<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>  
(Login Alibor2)

Re: Durham problems

September 29 2016, 9:49 AM 

The Durham situation simply shows the folly of trying to create new international match venues, but not being able to give them all enough fixtures to help to pay for their extra development. Apart from the 6 long established test venues we now have Rose Bowl, Durham, Cardiff and even Bristol. With Lords being guaranteed a game in each test series, even with the heavy schedule on international fixtures during an English season, there are not enough to satisfy so many venues. It would be very sad, after seeing Durham emerge several decades ago, to see them go downhill and perhaps disappearing even as just a County Club.

Young Clogger
(Login YoungClogger)

Durham relegated

October 3 2016, 2:50 PM 

(Login Papag1)

Re: Durham relegated

October 3 2016, 2:56 PM 

They have got a 3.8 million loan from the ECB so I have heard, doubt they will be able to pay top money for players for a very long time

(Login StuartRA)
Assistant Moderator

Re: Durham relegated

October 3 2016, 3:02 PM 

Very harsh on Durham. Just about every county is in debt, the test grounds more so, and some of them have much bigger debts than Durham. So why them?? I appreciate there are different circumstances with each debt, but still seems very harsh to me, especially when the ECB are sitting on reserves of 70m and it was under the ECB instructions that some of the debt was spent on getting International status for CLS.

One less easy away travel for us next season, and we have instead, a trip down to Southampton.

Not only are they relegated, they have lost their test matches at CLS and start next season -48 points, so it is a triple whammy plus a new salary cap.

This message has been edited by StuartRA on Oct 3, 2016 3:07 PM

(Login wakefieldfan)


October 3 2016, 3:05 PM 

it is not nice to be relegated but what difference will it make none they will still play first class cricket and if they finish bottom so what they will not be demoted to minor league cricket .and they will still pay very good wages no matter what profits they make .

(Login StuartRA)
Assistant Moderator

Re: durham

October 3 2016, 3:24 PM 

The full penalty is even worse than above - points deducted in the T20 and the 50 over comp as well.

From Cricinfo

"Durham have been relegated from the top flight of the County Championship, with Hampshire staying up in their place, after being hit with a penalty for receiving financial support from the ECB during the 2016 season. They will begin 2017 in Division Two with a 48-point penalty in return for a £3.8m bailout.

The club has accepted it will no longer be allowed to bid to host Test matches at Chester-le-Street, although they will be eligible for ODIs and T20 internationals. They will also start next season with -4 points in the NatWest T20 Blast and -2 points in the Royal London Cup; hand back non-player related ECB prize money for 2016; and be subject to a more closely controlled salary cap until 2020......".

This message has been edited by StuartRA on Oct 3, 2016 5:07 PM

(Login Pyrahtechnics)

Re: durham

October 3 2016, 3:28 PM 

£2 Million of debt Durham owed to the ECB has been written off, which may well explain the sanctions in place. Otherwise 17 other counties would be asking for similar financial favours.

(Login marskeman)

Re: durham

October 3 2016, 3:36 PM 

I have a good friend who follows durham, he's not at all bothered by relegation. Much nicer places to visit in div 2. Worcester Sussex Kent Gloucestershire Glamorgan.


(Login matthefish2002)

Re: durham

October 3 2016, 3:43 PM 

Feel a bit sorry for Durham but glad they have accepted the punishment.
If this happened in football be legal challenges and constant newspaper reports about how fans been shafted.

Young Clogger
(Login YoungClogger)

Re: durham

October 3 2016, 4:14 PM 

I presume that Durham knew this would be the consequence when they accepted the bail out.....?

(Login Jacobus24)

Re: durham

October 3 2016, 4:34 PM 

Ian Botham is apparently going to put himself forward to help organise the club going forward once the current board step aside, no doubt these services will be free of charge....

(Login sooty-yorkie1)

Re: durham

October 3 2016, 6:30 PM 

Similar penalties in RL are quite common, the financial state some counties are in I'll be surprised if they are the first and last. There but for the grace of God.

(Login StuartRA)
Assistant Moderator

Re: durham

October 3 2016, 6:41 PM 

Despite Durham being my most disliked team, it is far to excessive a penalty. Feel really sorry for Durham, as they followed the ECB advice about developing their ground for International matches, and now the ECB are stuffing them. Northants were bailed out last year, Durham have been sent to the cleaners!! What is the difference?

Several other counties are in a far bigger financial mess than Durham, are they next in line?

Kent not happy either, they feel they should get a promotion place. Hampshire very lucky as they should be relegated!!


It is a complete mess, as usual, from the ECB.

This message has been edited by StuartRA on Oct 3, 2016 6:42 PM

(Login Roundhegian)

Re: durham

October 3 2016, 6:47 PM 

It's not the size of the debts, but your ability to pay the debts when they fall due, that counts.
In a way it's a bit like the financial crisis in Greece. The penalties and conditions of the bailout are necessary to discourage others (not excluding Yorkshire) from similar financial overstretch. On the other hand the relegation and other penalties make it more difficult for Durham to return to stability. No easy answer.

