Essex Outfielder : The Unofficial Essex CCC Forum
Club Administration => Club Administration => Topic started by: essexfan548 on June 29, 2025, 09:32:01 AM
-
Thought this might be of interest:
https://www.wisden.com/wisden-cricketers-almanack/luddites-or-lifeblood-how-you-view-county-crickets-members-depends-on-where-you-stand-almanack?
Ben Bloom?s feature on the struggles of England?s County clubs amidst the commercial takeover originally appeared in the 2025 edition of the Wisden Almanack.
-
Somerset have come out firmly in favour of maintaining 14 CC matches (with home/away symmetry in Div 1) and 14 T20 matches.
Time for Essex to make a statement (supporting the majority of members' view similar to Somerset).
-
Somerset have come out firmly in favour of maintaining 14 CC matches (with home/away symmetry in Div 1) and 14 T20 matches.
Time for Essex to make a statement (supporting the majority of members' view similar to Somerset).
When the Championship / fixture set up is revised, yet again, think a two thirds majority of counties have to vote in favour, so much cajoling to get other counties on board.
ECB did have a sound out with Home Counties for there views recently has stated at the forum last week.
-
Somerset have come out firmly in favour of maintaining 14 CC matches (with home/away symmetry in Div 1) and 14 T20 matches.
Time for Essex to make a statement (supporting the majority of members' view similar to Somerset).
As have Surrey, I don't expect Mr Feist to any opinion whatsoever
-
Somerset have come out firmly in favour of maintaining 14 CC matches (with home/away symmetry in Div 1) and 14 T20 matches.
Time for Essex to make a statement (supporting the majority of members' view similar to Somerset).
As have Surrey, I don't expect Mr Feist to any opinion whatsoever
Good. I don't want him to have an opinion. Just reflect the views of members.
-
Some counties have already publicly expressed their preferred options.
Surrey and Somerset have supported an eight-team top flight and 10-team second tier, retaining 14 games per season.
Middlesex have backed the status quo: 10 teams in Division One, eight in Division Two and 14 games.
Durham and Lancashire have thrown their weight behind the 12-team top flight, while Worcestershire have supported both the conference and 10-team first division.
-
Some counties have already publicly expressed their preferred options.
Surrey and Somerset have supported an eight-team top flight and 10-team second tier, retaining 14 games per season.
Middlesex have backed the status quo: 10 teams in Division One, eight in Division Two and 14 games.
Durham and Lancashire have thrown their weight behind the 12-team top flight, while Worcestershire have supported both the conference and 10-team first division.
Not as simple as that. Durham have not yet consulted their members. There is close to civil war in Lanky where the Board are trying to gerrymander the consultation.
-
Lancs seem to have taken on the mantle of Yorks when it comes to fractious politicking.
-
Some counties have already publicly expressed their preferred options.
Surrey and Somerset have supported an eight-team top flight and 10-team second tier, retaining 14 games per season.
Middlesex have backed the status quo: 10 teams in Division One, eight in Division Two and 14 games.
Durham and Lancashire have thrown their weight behind the 12-team top flight, while Worcestershire have supported both the conference and 10-team first division.
Not as simple as that. Durham have not yet consulted their members. There is close to civil war in Lanky where the Board are trying to gerrymander the consultation.
Indeed I've had an e-mail from a Lancs member to that effect - I will hear more at Cheltenham next week.
-
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/players-want-cut-12-county-championship-games-pca-1495792
The players want a cut to 12 games per season, plus fixing the ridiculous Blast schedule. I suspect they will get their wish and we'll end up with a 12 team first division split into 2 pools of 6 (10 games, plus 2 against teams in the other pool and a final). Which would mean that Essex wouldn't need to worry about relegation this season.
Will the members vote for that? And what happens if the counties vote for it anyway?
-
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/players-want-cut-12-county-championship-games-pca-1495792
The players want a cut to 12 games per season, plus fixing the ridiculous Blast schedule. I suspect they will get their wish and we'll end up with a 12 team first division split into 2 pools of 6 (10 games, plus 2 against teams in the other pool and a final). Which would mean that Essex wouldn't need to worry about relegation this season.
Will the members vote for that? And what happens if the counties vote for it anyway?
If the counties vote for a reduction there will be a lot of SGMs.
-
Some counties have already publicly expressed their preferred options.
Surrey and Somerset have supported an eight-team top flight and 10-team second tier, retaining 14 games per season.
Middlesex have backed the status quo: 10 teams in Division One, eight in Division Two and 14 games.
Durham and Lancashire have thrown their weight behind the 12-team top flight, while Worcestershire have supported both the conference and 10-team first division.
Not as simple as that. Durham have not yet consulted their members. There is close to civil war in Lanky where the Board are trying to gerrymander the consultation.
Durham are privately owned, they don't have to consult jack. Lancashire members will roll over as they always do. All fart, no s**t.
I've given up on it. The solution is to play the Blast during the 100, play the ODC early season with the Championship May, June, July and September. But none of these morons have a clue so of course they'll continue to downgrade 50 over cricket then complain when we get dumped out of the next World Cup in the group stage....again!
