|
|
Post by flashblade on Aug 25, 2016 7:55:43 GMT
Has anyone established the reason why Non Disclosure Agreements are deemed by the ECB to be necessary? In what way would the absence of these agreements be detrimental to the sport?
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Aug 25, 2016 10:07:46 GMT
Has anyone established the reason why Non Disclosure Agreements are deemed by the ECB to be necessary? In what way would the absence of these agreements be detrimental to the sport? I imagine the ECB would argue commercial confidentiality. In effect they are in a negotiation with the 18 first-class clubs designed to secure a price from them for releasing contracted players to one or more entities for part of the season. Premature disclosure of the price acceptable to some might jeopardise negotiations with the rest. A bit like running a tendering process where it would be unethical, though not unheard of, to tell participants D to R that A, B and C have all bid £100 for the job. |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Aug 25, 2016 10:28:29 GMT
Has anyone established the reason why Non Disclosure Agreements are deemed by the ECB to be necessary? In what way would the absence of these agreements be detrimental to the sport? I imagine the ECB would argue commercial confidentiality. In effect they are in a negotiation with the 18 first-class clubs designed to secure a price from them for releasing contracted players to one or more entities for part of the season. Premature disclosure of the price acceptable to some might jeopardise negotiations with the rest. A bit like running a tendering process where it would be unethical, though not unheard of, to tell participants D to R that A, B and C have all bid £100 for the job. Doesn't this imply that different counties might get different deals according to their bargaining power? I can understand why contractual negotiations are confidential, but why can't anyone disclose the nature and purpose of the contracts under discussion? |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Aug 25, 2016 10:35:35 GMT
I imagine the ECB would argue commercial confidentiality. In effect they are in a negotiation with the 18 first-class clubs designed to secure a price from them for releasing contracted players to one or more entities for part of the season. Premature disclosure of the price acceptable to some might jeopardise negotiations with the rest. A bit like running a tendering process where it would be unethical, though not unheard of, to tell participants D to R that A, B and C have all bid £100 for the job. I can understand why contractual negotiations are confidential, but why can't anyone disclose the nature and purpose of the contracts under discussion? I think you may very well be right. From that reported feedback from the Surrey CEO it is clear that their price (Guarenteed Tests and showpiece one day matches at the Oval in perpetuity?) is going to be very different from a shareholder-owned Northants (£1m down payment and a credit line of half a mil each year?) Read more: unofficialsussexccc.freeforums.net/thread/705/proposed-new-english-franchise-tournament#ixzz4IL59jdyn |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Aug 25, 2016 11:08:29 GMT
Sounds like Divide and Rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by squarelegs on Sept 1, 2016 16:15:36 GMT
I hear rumours that Jim May is "wobbling" from his previous position of anti-franchise? Perhaps the offer of the money has helped loosen his previous opinions and principles?
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Sept 1, 2016 16:31:41 GMT
I hear rumours that Jim May is "wobbling" from his previous position of anti-franchise? Perhaps the offer of the money has helped loosen his previous opinions and principles? I guess Sussex, like many counties, is dependent on the ECB for its financial survival. And the ECB can dictate by which method they choose to supply the finance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2016 16:51:59 GMT
Banker is offered a million pounds a year for doing nothing ...what outcome did you possibly expect?
If there is a "wobble" it must be over whether to reject the million in order to hold out for more!
|
|
|
|
Post by squarelegs on Sept 1, 2016 18:26:28 GMT
Jim May's original public position was to reject the concept. You're right, I guess the offer of the money is tempting. Let's hope it's worth it if you find yourself in the position where your best players are playing for another team and your gate receipts for the resulting "lesser" league are significantly diminished! The SKY money is at risk of course if the new 'big bash' style tournament doesn't live up to the projected 80% attendance figures!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2016 19:27:07 GMT
Jim May's original public position was to reject the concept. You're right, I guess the offer of the money is tempting. Let's hope it's worth it if you find yourself in the position where your best players are playing for another team and your gate receipts for the resulting "lesser" league are significantly diminished! The SKY money is at risk of course if the new 'big bash' style tournament doesn't live up to the projected 80% attendance figures! It was relatively easy to object on 'principle' when the proposal was still at the theoretical stage. Once the money was laid out on the table, principles come under serious duress... May will also have been under enormous pressure from the chairmen of most of the other Div Two sides visiting Hove not to scupper their one chance of financial stability by opposing the new super league. In my view Sussex would be absolutely mad to turn down the money and if May has dropped his opposition, then I think that's good news. The whisper seems to be that Graves and Harrison are increasingly confident that they've secured the numbers they need to push it through... |
|
|
|
Post by squarelegs on Sept 1, 2016 19:31:59 GMT
So, what about the scenario in which the 'master plan' fails to deliver the numbers?
|
|
|
|
Post by squarelegs on Sept 1, 2016 19:38:20 GMT
You also mention that he appeared to support the proposal at the "theoretical" stage.
Are you privy to information that the ECB have now finally provided answers to the countless questions put to them from the county chairman regarding the detail of their plans?
According to what I have heard, no replies have been received regarding the concerns about logistics and the wider implications of their proposal.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Sept 1, 2016 19:45:23 GMT
So, what about the scenario in which the 'master plan' fails to deliver the numbers? They would revert to the proposed 2017 county based Blast scenario, presumably. |
|
|
|
Post by squarelegs on Sept 1, 2016 19:51:34 GMT
You mean after re-branding the entire county system, implementing a new league, changing the broadcasting rights, paying £1m+ to each county (plus ground hire fees etc), centralising the entire marketing and ticket sales operation?
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Sept 1, 2016 21:01:42 GMT
You mean after re-branding the entire county system, implementing a new league, changing the broadcasting rights, paying £1m+ to each county (plus ground hire fees etc), centralising the entire marketing and ticket sales operation? You asked what would happen if the new franchise system failed. What else could they do? |
|
