<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>  
Tyke1950
(Login Tyke1950)

Re: Kent

October 3 2016, 11:33 PM 

Disproportionate, hardly begins to describe the ECB's latest action.
Imagine how we would be reacting on this site if this draconian punishment had been imposed on Yorkshire.
I don't particularly like giving to those that hath, but I loathe taking from those who have nothing.

 
 
marsker
(Login marskeman)

Re: Kent

October 4 2016, 12:14 AM 

have a look at the below the line comments on the guardian cricket article on durhams punishment. almost universal condemnation of the ECB from all counties. apart from one hampshire supporter. and a fine article by george dobell at cricinfo.


    
This message has been edited by marskeman on Oct 4, 2016 12:36 AM


 
 
Guest
(Login LondonExile)

Re: Kent

October 4 2016, 8:41 AM 

Not sure why there's so much cynicism over points being knocked off Durham for next season.

I heard the ECB calculated this fairly using the Deductworth Lewis Method

 
 
spanishnick
(Login Spanishnick)

Re: Kent

October 4 2016, 8:44 AM 

Knew it was coming but the punishment does seem harsh. Feel for the players and supporters.I too have been there before with Leeds United-its bloody horrible. I wonder how much Jennings knew, having signed a four year contract only a month or so back.
Selfishly, I'm disappointed. Love going up to Durham and for the past few years its coincided with our wedding anniversary so its become a bit of a traditional trip. Cant imagine the wife getting excited about a trip to Southampton.
But, they're still here which is the main thing. They will continue to provide an opportunity to play first class cricket to some of the cracking young players the area produces.
Good luck to them.
The Tuffers and Vaughan show on 5 Live last night covered the story with Ashley Giles, Vaughan and Steve Harmison all having their say. Also a long interview with Gillespie-from his hotel room at The Royal Oak in Wetherby. He goes home on Friday, after the Gala Dinner. I presume anyone wanting to listen to it can catch it on the BBC 5Live website-just don't ask me how.


    
This message has been edited by Spanishnick on Oct 4, 2016 8:47 AM


 
 
Steve C
(Login stevecowton)
Assistant Moderator

Re: Kent

October 4 2016, 9:10 AM 

I feel very sorry for Durham - and that's not a sentence i write very often.
It seems to me that their expansion was encouraged by the ECB - and their ludicrous idea of bidding for Test matches - who have then turned around and punished them when things didn't work out.
Surely the ECB deserve some blame for the simple reason that every time they were given an International fixture it was in May...
You simply shouldn't be playing first class cricket in the North East in May.

 
 
Idle man
(Login Idle_man)

Re: Kent

October 4 2016, 10:11 AM 

I'm not generally prone to ECB conspiracy theories but I see them taking the chance to send a message to the counties: you're all financially fragile, you better do as we say.

 
 
Seadog73
(Login Seadog73)

Re: Kent

October 4 2016, 10:24 AM 

I agree. Some of the theories regarding Middlesex/Bairstow etc are tinfoil hatted, crackpot nonsense, but this is different. There's a very serious veiled threat to all financially precarious counties to toe the line. Sadly that includes Yorkshire.

 
 
Martin
(Login Martinh00)

Re: Kent

October 4 2016, 10:43 AM 

Dobell explains the situation more eloquently than I could. The situation is complex but some clubs have been lucky in having local authorities who are prepared to write off debt. Leeds City council saw the benefit in an early repayment of its loan which was arguably a win win for both sides. The grant towards the new stand however is just that. A cash gift. Leeds City council has reserves if approx 3% turnover. This is considered appropriate for a local authority. The ECB sits on a cash pile of more than 40% of its turn over. If ever there was a case for stopping the clock and giving back some of the money to its members then surely now is the time. By all means go heavy if counties fail to make the best of it. Durham have got into difficulty having been led by the nose by the ECB. Others have avoided this more by luck than judgement.

 
 
Guest
(Login ThirdUmpire)

Re: Kent

October 4 2016, 10:58 AM 

But some local councils recognise the benefits of having a test match ground for the wider benefit of the local economy a bit like the benefits from Yorkshire having the Tour de France. Big cities like Leeds Birmingham and Cardiff would see tourism rise, hotels, restaurants etc benefit and they all support together. It's trickier to build the same argument not for a ground in Chester le Street.