-
I've given up on it. The solution is to play the Blast during the 100, play the ODC early season with the Championship May, June, July and September.
How would that work?
Okay for non-Hundred counties but for the likes of Warwickshire and all the other Hundred hosts it would mean you would have Birmingham Bears (aka Warwickshire) and Birmingham Phoenix (aka Warwickshire with some guest players) playing Blast and Hundred games crammed in together.
They would simply never ever agree to that.
-
I've given up on it. The solution is to play the Blast during the 100, play the ODC early season with the Championship May, June, July and September.
How would that work?
Okay for non-Hundred counties but for the likes of Warwickshire and all the other Hundred hosts it would mean you would have Birmingham Bears (aka Warwickshire) and Birmingham Phoenix (aka Warwickshire with some guest players) playing Blast and Hundred games crammed in together.
They would simply never ever agree to that.
Men and women play has a double header both in the guise of Blast, so in theory it is possible, but improbable due to the sponsorship rights .
-
I've given up on it. The solution is to play the Blast during the 100, play the ODC early season with the Championship May, June, July and September.
How would that work?
Okay for non-Hundred counties but for the likes of Warwickshire and all the other Hundred hosts it would mean you would have Birmingham Bears (aka Warwickshire) and Birmingham Phoenix (aka Warwickshire with some guest players) playing Blast and Hundred games crammed in together.
They would simply never ever agree to that.
Why not? They play the ODC at the same time. All county players playing T20 at the same time is ideal for everyone (100 will become T20 before long). That allows a nice transition between franchises and counties for players not getting gametime. Then the players rejoin their Blast squads following the 100 to play out that tournament. Ticket sales will rise for the Blast because it's back being played during the holidays. Plenty of cricket to go around. Most importantly, we get a proper 50 over competition.
-
I've given up on it. The solution is to play the Blast during the 100, play the ODC early season with the Championship May, June, July and September.
How would that work?
Okay for non-Hundred counties but for the likes of Warwickshire and all the other Hundred hosts it would mean you would have Birmingham Bears (aka Warwickshire) and Birmingham Phoenix (aka Warwickshire with some guest players) playing Blast and Hundred games crammed in together.
They would simply never ever agree to that.
Why not? They play the ODC at the same time. All county players playing T20 at the same time is ideal for everyone (100 will become T20 before long). That allows a nice transition between franchises and counties for players not getting gametime. Then the players rejoin their Blast squads following the 100 to play out that tournament. Ticket sales will rise for the Blast because it's back being played during the holidays. Plenty of cricket to go around. Most importantly, we get a proper 50 over competition.
Why not ? Because players are contracted to 16.4 and not employed by the county during this period .
But no reason to play both games on the same day two games , 22 players in both games without migrating from one team to another .
Could do - Three games in a day , two T20 Blast fixtures , one men and women games and a 16.4 .
-
The PCA are looking for a reduction due to workload and mental health.
Diddums, grow a pair. That also applies to the Women Cricketers as well.
-
Our CEO has just let something out of the bag. Only 3500 members now, carry on and the forum can be held with house calls.
-
Our CEO has just let something out of the bag. Only 3500 members now, carry on and the forum can be held with house calls.
Criminal mismanagement for a county of the size of Essex to have so few members. Perhaps after the SGM for directing the Board to reflect members wishes in all voting then we should have another SGM to remove the Board/CEO.
-
Reported to press that ECB want Conferance style Championshiop 2x6 , lower 1x 6 13 games .
Chairman at Lords on 2 Sept, no vote though - Clubs position is return to the same has present .
Members Fourn in pavilion 9 Sept
SGM to be called sometime in Sept .
With loss of one T20 blast game, will this be reflected in cost - NO due to sell out demand no reduction on price .
T20 will not be played same time of when Hundred is played.
-
It is clear that the ECB is desperate to reduce the number of CC matches and will do anything to get it done, be it stalling or any other means. 13 games, 12 games, the end goal is 10 games. I'm sure Essex are getting heavily leaned on.
Don't give them an inch.
-
Makes me wonder if the PCA and ECB have cut some sort of deal to cut county cricket (presumably to expand the 100) and didn't reckon on hitting a brickwall of members resistance.
-
Makes me wonder if the PCA and ECB have cut some sort of deal to cut county cricket (presumably to expand the 100) and didn't reckon on hitting a brickwall of members resistance.
Don't forget that they tried it on a couple of years ago. Many of us commented that they would return to this topic and now they have done so.
We must use this as an opportunity to strengthen the democratic processes with the club. Lanky members are already doing so via their forthcoming SGMs.
-
We all know it's not the number of games but the way they are scheduled that is the issue. We also know who draws up the schedule -
The webinar also mentioned that they got info from the ECB today re increasing 50 over games but only if CC games were reduced.
-
There appears to be a bit of player power.
Go on, have a confrontation. It really worked for the coal miners.
-
The request for nominations to the members' committee, will soon be sent out.
Can, some sensible candidates be chosen to stand, please. As we had to rely on a Lancashire member, to take round a petition. These may not exist any more.
-
The request for nominations to the members' committee, will soon be sent out.
