<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>  

Guest
(Login dpressed)

Re: Interesting

March 23 2017, 11:48 AM 

As has already been said the idea of this competition is to attract people who don't currently watch cricket so they think it won't matter. Cricket must be unique in that they don't mind allientating an existing audience to appeal to one that might not turn up.

You are right to mention the London centric as London is the only city that is anthing like the Australian model, which is large numbers of people seperated by large areas that are sparcely populated. The rest of the English (& Welsh) grounds (possibly apart from Warwicks) are in cities surrounded by other towns/cities. If they can't use Yorkshire it could allienate those who don't live in the city. A Manchester team would be even worse as you can guarnetee that very few will travel from Merseyside & many from surrounding towns would be put off. I'd also be surprised if many Deby people turned up to watch Nottingham.

 
 
Idle Man
(Login Idle_man)

Re: Interesting

March 23 2017, 12:37 PM 

Where are these areas around London which are sparsely populated? I agree with your basic point however, but I suppose this imaginary new audience have few established loyalties.

 
 
Martin
(Login Martinh00)

Re: Interesting

March 23 2017, 1:50 PM 

TO my mind this is where the whole concept falls flat. You either need a very large population (India) OR a culture that is accepting of travelling long distances (Australia) for a small number of geographically dispersed teams to work. We have neither of these.

I suspect that most YCCC T20 supporters attend home fixtures and then the odd away game (e.g. Trent Bridge or Old Trafford). If the only northern team is based at Old Trafford (putting aside the issue of loyalty), are we really going to travel there for every "home" game? I think not - it simply wont work for the ordinary working punter


 
 
WS55
(Login WibseySimon55)

Re: Interesting

March 23 2017, 2:11 PM 

One dimension of all this that has not been mentioned is that free-to-air TV is itself not likely to last more than a few more years.

The under-30s increasingly ignore TV, and watch on laptops and tablets. Even if they have a set or screen, they tend to stream through their computers (often 'illegally" ... but it'll only be illegal until the law and business models adapt to a technical and sociological reality ... like music streaming did).

The govt's deal with the BBC at its last contract extension was "You bear the cost of the over-70s free TV licences, and we'll let you explore ways of charging for iplayer usage and replacement of the licence fee in the early 2020s."

I suppose the ECB is aware of this -- but wonder if they've figured out the implications.

And while on technology, has anybody ever seen figures on how many Cricinfo logons Yorkshire's county games get? And how that compares with Tests, other counties, T20 etc? Do the management of YCCC know?

 
 
Bear
(Login Bear4)

Re: Interesting

March 23 2017, 2:25 PM 

On the basis that the Franchised T20 is going to happen, Headingley is very likely to be one of the venues. I certainly associate myself with the idea that calling the team Leeds would be a turn-off for many supporters.

I wonder if "Headingley Yorkies" might slide past the two side's prejudices, on the basis that it is only slightly repugnant to everybody!

 
 
Stu
(Login StuartRA)
Assistant Moderator

Re: Interesting

March 24 2017, 11:17 AM 

Linking the AGM, Finance and Gambling Threads.

GB`s views are that it is a big gamble. Not the "safe pair of hands" that some on this forum have suggested our Chairman & CE have. Perhaps that was why his nomination to join the Board last year was blocked.

From todays YP.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/cricket/yorkshire-ccc-gambling-with-club-s-future-claims-geoffrey-boycott-1-8454042

 
 
Idle Man
(Login Idle_man)

Re: Interesting

March 24 2017, 12:54 PM 

He doesn't exactly offer another way forward does he? I think we all share his fears regarding the debt.

 
 
Martin
(Login Martinh00)

Re: Interesting

March 24 2017, 1:39 PM 

Very unhelpful from Geoffrey. He should be working behind the scenes to come up with a funding package that doesn't rely so much on debt - maybe he is, but stating the bleeding obvious takes us no further forward. If he isn't working on or advocating an alternative then he is accepting no international cricket at Headingley after 2019

 
 
Guest
(Login ThirdUmpire)

Re: Interesting

March 24 2017, 2:41 PM 

In what capacity should Boycott be working on a plan behind the scenes please?

I don't think he is on the committee or the President or one of our guarantors so if he did plot behind the scenes others would be quick to skate him for going behind the backs of the club officials.