We could have moved to Durkar a few years back and suffered a similar fate.

 
 
Guest
(Login sooty-yorkie1)

Re: Kent

October 4 2016, 12:26 PM 

I'm not sure this situation has ever come about before, therefore I find it a bit hard to judge whether it's harsh or fair.
As to the previous test match process, iirc the overhaul was driven by the smaller counties that wanted a share of the test matches rather than the same few traditional grounds. The only way to host them was to increase the size/quality of the grounds to the standard required.
The cash pile does seem large, i wonder what equivalent sports hold?

 
 
Guest
(Login EastYorkshireTyke)

Re: Kent

October 4 2016, 12:49 PM 

What happens if say a perennial Division 2 team, say Derbyshire or Leicestershire are in the same situation? You can't relegate them and they have no realistic chance of promotion anyway so what difference would a, say, 96 point penalty make?

 
 
Guest
(Login sooty-yorkie1)

Re: Kent

October 4 2016, 12:56 PM 

It would rule out promotion, however remote, if the rules state a points penalty then it gives consistency.

 
 
Guest
(Login EastYorkshireTyke)

Re: Kent

October 4 2016, 1:05 PM 

The rules don't state anything though, this is the can of worms the ECB have opened up by deciding this is the punishment.


 
 
Guest
(Login sooty-yorkie1)

Re: Kent

October 4 2016, 1:14 PM 

What should they have done?

 
 
Guest
(Login EastYorkshireTyke)

Re: Kent

October 4 2016, 1:25 PM 

Tried to assist Durham through this period, not punish them!

For example, the ECB and Durham mention that these negotiations have been on going for over a year. If they knew a year ago there was trouble ahead then why on earth did they let them host a test match in May against Sri Lanka?


 
 
peter
(Login wakefieldfan)

durham

October 4 2016, 1:54 PM 

if a post office the hub of the community is losing money the post office don't pump loads of money into it they close it down , the money that the ECB gave to Durham was so that a secured creditor didn't pull the plug on Durham and to pay the tax man as is the fa if a football club goes into administration unsecured creditors lose their money but players both in football and cricket don't lose a penny cut their wage bill would be a start , I've said it before if cricket was run like a business the tax man would close them down because their outgoings far exceed their income .

 
 
Guest
(Login sooty-yorkie1)

Re: Kent

October 4 2016, 2:12 PM 

Punishments in sport for financial mismanagement are common. I think they have supported them by loaning them several million pounds, however there needs to be a deterrent for other counties otherwise they might think it's an easy way out.

I would think they'd already agreed to host the game, and many things come to light over a year. To ban them from hosting a game before any proper decision on penalties had been formed, without all the information, would be ludicrous.

@ ECT, they shouldn't have been punished at all, or a given a smaller one?


    
This message has been edited by sooty-yorkie1 on Oct 4, 2016 2:14 PM


 
 
Guest
(Login EastYorkshireTyke)

Re: Kent

October 4 2016, 2:34 PM 

I'm not talking about a "ban" from hosting the game, I'm talking about prudent management. Knowing Durham were in trouble but still billing them close to £1m for hosting the game is gross negligence on behalf of the ECB. It would have been much better to have taken the game to Trent Bridge, who didn't have a test this summer, surely?

A big part of this problem is the ECB's making, in giving Durham first class status only if they built an International venue away from an major city.

 
 
Guest
(Login sooty-yorkie1)

Re: Kent

October 4 2016, 2:46 PM 

No i don't think so, people are upset. Imagine before collecting all the information and coming to some agreement with the club it decided to remove the test match. Sorry i can't agree it would be ludicrous, people would see it as an even bigger mess and further fuel to conspiracy fire.

Sorry i can't remember how the ground came to be where it was or why it's the size it is.

 
 
Guest
(Login EastYorkshireTyke)

Re: Kent

October 4 2016, 3:06 PM 

I don't think you're reading what I'm actually writing here sooty. I'm not talking about a "ban" or the ECB "removing" the test without Durham having an input I'm talking about managing a precarious financial situation which the ECB and Durham both know about 12 months ago.

How would it have been ludicrous to save Durham £1m a year ago, given, the ECB and Durham both knew then that Durham had financial problems?


    
This message has been edited by EastYorkshireTyke on Oct 4, 2016 3:13 PM


 
 
 
  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