|
|
Post by squarelegs on Aug 2, 2016 14:40:17 GMT
We're building support amongst cricket fans across the country, in an attempt to express the feelings of loyal county members about the ECB plan to create new CITY-BASED teams. Should they get their way in the coming months it could spell financial disaster for many clubs across the country. As members YOU hold the power to influence the decision of your chairman in this matter and we're keen to hear your views. Please visit www.saveourcounties.com to find out more and to register your support. Many thanks |
|
|
|
Post by theleopard on Aug 2, 2016 16:39:53 GMT
I'm no fan of a franchise competition, but I am not sure all the arguments on your site are cogent.
First, we haven't seen any official proposal for a franchise contest as yet.
Second, it says on your site that the ECB plan is to "Turn the 18 counties into 8 city-based teams".
There is NOTHING to suggest this being the case.
Third, we don't know if a new competition would run at the same time as the existing T20 Cup. They might well be held at separate points in the season.
Fourth, in the petition it says "County Cricket Clubs are set to be pushed into extinction by the ECB if plans to create new CITY TEAMS are allowed to go ahead."
Again, there is nothing to suggest this. Remember, the ECB is governed BY the counties. Why would they want to make themselves extinct?
So I am afraid that taking these assumptions into account I cannot sign the petition. If opposition is to be made to a franchise competition, it needs to be based on a balanced viewpoint, carefully considering the pros and cons.
|
|
nemmo
Captain 2nd XI
Posts: 285
|
Post by nemmo on Aug 2, 2016 23:19:41 GMT
So If I get this right by piecing together the various articles and reports the current proposal is as follows:
->8 Franchises based in the following cities: Durham, London(x2), Leeds, Birmingham, Nottingham, Cardiff, Manchester (I think)
->Which in a double round robin would be 14 games for each team. In each "round" of matches there would be 4 matches so 14*4 = 56 matches in total plus whatever the arrangement for the finals is.
->Each franchise would not be solely "owned" by a single county.
->There is a distinct possibility of a player auction.
->Revenue for the tournament would be split evenly enough between the counties. Taking into account the costs of ground usage etc.
->One game per week would be shown on free-to-air television.
->The existing T20 competition would continue to run.
->The games will be played in a block in "High Summer" and England internationals would be available. I imagine this means mostly July.
Given all of this the following questions are raised:
->What do all of the players who are not in the 8 teams do? If the IPL and BBL is followed then 4 foreign players per team are allowed. This means that there will be 90-100 English players contracted compared to the well over 200 currently in the T20 competition.
->How do you fit in this extra cricket? Surely the likely victim is the current 50 over cup?
->When will the current T20 competition be played and will it clash with the new tournament?
->Who can you persuade to show cricket on free-to-air TV?
The main objectors to this current system at the moment appear to be Surrey and Yorkshire. Yorkshire are objecting because they do not want to play as anything except Yorkshire. Surrey are against the tournament for financial reasons, they feel that they do well enough playing as Surrey in the current tournament in which they rake the gate money in on evenings at The Oval. Their ideal situation is a two tier tournament where they play in a block in the top division and continue to pull in the crowds. Why they think a 2 tier tournament is beneficial is anyone's guess. I also imagine that if the tournament became franchise based then they would have to share out a lot of the gate money they would get, effectively losing them money.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Aug 3, 2016 7:42:56 GMT
There are quite a few variables in this scenario, so my view is that there is little point in second guessing what the detailed proposals will look like. Let the ECB talk to the counties, let the counties argue about it, let the necessary compromises be made, and let the ECB then announce what's been agreed. Then we shall have something concrete about which to rejoice, complain or criticise. At the moment, a fear of the unknown is producing a lot of unproductive and unnecessary angst.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Aug 4, 2016 8:22:25 GMT
Nick Hoult at 'The Telegraph' writes of the latest developments concerning the proposed EPL which now include "gagging orders" for all county CEOs. Hoult writes: "The ECB is currently meeting chief executives on a one-to-one basis to give them details of their plans before a summit of all ECB members on Sept 14th. However, at the end of meetings county chief executives are being asked to sign non-disclosure agreements such is the secrecy around the ECB’s plans. "The gagging clauses prevents chief executives from discussing the ECB’s plans with members at their own clubs. They can only discuss details with their club chairman and members will have to wait until after the meeting with the ECB in September to learn fully about the proposals for change." So, at Sussex, Zac and Jim May will remain a cabal of two until September 14th. Given the huge implications of such a decision, politics is working overtime. Plans include proposals by the TMGs to "form their own voting bloc under fears the smaller counties will form their alliance to prevent city cricket becoming a reality." And if Graves and Harrison's plans are rejected by the counties, they could then decide to risk a vote of no confidence by forcing change through at board level. A night of the long knives or a cucumber sandwich, vicar? www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2016/08/03/county-chiefs-told-to-sign-gagging-orders-to-prevent-city-franch/ |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Aug 4, 2016 8:54:25 GMT
According to legsidelizzie: "16 of 18 counties are member owned. Chairman have to be able to consult with their members before voting"
Not sure if Graves is an improvement on Giles Clarke!