Can, some sensible candidates be chosen to stand, please. As we had to rely on a Lancashire member, to take round a petition. These may not exist any more.
You could stand? You seem to have the necessary eccentricity.
-
I would not stand, as it would be the same as being an MP. You are required to deal with all manner of idiots, requiring your attention.
Before, the General Election, at a members' forum. Vicky Ford MP, told a constituent. Who wished to ask her a question about rubbish bins or something similar. I am here to discuss cricket, not any other business.
-
George Dobell in the Cricketer online (behind a paywall) mentions that the Lancashire CEO is facing a misconduct vote at an SGM. SGM petitions at Notts and Essex are also mentioned in the article:
"Specifically, it is alleged that Gidney told Lancashire members, who had previously been informed they would be given a binding vote on Lancashire's position in the negotiations, that the ECB had given the counties three options for the future schedule of the County Championship. All options outlined by the club featured 12 games a season.
The group of members insist this was a misrepresentation of the position at the time. They point to a leaked email, sent from Warwickshire chair Mark McCafferty (also chair of the Professional Game Committee), which suggests options for a 14-match season were also being discussed by counties.
"The requisitioning members believe this shows that the chief executive knowingly misled the members on both the choices put forward by the ECB and the timing for the final vote," the request for an SGM states.
"Member choice was wrongly restricted, and undue time pressure was put on members to vote before any objections could be made. The requisitioning members believe that these actions amount to misconduct on the part of the chief executive."
-
This was widely discussed at Cheltenham during the match v Lancashire with members comparing their three options against what other counties had been told.
-
An article in the Guardian explains what's being voted on and states that Essex are against any reduction in 14 Championship fixtures:
"With 12 votes required to alter the structure, Surrey, Lancashire, Middlesex, Essex and Somerset have already stated they will oppose any reduction to the current 14-game season, with the voting intentions of Derbyshire, Sussex and Kent in the balance. The 10 other counties ? an unlikely alliance of Test match grounds and Division Two sides such as Leicestershire and Northamptonshire ? are broadly in favour but need two other clubs to come on side."
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/aug/30/county-crickets-restructure-what-is-being-proposed-and-how-will-it-work
Coming up with a complicated new structure just to reduce the number of games to 13 and then offering an extra one day cup game all seems a bit pointless. Of course, as others have pointed out, this would give them a structure to eventually reduce the games further.
-
An article in the Guardian explains what's being voted on and states that Essex are against any reduction in 14 Championship fixtures:
"With 12 votes required to alter the structure, Surrey, Lancashire, Middlesex, Essex and Somerset have already stated they will oppose any reduction to the current 14-game season, with the voting intentions of Derbyshire, Sussex and Kent in the balance. The 10 other counties ? an unlikely alliance of Test match grounds and Division Two sides such as Leicestershire and Northamptonshire ? are broadly in favour but need two other clubs to come on side."
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/aug/30/county-crickets-restructure-what-is-being-proposed-and-how-will-it-work
Coming up with a complicated new structure just to reduce the number of games to 13 and then offering an extra one day cup game all seems a bit pointless. Of course, as others have pointed out, this would give them a structure to eventually reduce the games further.
Exactly. 10 CC games is the ultimate objective of the ECB.
-
The Grauniad article is inaccurate (quelle surprise). The Lanky Board are in favour of a reduction but their members have called an SGM to reverse that view.
Notts members have also called an SGM to reverse their Board's preference for a reduction.
IIRC Kent were in favour of the status quo.
So, a rubbish article from a rubbish rag.
-
I wonder if there is any scope for a motion of no confidence in the ECB to be brought forward at the Essex meeting? Personally the words of Cromwell spring to my mind - In the name of God go.
-
A motion would be ignored by the ECB would be ignored. For the reason, that they are convinced in their own mind. That they are doing a good job.
-
I suspect the chair wouldn't allow such a motion to be debated. But I think members need to find away to snap back at the ECB. This horse trading, reduce to 13 games in retain for an extra list A game really exposes their incompetence.
-
I wonder if there is any scope for a motion of no confidence in the ECB to be brought forward at the Essex meeting? Personally the words of Cromwell spring to my mind - In the name of God go.
Great analogy Slogger, unfortunately Cromwell had the means to enforce his views whereas we don't!
-
The Grauniad article is inaccurate (quelle surprise). The Lanky Board are in favour of a reduction but their members have called an SGM to reverse that view.
Notts members have also called an SGM to reverse their Board's preference for a reduction.
IIRC Kent were in favour of the status quo.
So, a rubbish article from a rubbish rag.
And Yawkshur are also against a reduction.
-
I would call for a boycott of the 100. However, as no County member, with any taste or intelligence, would go anywhere near it. This would make no impression at all.
-
So according to the Dobell-meister (so treat with caution) County chiefs are suggesting the players union call a strike to force a reduction in playing days.
If true then the concerned county big-wigs should be sacked.
-
It sort of smacks of 1970s deals between the government, CBI and TUC. It all gets stitched up in a smoke filled room and then the rank and file are required to fall into line. The trouble is most of the counties are owned by an admittedly dwindling band of memembers who don't agree with a championship reduction. In fact my comment on the survey was why is there no option to revert to 16 matches? I don't know if that makes me a luddite or a flying picket.
