dividend. 4. Why will Sussex lose 6 players? 5. The 50 over is already a devalued competition. 6. As for interest, only time will tell. I remain optimistic. Let's hope for your sake you are right, and a tournament no real cricket fan wants is a success. Because, if you are wrong, you will have wrecked county cricket forever. 70 million reserves less 15 million (ECB admit this) for first year losses. That is bound to be on the optomistic side of things (because they want everyone on board) So- what if they stick with this for 3 years in the hope it will make a profit, and it doesn't? That 70 million reserve will be down to about 20 million. The ECB have already said this is for 'new fans' which means 'people who know nothing about cricket, but like to drink a lot as part of an 'event' So- they are not real cricket fans- even the ECB admit that. But- if they don't turn up in the required numbers- then you have wrecked the county game forever. Why would Sussex lose 6 players? Only 3 overseas per team (so hardly the cream of world cricket) and 12 english players per 15 man squad. 12x8=96 divided by 18 counties equals 5 and a half players per county team on average- so yes- Sussex would lose half their first team for 6 weeks. This isn't a case of 'We'll try it, and if it doesn't work, never mind', because if it doesn't work, the damage will have been done. Why take a completely needless, wreckless risk, when you can't be sure it will be a success. And WHY are you so certain it will work? It's a massive, completely unnecessary gamble with the future of county cricket. Let's hope to goodness you are right, because if you are wrong the damage done will be irreparable. It's certainly the end for county cricket. Once the cat is out the bag and the ecb have this 8 team tournament they won't stop there. I still have no idea why they couldn't just do a two division county t20 tournament with the premier league being televised and marketed properly |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Mar 23, 2017 10:47:37 GMT
Some of you don't seem to acknowledge the need to find NEW cricket spectators. If the game's future just depended on keeping county diehards onside, then I believe cricket's finances would continue to decline. Sussex is one of the more solvent counties, yet it now accepts that it will soon run out of cash without the dividends envisaged from the new competition. What is your solution to the game's financial problems, bearing in mind we are where we are?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Mar 23, 2017 10:56:26 GMT
bh & lb,
You are very aware of my pro-stance on the CBT - perhaps I bang the drum too loud and too often - but my underlying optimism
is not about the welfare of Sussex but about the future welfare of county cricket.
I truly believe this CBT will be the financial saviour and the future saviour of our beloved sport. Without this, county cricket, as we know
it now, will be dead within 10-15 years. Aside from Durham, other counties will go bankrupt and as fewer and fewer youngsters show
interest in the sport, and while the present diehards die off, cricket may end up as a tenth rate spectacle on par with croquet and bowls.
Cricket has no option but to take the CBT route. I want to be able to take my 16 month grandson in 10 years time to Hove and
see a vibrant, popular, well attended, exciting and above all successful game of cricket. No CBT and I very much doubt that will happen.
lb,
I still have no idea why they couldn't just do a two division county t20 tournament with the premier league being televised and marketed
properly...
Because the media companies are not interested in such a proposal. They are only interested in an 8 team CBT-type tournament. They are only
interested in offering £125m+ for a five year deal. The ECB already explored the former option and no media companies like SKY or BTSport
were interested. You have to go where the money is, if the primary aim is to reduce the £150m+ county cricket debt.
|
|
|
|
Post by lovelyboy on Mar 23, 2017 11:04:55 GMT
bh & lb, You are very aware of my pro-stance on the CBT - perhaps I bang the drum too loud and too often - but my underlying optimism is not about the welfare of Sussex but about the future welfare of county cricket. I truly believe this CBT will be the financial saviour and the future saviour of our beloved sport. Without this, county cricket, as we know it now, will be dead within 10-15 years. Aside from Durham, other counties will go bankrupt and as fewer and fewer youngsters show interest in the sport, and while the present diehards die off, cricket may end up as a tenth rate spectacle on par with croquet and bowls. Cricket has no option but to take the CBT route. I want to be able to take my 16 month grandson in 10 years time to Hove and see a vibrant, popular, well attended, exciting and above all successful game of cricket. No CBT and I very much doubt that will happen. S and F do you believe that county cricket can survive and thrive alongside this new tournament? |
|
|
|
Post by lovelyboy on Mar 23, 2017 11:06:23 GMT
Some of you don't seem to acknowledge the need to find NEW cricket spectators. If the game's future just depended on keeping county diehards onside, then I believe cricket's finances would continue to decline. Sussex is one of the more solvent counties, yet it now accepts that it will soon run out of cash without the dividends envisaged from the new competition. What is your solution to the game's financial problems, bearing in mind we are where we are? Flash why couldn't a well marketed two division county T20 competition attract new spectators? Why would the new fan be more interested in the Southern sixes than the Sussex Sharks? |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Mar 23, 2017 11:09:36 GMT
lb,
S and F do you believe that county cricket can survive and thrive alongside this new tournament?
Absolutely! As new people attend the CBT and get 'turned on' by T20, so some will then wish to taste
Championship cricket. This is what has happened in Australia. The Big Bash has reinvigorated cricket
over there; brought in massive amounts of money; and thrust new life into the sport.
|
|