BTW - rumour has it that Surrey prefer the present system. They achieve capacity crowds for T20, without having to redistribute some of their profits to the poorer counties!
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Aug 4, 2016 10:05:53 GMT
Fb, I am not sure whether Lizzie is correct? For example, it is not the Members who decide on their Chairman but the club's Board. County Members have a lot less say than they realise. It may be the County Board that decides - not Members. We know that Sussex are against an EPL as they have publicly stated this. It all depends whether a sufficient financial carrot is waved under enough non-TMG noses. And to complicate matters, as you say, Surrey are also against an EPL given the great success they are enjoying with the present T20 Blast. September 14th is a critical day for Graves and Harrison. Start winning the argument and their power increases. Lose and... Unfortunately, I see it ending in tears with more fudges than a clotted cream praline. Bad blood will occur, whatever way you approach the issue. Below are links to a series of articles written by Nick Hoult in recent weeks on the proposed EPL. Well worth a read. www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/nick-hoult/Personally, a successful EPL is the only way of reducing the county debt burden and keeping 18 counties intact. If the tournament eventually makes say, £60m profit a year, which is feasible on the back of major media/TV rights money, and of that £60m, each county, depending on their size and stature, is given between £3m and £1m each, that may be sufficient to gain enough county votes. Meanwhile, for those county grounds not involved, a separate and smaller version of the present T20 Blast occurs, surely, everyone is happy? |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Aug 4, 2016 10:27:59 GMT
Fb, I am not sure whether Lizzie is correct? For example, it is not the Members who decide on their Chairman but the club's Board. County Members have a lot less say than they realise. It may be the County Board that decides - not Members. We know that Sussex are against an EPL as they have publicly stated this. It all depends whether a sufficient financial carrot is waved under enough non-TMG noses. And to complicate matters, as you say, Surrey are also against an EPL given the great success they are enjoying with the present T20 Blast. September 14th is a critical day for Graves and Harrison. Win the argument and their power increases. Lose and... Unfortunately, I see it ending in tears with more fudges than a clotted cream praline. Bad blood will occur, whatever way you approach the issue. Below are links to a series of articles written by Nick Hoult in recent weeks on the proposed EPL. Well worth a read. www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/nick-hoult/Personally, a successful EPL is the only way of reducing the county debt burden and keeping 18 counties intact. If the tournament eventually makes say, £60m profit a year, which is feasible on the back of major media/TV rights money, and of that £60m, each county, depending on their size and stature, is given between £3m and £1m each, that may be sufficient to gain enough county votes. Meanwhile, for those county grounds not involved, a separate and smaller version of the present T20 Blast occurs, surely, everyone is happy? When would you fit this in? It couldn't coincide with the new competition, because the top players in the 'left out' counties would be playing for one of the franchises. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Aug 4, 2016 10:33:08 GMT
Fb,
Of course there are problems to resolve but why not? The biggest problem would be the dates of the block, so it doesn't clash with Test
matches. We need the top England players involved.