-
So according to the Dobell-meister (so treat with caution) County chiefs are suggesting the players union call a strike to force a reduction in playing days.
If true then the concerned county big-wigs should be sacked.
Excellent news. Might finally gain some national media attention as to the damage being caused to the county game.
Members should stand their ground, don't get bullied into submission. Those county chiefs won't have the guts to go public but we can all guess who they are.
-
The Beeb
Any revamp of the County Championship may not take place until 2027 ? if changes are implemented at all.
The 18 first-class counties have been examining the domestic structure throughout this season, with the intention of introducing alterations in 2026.
While a reduction to the T20 Blast was agreed in August, consensus on the future of the Championship has been harder to find.
Various proposals to cut from the current 14 matches to a 12-game programme were supported by the Professional Cricketers' Association (PCA), but opposed by a number of counties.
As such, a 12-game schedule is off the table.
Now the choice is between 14 matches and 13 matches, options that were discussed by the county chairs on Tuesday.
The prospect of delaying any potential changes until 2027 has also been raised.
That is down to the desire to ensure the best possible decision is made, and also because the end of the current season is drawing near. The final three rounds of matches commence next week.
A 13-game season would involve splitting the 18 counties into a 12-team top tier, with six in the bottom division.
The 12 teams in Division One would be divided into two groups, with each team playing the others in their group twice. The groups would then be split into top and bottom halves, leaving each team to play the three counties in the corresponding half from the other group. The champions would be the county that ends on most points.
In the six-team second tier, counties would play two teams twice and three others three times, giving a total of 13 games. The top two teams would be promoted, replacing the two teams that finish bottom of the groups in the top tier.
Supporters of the change point to the one-match reduction, which is favoured by players. A 12-team top flight gives more counties the opportunity to win the Championship, while a six-team second tier gives more chance for promotion to those counties that often find themselves languishing.
However, there is also a feeling that the proposals are too convoluted and a 12-team top tier does not provide enough 'best v best'.
Any change to the structure would require 12 of the 18 counties to vote in favour.
That is looking increasingly unlikely, given the number of counties that have publicly stated their preference for retaining a 14-game season.
That would mean a continuation of the current system: 10 teams in the first division, eight in the second and all teams playing 14 matches.
Discussions between county chairs are due to continue and a vote could take place in the coming days.
The PCA is due to update its members on the situation later on Wednesday. In July, the players' body said a cut to 12 matches was the "only reasonable option".
With that now not being considered, the PCA is in favour of the reduction to 13 matches.
Retaining the current 14-game model would result in frustration among players. While the idea of strikes or boycotts are not likely to be considered, players could look at other ways of protesting against the schedule.
-
The upshot is?
?
We may win this battle but the war is not over.
Prepare for the next battle because the ECB/PCA will be back.
Take this opportunity to strengthen the democratic mechanisms at county member clubs.
-
Essex have just circulated an ECB questionnaire.
-
Essex have just circulated an ECB questionnaire.
Unrelated to this issue.
-
Essex have just circulated an ECB questionnaire.
Unrelated to this issue.
It isn't - have you read the questions?
-
Essex have just circulated an ECB questionnaire.
Unrelated to this issue.
It isn't - have you read the questions?
yes
-
Essex have just circulated an ECB questionnaire.
Unrelated to this issue.
It isn't - have you read the questions?
yes
Well if you can't read the agenda behind this .... clearly related to to reducing CC
-
SGM 14 day notice just received.
-
At the Notts EGM members voted c. 700-250 to retain 14 CC matches. I can't understand why 250 members voted for less proper cricket.
-
At the Notts EGM members voted c. 700-250 to retain 14 CC matches. I can't understand why 250 members voted for less proper cricket.
Being a franchise related club, just more choice of cricket, with which cannot fit it all into their own schedules and finances.
-
At the Notts EGM members voted c. 700-250 to retain 14 CC matches. I can't understand why 250 members voted for less proper cricket.
They support a club known to poach other teams players ..
-
As I understand it the Notts Chair and CEO are going to ignore the vote anyway and support a reduction.
-
At the Notts EGM members voted c. 700-250 to retain 14 CC matches. I can't understand why 250 members voted for less proper cricket.
One reason may be that they would feel it would at least bring about some kind of resolution to the issue. I for one am sick and tired of hearing about changes to the set-up and schedule. It goes on and on and on and on.
I would like to keep 14 matches but the danger is that for many people this will just be seen as kicking the can further down the road. Nothing will have changed and they will simply then come back to try and force it through again, maybe with an even bigger reduction.
And then it will be rinse and repeat with the debate dragging on into 2026 and beyond. We can't have another season like this where teams don't know what they are playing for going into the last 2 rounds. It's a disgrace.
-
At the Notts EGM members voted c. 700-250 to retain 14 CC matches. I can't understand why 250 members voted for less proper cricket.
One reason may be that they would feel it would at least bring about some kind of resolution to the issue. I for one am sick and tired of hearing about changes to the set-up and schedule. It goes on and on and on and on.
