|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Sept 8, 2016 8:24:41 GMT
I am still tingling with excitement this morning. Damn the 404ers, who are these pesks!?
The really important thing is that clubs like Durham, Yorkshire, Warwickshire, Northants etc.. all have a chance now of reducing their debts.
That extra £1.5m + the £300k on top for the TMGs helping to ease the burden. Meanwhile, for small clubs like Sussex, the money is a huge
amount of extra cash which should make them more competitive; while the top county cricketers may experience a salary increase. So,
it's win-win for everyone. Supporters now have an opportunity to support two teams and whilst the traditionalists will refuse to attend such
matches, so what, because a whole new army of people will come along to the tournament, as in Australia, and become infected by our
great game. Perhaps, 5:1 in the sports favour.
As to the finances, the ECB, presumably, will pay the £27m + the approx £1.8m+(??) out of the £35m media rights money; and the sponsorship
revenue towards the marketing and running costs. Question: How much money are the ECB intending to spend on promoting the tournament?
That to me is key.
Hopefully, the 50 over competition will transform in to a straight knock-out and if the EPL proves successful the Championship, up the road, will
then be reduced from 14 to 12 matches.
|
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Sept 8, 2016 8:56:44 GMT
Why on earth would you advocate reducing the Championship further to 12 matches? Next season already promises to be a mess with the unbalanced divisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Sept 8, 2016 9:37:56 GMT
Lg,
Eventually reducing the Championship to 12 matches but keeping the two divisions offers a sensible balance to the season and frees up extra time for more popular competitions. The Membership format at Counties may well change over the next 5 years or so, anyway, where flexibility is the key.
Championship games are played in an anti-social timeframe where only the retired are able to regularly watch them. Once they die where are the new attendees coming from? Certainly, not the young. At Sussex, time and time again, I have counted on one hand the number of people under the age of 16 watching a game even during the school holidays. They simply are not interested in it - it's too boring for them; while, the Sunday starts have only worked for some clubs. Sadly, the Championship often feels like a mausoleum. I love the format, dearly, but 12 games a season - 6 at home - seems a sensible compromise. These are a sufficient number of games for the ECB to nurture their future England players.
|
|
|
|
Post by theleopard on Sept 8, 2016 11:33:10 GMT
Why on earth would you advocate reducing the Championship further to 12 matches? Next season already promises to be a mess with the unbalanced divisions. I agree regarding a further reduction. One issue is its tendency to be damaged by the weather, as it was earlier this season, just leaving everyone swimming around with a similar number of points due to so many draws. With a Championship of 20-odd matches, this was not a problem, but hack out 6 out of 12 matches due to rain and you have effectively a 6-match Championship. However, I do not agree that next season will be a mess. A real issue for scheduling has been having odd numbers of sides in each division, meaning 2 must repeatedly sit out rounds; the only time that they have also been able to be active is when playing an MCCU or tourist. In fact, as far as I know, the only time that all 18 counties were active at the same time this season was April 11-13, when 12 were playing Championship and 6 v MCCUs - surely a very unsatisfactory set-up? |
|
|
|
Post by theleopard on Sept 8, 2016 11:54:03 GMT
Hopefully, the 50 over competition will transform in to a straight knock-out Which would mean some players only getting one 50 over match in a season? Surely that is a major reason it is played with a group format? |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Sept 8, 2016 21:13:04 GMT
|
|
nemmo
Captain 2nd XI
Posts: 285
|
Post by nemmo on Sept 8, 2016 21:26:23 GMT
I wonder how much the ECB payed Deloitte for that study?
|
|
|
|
Post by theleopard on Sept 9, 2016 8:13:39 GMT
A question: where exactly would new T20 sides get their players from?
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Sept 9, 2016 8:32:39 GMT
A question: where exactly would new T20 sides get their players from? Didn't someone say that they would use a draft pick system? |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Sept 9, 2016 8:33:34 GMT
Presumably, via an auction process like other Franchise tournaments. Meanwhile, Deloitte are not exactly flavour of the decade. They
were the advice panel who told the ECB in late 2005 that "Cricket was on the brink of a new golden age..." This led to the Board telling
all the TMGs to improve and update their grounds which encouraged other county grounds like Hampshire and Durham to become TMGs.
Look, at the financial mess that created!
|
|
|
|
Post by theleopard on Sept 9, 2016 9:02:26 GMT
A question: where exactly would new T20 sides get their players from? Didn't someone say that they would use a draft pick system? You mean drafted, like in the army? In other words, whether the counties liked it or not? That would leave the counties bereft of somewhere in the region of 100 players, while being expected to somehow continue with their own matches? Or would the games never clash with county matches? That would be impossible to schedule. |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Sept 9, 2016 9:45:27 GMT
Didn't someone say that they would use a draft pick system? You mean drafted, like in the army? In other words, whether the counties liked it or not? That would leave the counties bereft of somewhere in the region of 100 players, while being expected to somehow continue with their own matches? Or would the games never clash with county matches? That would be impossible to schedule. I think he is suggesting drafting as in American football, baseball and other sports: "A draft is a process used in some countries and sports to allocate certain players to teams. In a draft, teams take turns selecting from a pool of eligible players. When a team selects a player, the team receives exclusive rights to sign that player to a contract, and no other team in the league may sign the player." Whether the counties "like it or not" depends on how much it is worth to them to make their players available for the draft. Presumably if they agree to it they will have enough money to build up large enough squads so that they can make substitutions for the player(s) drafted for the period of the franchise league. It is an extension of what happens now with players centrally contracted to England: the counties are expected to get on with Championship, T20 and the other stuff without certain players for much of the year and in return they are compensated in cash. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Sept 9, 2016 9:50:00 GMT
If you are being paid £1.5m a year you do what your paymasters tell you.
Sussex may certainly lose Wright, Nash and Jordan. There might be one, perhaps, two others. Mills will leave this season.
So, I don't see it being a major headache for the county. Others may need a paracetamol or two, but the positive twist
is that this allows youngsters to be blooded and take their place, so it plays into Sussex hands.
|
|
|
|
Post by theleopard on Sept 9, 2016 12:41:24 GMT
As to the finances, the ECB, presumably, will pay the £27m + the approx £1.8m+(??) out of the £35m media rights money; and the sponsorship revenue towards the marketing and running costs. Question: How much money are the ECB intending to spend on promoting the tournament? That to me is key. Who will want to pay £35 million for the rights to a 4-week domestic tournamant featuring 8 made-up sides? And who is going to watch it? |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Sept 9, 2016 14:22:10 GMT
As to the finances, the ECB, presumably, will pay the £27m + the approx £1.8m+(??) out of the £35m media rights money; and the sponsorship revenue towards the marketing and running costs. Question: How much money are the ECB intending to spend on promoting the tournament? That to me is key. Who will want to pay £35 million for the rights to a 4-week domestic tournamant featuring 8 made-up sides? And who is going to watch it? If those are genuine questions, why don't you wait and see? If you're implying that the answer to your questions is 'nobody' and 'nobody', then is that your objective forecast, or fervent wish, or both? Why not just admit that you hope it ends in failure? Will you be disappointed if it works commercially? |
|