Re: Sussex, which players are good enough to be involved in an EPL? At present, only Luke Wright. Of the non-TMG grounds there are only
Kent, Sussex, Leicestershire, Northants, Derbyshire and Worcestershire. Both Somerset and Gloucestershire along with Essex may have
potential opportunities to host an EPL match. And this is credit to their ambition on the back of the former two converting their ground into
ODI status and Essex with the Olympic stadium.
Another reason why Sussex are against an EPL is because it shows up their lack of ambition in recent years. They, along with only 5 other
counties, may not come to the party and therefore suffer the ignominy of whatever handouts from the tournament is decreed.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Aug 4, 2016 10:37:33 GMT
Fb, Of course there are problems to resolve but why not? The biggest problem would be the dates of the block, so it doesn't clash with Test matches. We need the top England players involved. Re: Sussex, which players are good enough to be involved in an EPL? At present, only Luke Wright. After his successful IPL season, Jordan definitely, and with his England T20 involvement,Mills, probably Archer and Garton would be interesting punts at an auction. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Aug 4, 2016 10:47:00 GMT
Hhs,
Of course, you're right, silly me, Jordan and Mills would be involved. Garton and Archer are still emerging. It all depends on how many top
overseas players are involved. The more the merrier, imho.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Aug 4, 2016 12:45:21 GMT
Lizzie Ammon is in good form on Twitter on the subject of the ECB/County Chairmen gagging orders:
I am still in slight disbelief about these gagging orders. Once you try and stifle transparency you are a small step away from being FIFA
It's diplomacy 101. Consult. Discuss. Engage. Make people feel part of the process. Not sodding gagging orders.
It's basic emotional intelligence. Be open and transparent about your plans. Or people will assume something sinister. Urgh. Idiots.
Or at least be honest that you don't care about consulting and trying to find consensus.
|
|
|
|
Post by theleopard on Aug 5, 2016 8:59:45 GMT
Meanwhile, for those county grounds not involved, a separate and smaller version of the present T20 Blast occurs, surely, everyone is happy? By smaller, do you mean the TMGs/clubs would not be involved? Why would Surrey want to go for this? Leave a tournament that is hugely successful for them? What about their fans? Will they obediently transfer their support from Surrey to the London Blasters? Also, where does it leave Middlesex, as tenants at Lord's? Or if by smaller you mean less matches, well that would go down like a lead balloon. |
|
|
|
Post by squarelegs on Aug 5, 2016 14:20:35 GMT
We're currently running the 'Save Our Counties' campaign www.saveourcounties.comIn the few days we've been doing so, a few common questions have come up, so we're attempting (as best we can) to answer them below.. Thoughts very welcome of course  Q1 - I thought the proposals were in line with getting more money from the next TV deal so as to provide more money to share amongst the counties? How does this result in financial disaster? - Yes, you're correct that the intention from the ECB is to make all the counties "shareholders" in the new CITY LEAGUE so, in the cases where teams are no longer participating (Derby, Somerset, Kent, etc etc) they would receive their share of any income generated. However, the problem with this plan is that 1) It assumes that the income from the competition would be greater than the income currently generated from the domestic competition. 2) There is no current proposal to follow the lead of the Big Bash and broadcast the City league on terrestrial TV. Currently SKY TV draws about 25% of the audience size Channel 4 and 5 obtained. My understanding also is that NO EXTRA FUNDING has been proposed by SKY for this new league. Q2 - If we can retain a county T20 to run alongside the city competition then I have no issue with it. I have no idea how that could work in practice though. The current proposal from the ECB (although the counties are being asked to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement regarding the details) is broadly this... The existing CATEGORY A Test Match venues will become the hosts of the new CITY LEAGUE. City Teams will be made up of players from surrounding counties. E.G. Surrey (if they can obtain the rights to use their name - as yet not agreed) would be made up of the best players from Middlesex, Kent & Surrey etc. The remaining "lesser" players would continue to play in a domestic T20 league. However, using the example of Kent, now that they would have lost their best player to the new City team, they would have to make up those numbers by recruiting other "lesser" players from the neighbouring