I would like to keep 14 matches but the danger is that for many people this will just be seen as kicking the can further down the road. Nothing will have changed and they will simply then come back to try and force it through again, maybe with an even bigger reduction.
And then it will be rinse and repeat with the debate dragging on into 2026 and beyond. We can't have another season like this where teams don't know what they are playing for going into the last 2 rounds. It's a disgrace.
That is exactly the ECB plan. Wear down the county members until we agree to their proposals. That's why we need to defeat this latest scheme *and* further democratise the county clubs and the ECB (who are owned by the county clubs).
-
What happens regards the three games against the upper or lower team from the other division which make up the thirteen.
How are they issued has home and away fixtures, because potentially if your club is only allocated one home fixture out of the three additional a further reduction on membership would take place. On the positive side not being a test / franchise location we are likely to still get allocated two games because of better availability.
No doubt the club would have to consider schemes in the value of membership, especially life members, possibly appeasing the members with no increase for a season before invariably increasing fees, although a reduction of cricketing days has taken place .
-
With inflation. Life members, start getting a benefit from day one.
There is something that I am also involved with. That is also during the summer. Due to the requirements, to book venues and entertainment. The dates for next year have already been announced.
With the reduction, it may well be that, the dates of the home games clash. Meaning, that I will get little benefit out of a membership.
-
With inflation. Life members, start getting a benefit from day one.
There is something that I am also involved with. That is also during the summer. Due to the requirements, to book venues and entertainment. The dates for next year have already been announced.
With the reduction, it may well be that, the dates of the home games clash. Meaning, that I will get little benefit out of a membership.
There. Won?t. Be. A. Reduction. Despite some of your apathy.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/sep/18/county-championship-restructure-vote-delayed-cricket
"The final round of County Championship matches next week will take place with some counties in the dark over what is at stake after a decision on the format for next year was deferred until the end of the season.
The Guardian has learned that a vote on the structure for next season has been delayed on integrity grounds, because of concerns that counties in Division One at risk of relegation could field weakened teams if that threat is suddenly removed.
There is also a feeling among the Professional Game Group, who are running the process, that postponement will give them the best chance of securing the 12 votes required to introduce a new structure next season.
Amid ongoing confusion, online secret ballot forms are to be issued next week but the deadline for voting has not been confirmed and no announcement will be made until the season has concluded. ......."
-
Lots of arm twisting going on at the moment.
Lanky have issued voting forms to their members with a 'strong recommendation' to vote for a reduction to 13 CC games.
Worcs members are starting to stir now that they realise their CEO and ECB stooge Ashley Giles is in favour of a reduction.
Leics CEO is in favour of a reduction but against their members' wishes. Sussex similarly.
Somerset have kept very quiet which is ominous.
I still think the Essex Board are malleable to some ECB blackmail.
As it stands Essex, Derbyshire, Yorkshire, Middx, Surrey, Kent are against any reduction.
-
I'm also told Gloucestershire are against a reduction - this is direct from a member and a message he received from their Board.
-
"a vote on the structure for next season has been delayed on integrity grounds, because of concerns that counties in Division One at risk of relegation could field weakened teams if that threat is suddenly removed."
The ECB has shown again and again that it does not care if certain counties field weakened teams during the main part of the season, eg the way we have been p***ed about re Sam Cook, and how Warwickshire were deprived of Bethell so that he could carry drinks for England-so why should they be worried now?
-
Lots of arm twisting going on at the moment.
Lanky have issued voting forms to their members with a 'strong recommendation' to vote for a reduction to 13 CC games.
Worcs members are starting to stir now that they realise their CEO and ECB stooge Ashley Giles is in favour of a reduction.
Leics CEO is in favour of a reduction but against their members' wishes. Sussex similarly.
Somerset have kept very quiet which is ominous.
I still think the Essex Board are malleable to some ECB blackmail.
As it stands Essex, Derbyshire, Yorkshire, Middx, Surrey, Kent are against any reduction.
Somerset doing all they can for a hundred franchise so won't upset ecb
-
My massive problem with this is that it has become a vote about something else altogether.
If it were a vote to play 13 matches, with two divisions, I would not be particularly happy about that. I realise that for some it's a line in the sand but for me it's not a hill I am prepared to die on. I could live with it for all its faults.
However the vote now is clearly to tear up 135 years of history and start playing a totally different type of competition, other than one where the team with the most points in one league are declared champions.
That to me is a fundamental change on many levels and something to very much be up in arms about. For one thing that it's being slipped in through the back door masquerading as a vote for the number of games.
-
My massive problem with this is that it has become a vote about something else altogether.
If it were a vote to play 13 matches, with two divisions, I would not be particularly happy about that. I realise that for some it's a line in the sand but for me it's not a hill I am prepared to die on. I could live with it for all its faults.
However the vote now is clearly to tear up 135 years of history and start playing a totally different type of competition, other than one where the team with the most points in one league are declared champions.
That to me is a fundamental change on many levels and something to very much be up in arms about. For one thing that it's being slipped in through the back door masquerading as a vote for the number of games.
It *should* be a hill you are prepared to die on. The 13 game plan is the thin end of the wedge. Do you think it ends there? The ultimate goal is 10 CC games/season played between the franchises.