 
 
Stu
(Login StuartRA)
Assistant Moderator

Re: Interesting

March 24 2017, 5:25 PM 

Exactly Third Umpire. He is just expressing his point of view. If anyone wanted him to be working on a plan, they should have elected him when they had the chance last year.

I notice that Gary Verity, who was elected in his place, did not have to great an attendance at Board meetings, after all the furore of last year when several thought he was a much better choice than GB.

 
 
Guest
(Login BrickyardBoy)

Re: Interesting

March 24 2017, 7:12 PM 

It is not accurate to state that Gary Verity was elected to the YCCC Board in place of Geoff Boycott.

The actual position is that:

1. more people voted for Verity's appointment than voted against it, and therefore, he was elected to the Board, and

2. more people voted against Boycott's appointment than voted in favour, and therefore, he was not elected to the Board.

It was not a competition between the two nominations. Both could have been elected had the YCCC membership so decided. They chose to elect Verity and reject Boycott.

Having said all that, I have to agree with you that Verity's attendance at Board meetings was disappointing. The membership, of course, will have the power to remove him from the Board when his term of office comes to an end, if his re-election is proposed at that stage. I have to say that if his attendance does not improve between now and then, I certainly will not be voting for him.


 
 
Opening stand
(Login Openingstand)

Re: Interesting

March 24 2017, 7:30 PM 

I had the impression, rightly or wrongly, that he was put forward for the Board in the belief/expectation that he would open up avenues of income.

If he does this, does it really matter how many meetings he attends?

 
 
Stu
(Login StuartRA)
Assistant Moderator

Re: Interesting

March 24 2017, 7:34 PM 

If that is the case, how many avenues has he opened up? Not a lot, as YCC are still struggling to get the finance for the new stand.


    
This message has been edited by StuartRA on Mar 24, 2017 7:35 PM


 
 
Guest
(Login BrickyardBoy)

Re: Interesting

March 24 2017, 8:49 PM 

Of course it matters that Board Members attend Board Meetings; the Board is a corporate body and is required by law to operate as such, not least because it makes serious decisions which affect the well-being and future, or otherwise, of the organisation (in this case YCCC).

 
 
Martin
(Login Martinh00)

Re: Interesting

March 24 2017, 11:54 PM 

Completely agree. It used to annoy me that Vaughan was allowed to "phone in" his attendance at Board meetings. The Board is there to make decisions, and is only effective so long as people attend and make those decisions.

It is perfectly reasonable for ex players to use their influence for the good of the club - they don't have to be Board members to do this. So Vaughan, or (and I say this at the risk of being shot down again) Boycott should use their connections to help the club out behind the scenes. As long as the club is aware and the decisions are ultimately made by the Board then there is no problem.

 
 
Leg Glance
(Login legglance)

Re: Interesting

March 25 2017, 12:07 AM 

Spinning that the other way Martin you could also argue that an ex player can also help the club by ensuring it does not take any decisions that could, potentially, jeopardoise the club's sustainability and future.

I suppose it depends on what you,or I, or the ex player sees as being in the best interests of the club.

 
 
Stu
(Login StuartRA)
Assistant Moderator

Ground Sponsorship

March 28 2017, 9:38 AM 


 
 
chrisbrooky
(Login chrisbrooky)

Re: Ground Sponsorship

March 28 2017, 12:41 PM 

Sounds like a deal has been done although this will no doubt result in more questions than answers!

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/sport/cricket/yorkshire-cricket/investemnet-secured-to-save-headingley-1-8462635

 
 
Guest
(Login ThirdUmpire)

Re: Ground Sponsorship

March 28 2017, 1:02 PM 

Great news and thanks to the currently anonymous private financial services company for coming to the rescue.

This suggests it's not a Graves related entity perhaps but if i had ridden to the rescue I'd want to get some positive publicity for it!

 
 
Stu
(Login StuartRA)
Assistant Moderator

Re: Ground Sponsorship

March 28 2017, 1:15 PM 

Great news for the club, now it is for the members to decide whether to go further into debt or not. At least the members can make the decision now as opposed to having it forced upon us by not getting the funding.

Over to the members.

Do we want to go 40M in to debt, or call it quits and try and pay off the existing £23M debt.

I will not repeat my views, as well aired already, and I know what my choice will be, but overall I personally think the extra lending will be ratified by the members.

 
 
 
< Previous Page 14 5 6 7 8 Next >
  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