counties - i.e. surrey etc. These "lesser" teams would compete in a league during the same period as the City teams held the new competition. Q3 - While this is a noble cause, the ECB don't actually care about current members - they are thinking about the new generation of fans and participants in the sport. Unfortunately, while you may be correct about the ECB’s opinion of the club members, they are servants to the county clubs and not the other way round. As membership clubs, the ECB is bound by its constitution to abide by the wishes of its members. It is for this reason that you’ll see many articles in the press (on our website if you’d like to read them) concerning Colin Grave’s attempts to “convince two thirds of the counties to back him. Should he not achieve that he would have to take the unprecedented step of seeking the approval of a wider membership (i.e. the minor counties etc) to push his plans through. Should this happen it would effectively mean that Dorset et al would have the final say over the primary T20 competition in the UK. It is for this reason that, as quoted in the press, he risks a vote of no confidence from the county chairman should he go down this route. |
|
|
|
Post by moderator1 on Aug 5, 2016 14:45:24 GMT
We're currently running the 'Save Our Counties' campaign www.saveourcounties.comIn the few days we've been doing so, a few common questions have come up, so we're attempting (as best we can) to answer them below.. Thoughts very welcome of course Q1 - I thought the proposals were in line with getting more money from the next TV deal so as to provide more money to share amongst the counties? How does this result in financial disaster? - Yes, you're correct that the intention from the ECB is to make all the counties "shareholders" in the new CITY LEAGUE so, in the cases where teams are no longer participating (Derby, Somerset, Kent, etc etc) they would receive their share of any income generated. However, the problem with this plan is that 1) It assumes that the income from the competition would be greater than the income currently generated from the domestic competition. 2) There is no current proposal to follow the lead of the Big Bash and broadcast the City league on terrestrial TV. Currently SKY TV draws about 25% of the audience size Channel 4 and 5 obtained. My understanding also is that NO EXTRA FUNDING has been proposed by SKY for this new league. Q2 - If we can retain a county T20 to run alongside the city competition then I have no issue with it. I have no idea how that could work in practice though. The current proposal from the ECB (although the counties are being asked to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement regarding the details) is broadly this... The existing CATEGORY A Test Match venues will become the hosts of the new CITY LEAGUE. City Teams will be made up of players from surrounding counties. E.G. Surrey (if they can obtain the rights to use their name - as yet not agreed) would be made up of the best players from Middlesex, Kent & Surrey etc. The remaining "lesser" players would continue to play in a domestic T20 league. However, using the example of Kent, now that they would have lost their best player to the new City team, they would have to make up those numbers by recruiting other "lesser" players from the neighbouring counties - i.e. surrey etc. These "lesser" teams would compete in a league during the same period as the City teams held the new competition. Q3 - While this is a noble cause, the ECB don't actually care about current members - they are thinking about the new generation of fans and participants in the sport. Unfortunately, while you may be correct about the ECB’s opinion of the club members, they are servants to the county clubs and not the other way round. As membership clubs, the ECB is bound by its constitution to abide by the wishes of its members. It is for this reason that you’ll see many articles in the press (on our website if you’d like to read them) concerning Colin Grave’s attempts to “convince two thirds of the counties to back him. Should he not achieve that he would have to take the unprecedented step of seeking the approval of a wider membership (i.e. the minor counties etc) to push his plans through. Should this happen it would effectively mean that Dorset et al would have the final say over the primary T20 competition in the UK. It is for this reason that, as quoted in the press, he risks a vote of no confidence from the county chairman should he go down this route. Hi squarelegs. Thanks for your further statement, but please note this is a forum for discussion. We have members with widely differing views but we do like to respond and debate issues, not just to read a manifesto. Would you please respond to the points that theleopard made about your original post? thttp://unofficialsussexccc.freeforums.net/pos20143 |
|