-
It *should* be a hill you are prepared to die on. The 13 game plan is the thin end of the wedge. Do you think it ends there? The ultimate goal is 10 CC games/season played between the franchises.
Well, going down from 16 matches to 14 was the thin end of the wedge.
Look, I get that, I do, but this vote wasn't originally supposed to be about totally changing the competition's format. It was about how many games to play.
What I mean is that to change the format in this way is something far worse.
-
Agree this is a fight worth fighting.
There are 183 days April to September and only a maximum of 80 days cricket in current schedule.. 56 days CC, 14 days max in T20 from next year, 10 days max 50 0ver. But they can't fit that in??? You could even take August out for the Pomh-Bears v KP Nut malarkey and still have 70 rest days. There is a bigger agenda here.
Give me a pencil and paper and I'll sort a fixture list in a morning. 50 overs on a Sunday. CC Tuesday to Friday and play the T20 in a block June-July, job done. Still space for a knockout cup!
-
The word is...
...
The motion to reduce the number of CC matches HAS BEEN DEFEATED.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/c1kw0923ggmo
"The County Championship is to remain a two-division structure of 14 matches per team after a vote rejected proposed changes.
Eighteen first-class counties were asked to choose between the status quo and a new system of a 12-team top flight, six in the bottom tier, with each team playing 13 matches.
The ballot returned a result on Tuesday, one day before the final round of this season's County Championship matches begin.
A majority of 12 counties were required to vote for change in order to push through the reform, a figure that was not met.
The result of the vote means the County Championship retains its current structure of 10 teams in Division One and eight in Division Two, with two teams promoted and relegated between each. ...."
-
As the proposed reform, was the one item on the Agenda. Will the SGM now be needed. I suppose the meeting could now be a slagging off session, of the former Chairman.
-
If Essex cast a vote for no change I see no reason for an EGM. I think Mr Gallian's interim appointment is a good one. At last someone who knows the game. Now all we've got to do is maintain division one status and look to move the club forward
-
This is very good news - for now.
However, the whole saga, which has now seen all that time and energy which could have been used positively elsewhere, and left the impression that there were those who didn't care that teams didn't know what they were playing for, has still left a bad taste.
I hope the counties involved will look to build bridges with supporters from now on rather than just push for this again, leading to the same divisions.
-
The strange thing is also that the other day they said the vote would be delayed but it went ahead.
This is just the start of the fight and we need to be on our guard for this to rear its head again.
-
I was told tonight that the vote was 9-9
-
I was told tonight that the vote was 9-9
Yep, those against were;
Essex, Kent, Middx, Surrey, Derbyshire, Notts, Glammy, Glos, Yorkshire
Lanky members voted FOR a reduction (56%/44%), figure that one out.
So once again Ciderset embarass themselves (I don't think they had a member's vote)
This is not the end. The ECB/PCA will be back. I'm already reading of the idea of circumventing members' wishes in a future decision. Talk of at least one or two counties de-mutualising (at the behest of the ECB and rogue CEOs).
Be watchful.
-
The members are a tiny minority dictating how the game is run...only so long will their views be a factor here
I want 16 games a season 2 divisions of 9. It won't ever happen again and a reduction is sadly inevitable.
Money talks.
It's nothing to do with playing too much. For most players other than the quick quicks it's not an intense physical sport. It's just not. Playing lots has no impact on ability to perform it's an utter bs argument and the pca ought to be ashamed of themselves for spinning it.
It's purely about opportunitysand time to go and be a gun for hire in the t20s t10s and hundred
If none of those comps existed the debate wouldnt be happening.
It's pure greed. If I was a player though I would also be greedy. It's the administrators who can stop this. They have enough money they dont need more short form but again they are greedy instead of offering the best product.
-
Regarding the PCA. I see that Sam (Arthur Scargil) Cook, is allowed to have quite a bit of a say when discussing the response to these proposals.
-
So how many attended the SGM, and the vote of hands was ?
-
The PCA are now threatening a strike demonstrating the same level of awareness as our union leaders in and the current Mayor of Mancky.
-
The PCA are now threatening a strike demonstrating the same level of awareness as our union leaders in and the current Mayor of Mancky.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/c4g961134g2o
They don't even know what they want themselves. I was listening to the Surrey v Notts match last week and the Surrey commentator on at the time said that every single member of the Surrey squad wanted to keep 14 first class matches.
"There are polarised opinions across the game. Some counties wanted 10 Championship matches, others were adamant that 14 was the minimum they wanted."
Mitchell said not every playing group from the 18 counties wanted a reduction in Championship matches - five sets of playing staff told the PCA they were in support of a 14-match season.
-
The PCA are now threatening a strike demonstrating the same level of awareness as our union leaders in and the current Mayor of Mancky.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/c4g961134g2o
They don't even know what they want themselves. I was listening to the Surrey v Notts match last week and the Surrey commentator on at the time said that every single member of the Surrey squad wanted to keep 14 first class matches.
"There are polarised opinions across the game. Some counties wanted 10 Championship matches, others were adamant that 14 was the minimum they wanted."