(Login Seadog73)

Re: durham

October 3 2016, 6:54 PM 

I don't see how Kent have cause for complaint - there was only one promotion place available in division two last season so Hampshire staying up is the right decision.
As for Durham, why make them start on -48 in addition to relegating them? That's just kicking them when they're down.

(Login ThirdUmpire)

Re: durham

October 3 2016, 7:18 PM 

Thanks to Roundhegian for pointing out in his post above why Durham have been punished whilst others with bigger debts have not (yet) been similarly punished.

I suspect most posters have a house with a mortgage but the size of that mortgage will differ based on your attitude to risk and your ability to meet the repayments. Durham may have a smaller debt than us but the people they have borrowed from have not been repaid in accordance with the agr ed terms causing Durham to have to seek financial assistance from elsewhere. In this case the ECB are a bit like Wonga or other payday lenders.

Our debts are being repaid with those we have borrowed from and they are also underwritten by a guarantee from a generous benefactor. We have not failed in any repayments and whilst the debt may be bigger, the people we have borrowed from are quite happy and I think we even renegotiated the terms a few years ago.

other counties like Glamorgan borrowed hugely from the Welsh Assembly to build their ground for test matches and somehow or other their debts were recently written off by the Welsh Assembly. I bet the rugby loving locals were delighted.

I have a soft spot for Durham having played at several club grounds in the NYSD as a kid and thereby having played against a few of their earlier players like John Glendennen and Phil Berry. But the saying is "what goes around, comes around" and my mind harks back to the t20 quarter final a few years ago when their Chief Exec, Mr Harker was quick to demand a walkover for Durham at our expense over the non registration of Azeem Rafiq. Live by the sword, you die by it and sadly Durham have now seen what happens when the boot is on the other foot.

I still think the punishment is ridiculously harsh based on where they have come from and got to in their short space of time as a major county. Their success is admirable, their player production enviable but their ambition rather daft.

Of course, the proper course of action would have been to fine them heavily. Then they could have asked the ECB for a loan to pay the ECB fine and the ECB are stupid enough to have given them it.

I do wonder if the same set of rules and punishments would have applied to Surrey or Middlesex however. I suspect we will never know as the way the game is going, the big will get bigger, the small will wither and die and the eight county/franchise system will get expanded across all formats of the game.

Frankly, I thought the ECB disdain for the county game reached a low last week with their interfering in the final round of matches but this decision shows they are still able to reach new lows. I support the need to punish Durham and send a shot across other counties over stretching themselves but they have been hung, drawn and quartered with a points deduction, a relegation and loss of test cricket - hammered three times for the same offence is over the top.

(Login _JG_)

Re: durham

October 3 2016, 7:34 PM 

I'm having a bit of a break from here following the season ending, but had to comment on this news. I think it's an incredibly harsh and disproportionate punishment for Durham; yes they have overstretched themselves, but mainly at the behest of the ECB. When Durham became a First Class county this came with the proviso that they developed their ground to international standard- totally unncessary in that part of the country- and following that the ECB's bidding process for internetional cricket and requirement for further ground development have again pushed all the financial risk of international cricket on to the counties. Durham in many ways are a model county- they give opportunites to a lot of local players, produce players for the England team and have success in their own right- but as they don't have the fortune of a wealthy local area, rich benefactor or favourable relationship with local government they don't have the safety net that other counties have. At least the ECB are using their enormous reserve to prevent bankruptcy but the sporting punishments applied as part of this deal this are hugely excessive in my opinion, and surely there must be questions as to whether it is correct for the central body to build up such a massive cash reserve whilst many of its constituent members are struggling financially. I'm becoming seriously disillusioned about how cricket in this country is being run.

Geoff B
(Login Coastalview)


October 3 2016, 7:43 PM 

I don't think Kent really have a case either but I'm happy to see them able to rattle the ECB cage, as they did against the City based T20.

Durham unfortunately have to do as they are told by the ECB, however unfair it may seem.

(Login Lewis_116)

Re: Kent

October 3 2016, 8:25 PM 

I feel very sorry for Durham.

What hasn't been mentioned is the fan. This is a spectator sport. As a Leeds United fan I understand the punishments only too well.

I can accept the relegation and the like. I cannot under any circumstance agree with the points deduction. That will turn fans away from their local cricket team in an area who are serving England well in Wood and Stokes and potentially Jennings.

Good luck to them. Would much rather follow them then the Southerners. The divide is growing. Feels like it's us against the South.

(Login LeeF2208)

Re: Kent

October 3 2016, 8:33 PM 

The points deduction will be to stop them getting promotion next season as the squad they still have (& technically cant afford) would make them one of the favourites

  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>  
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement  
All IP addresses are recorded. We reserve the right to remove personal attacks, sexist, racist, homophobic, defamatory or abusive comments, comments likely to incite religious hatred, those disposed to wind others up, and unapproved advertising.

Email us: Whiterosecricket@hotmail.co.uk