Mitchell said not every playing group from the 18 counties wanted a reduction in Championship matches - five sets of playing staff told the PCA they were in support of a 14-match season.
This is because each player has their own individual situation which will dictate their own opinion. If you're a bog-standard county cricketer or just play red ball, don't have a 100 contract and don't play franchise cricket, then you will want 14 games. Whereas if you're at the top tier of the domestic game, perhaps on the periphery of international selection and a seasoned 100/franchise globetrotter, you will want a reduction in Championship games. You don't mind going on strike to get it as you have a nice 100 contract and the guarantee of winter franchise gigs to sustain your pay packet, whilst the lesser cricketers are out of pocket.
As I've said before, if they strike, the lesser cricketers will not have a job to come back to, because when the counties are forced to lay off cricketers in order to make up the revenue loss, it'll be those cricketers who are laid off first.
As for the big name cricketers, those under contract by counties (not centrally), should not be issued a single NOC if they go on strike. Don't let them play a single franchise tournament, keep them stuck at home with no money coming in.
-
Cox I suspect would be a prime striker
Its bllx Mitchel and the pca should be looking after the many not the few focusing on the bog standard county players...the top players are fine money wise and will remain so however many cc games they play. It's just a few more bucks they can make by a reduction. Pure greed. Your Jamie porters and tom Westleys are those the pcs should be looking out for. Player who will never get a franchise gig and whose career and wage is built on 4 day cricket.
Pca need to realise this as Alex says if they strike the lesser player who are the majority will be unemployed.
-
As long as the players realise that there are conflicting interests the members and media should really get onto the backs of any would be strikers.
This could turn into a Packer style situation for English cricket and the negative effects of Packer rumbled on for years. However the Packer players had a point especially the Aussie and Windies.
-
Cox I suspect would be a prime striker
Its bllx Mitchel and the pca should be looking after the many not the few focusing on the big standard county players...the top players are fine money wise and will remain so however many cc games they play. It's just a few more bucks they can make by a reduction. Pure greed. Your Jamie porters and tom Westleys are those the pcs should be looking out for. Player who will never get a franchise gig and whose career and wage is built on 4 day cricket.
Pca need to realise this as Alex says if they strike the lesser player who are the majority will be unemployed.
Won?t be a problem for Cox. He can just pull another ?injury? out of the bag if he thinks he might have to play more than 10 games.
-
So let me get this right. 13 four day games wouldn?t justify striking - but an extra 4 day game would.
Therefore I assume if their county get to the quarter-finals of the T20 and then finals day (totalling 2 additional days), plus say the semi-finals and final of the Metro Bank Cup (a further 2 days), totalling 4 extra days in total, the players would down tools and refuse to play?
I would like an answer please, Mr Samuel Cook.
-
So let me get this right. 13 four day games wouldn?t justify striking - but an extra 4 day game would.
Therefore I assume if their county get to the quarter-finals of the T20 and then finals day (totalling 2 additional days), plus say the semi-finals and final of the Metro Bank Cup (a further 2 days), totalling 4 extra days in total, the players would down tools and refuse to play?
I would like an answer please, Mr Samuel Cook.
It's utter nonsense.
What none of the reducers mention is that most 4 days games don't last 4 days anyway, weather and early finishes mean the number if days cricket is misleading.
It's all pure greed
-
So let me get this right. 13 four day games wouldn?t justify striking - but an extra 4 day game would.
Therefore I assume if their county get to the quarter-finals of the T20 and then finals day (totalling 2 additional days), plus say the semi-finals and final of the Metro Bank Cup (a further 2 days), totalling 4 extra days in total, the players would down tools and refuse to play?
I would like an answer please, Mr Samuel Cook.
So they are required to be 'at work' for 14 x 4 day games = 56 days. Plus let's say 7 x travel days plus 14 x pre-match training days.
Plus 12 x T20 games plus 6 x travel days plus 12 x pre-match training days.
Plus 8 x ODC games plus 4 x travel days plus 8 x pre-match training days.
Gives a total of 77+30+20 = 127 days.
The season runs April-Sep so around 180 days.
So they are 'working' for approx 2/3 of the available days.
So they get more free time than normal working people.
Good luck with the strike Sammy boy.
-
So how many attended the SGM, and the vote of hands was ?
Answer my own question - meeting moved from cricket school to pavilion- 34 attendees.
-
If you're a bog-standard county cricketer or just play red ball, don't have a 100 contract and don't play franchise cricket, then you will want 14 games. Whereas if you're at the top tier of the domestic game, perhaps on the periphery of international selection and a seasoned 100/franchise globetrotter, you will want a reduction in Championship games.
This may be a tempting analysis but it doesn't square with the fact that the entire Surrey playing staff, which includes more big(gish) names and Hundred players than any other county, were apparently against a reduction. So there must be other factors shaping player opinions.
Surrey play home CC games in front of decent-size crowds, and won the title three years running. Maybe their players actually like the CC, regardless of their own personal standing and earning power. If that's what it is, then it suggests plenty of players at other counties don't like it, or at least aren't that bothered.
-
This may be a tempting analysis but it doesn't square with the fact that the entire Surrey playing staff, which includes more big(gish) names and Hundred players than any other county, were apparently against a reduction. So there must be other factors shaping player opinions.
Surrey play home CC games in front of decent-size crowds, and won the title three years running. Maybe their players actually like the CC, regardless of their own personal standing and earning power. If that's what it is, then it suggests plenty of players at other counties don't like it, or at least aren't that bothered.
One thing the players are concerned about is the ridiculous schedule and the amount of cricket played. Surrey have such a large squad that they can rest players and cover for injuries and international callups. The players are going to be happier with the status quo. Essex can't do that, so the players are going to end up knackered, carrying injuries and generally going through the motions at times. We can say yes but they're playing cricket for a living, they're not sitting behind a desk all day or working on a building site, but the current schedule can certainly drain all the fun out of it.
I don't think reducing the number of championship games is going to be the answer to making the schedule less of a mess, it's just tinkering at the edges.
-
Surrey have such a large squad that they can rest players and cover for injuries and international callups. The players are going to be happier with the status quo. Essex can't do that, so the players are going to end up knackered, carrying injuries and generally going through the motions at times.
Derbyshire are another county where it's been made public that the players were unanimously against a reduction. They are a smaller club, presumably in a similar position to Essex in terms of playing staff. So whatever is driving player opinions, it can't be as simple as stronger players v lesser players, or big clubs v small clubs.
As for the schedule, it'd be interesting to know how much more packed it is compared to previous years. In 1992 each county played 22 CC matches (a mix of 3 and 4 day games, in one of the ECB's characteristic fudges). '93 was the year it went to being fully 4-day, each county playing 17 matches, plus the various one-day competitions: the Sunday League was 50 overs per side that year, the B+H 55 overs, the Natwest 60 overs. Nothing as short as 20 overs or 100 balls. So it's hard to see how player workload could have massively increased since then, although I'll admit I have neither the time nor the inclination to pick through the fixture lists to work that out precisely. What is certain however is that the season is longer now, and I wonder if the way the CC has been shunted to the beginning and end of the season has devalued it for current players.
-
It is simple. Players have an easier workload nowadays. The only difference is more overseas travelling during the season and the introduction of more day night cricket mixed up with morning starts the next day.
I remember when Steve Harmison started training with one of the football clubs in the north east it shocked him how physically demanding the training was. Dare I say it but the current generation does not fully appreciate the demands that a full time professional sportsperson has to meet.
-
It is simple. Players have an easier workload nowadays. The only difference is more overseas travelling during the season and the introduction of more day night cricket mixed up with morning starts the next day.
I remember when Steve Harmison started training with one of the football clubs in the north east it shocked him how physically demanding the training was. Dare I say it but the current generation does not fully appreciate the demands that a full time professional sportsperson has to meet.
I think today's players train a lot harder than those of even Harmison's generation. There may be a gap between those who play the franchise leagues and the everyday county pro, but the days when players turned up a few weeks before the season started and did a few laps of the field are long gone. Pros from both eras have said that the intensity of play is a lot more now, mainly due to T20 and the pressures to get a franchise gig.
But in terms of amount of cricket played, there probably was more in the 90s, and there weren't the long gaps with no red ball cricket.
-
Not sure I buy this intensity nonsense. They spend too much time in the gym not enough practising.
I watched the 100 and I see that there are not as many cart horses in the field but you do not need a six pack to play and the standard of fielding even in the 2000s was not like the 1960s or 1980s even.
It is the sense of entitlement that gets me. Same in the female game. Ironically the more physical sports have less of this I.e. womens rugby is better than womens football.
-
This may be a tempting analysis but it doesn't square with the fact that the entire Surrey playing staff, which includes more big(gish) names and Hundred players than any other county, were apparently against a reduction. So there must be other factors shaping player opinions.
Surrey play home CC games in front of decent-size crowds, and won the title three years running. Maybe their players actually like the CC, regardless of their own personal standing and earning power. If that's what it is, then it suggests plenty of players at other counties don't like it, or at least aren't that bothered.
One thing the players are concerned about is the ridiculous schedule and the amount of cricket played. Surrey have such a large squad that they can rest players and cover for injuries and international callups. The players are going to be happier with the status quo. Essex can't do that, so the players are going to end up knackered, carrying injuries and generally going through the motions at times. We can say yes but they're playing cricket for a living, they're not sitting behind a desk all day or working on a building site, but the current schedule can certainly drain all the fun out of it.
I don't think reducing the number of championship games is going to be the answer to making the schedule less of a mess, it's just tinkering at the edges.
This doesn't wash dp. Only the quick quicks are impacted fitness wise. Yes it's a slog bowling 50 overs a game as a medium fast bowler as all ours are (at best) and most on the circuit are, but it's not superhuman. And batsmen likewise it's hit a physical drain. Mental perhaps but that's another colour horse completely.
Its simple age old wish less work for the same money.
-
It is simple. Players have an easier workload nowadays. The only difference is more overseas travelling during the season and the introduction of more day night cricket mixed up with morning starts the next day.
I remember when Steve Harmison started training with one of the football clubs in the north east it shocked him how physically demanding the training was. Dare I say it but the current generation does not fully appreciate the demands that a full time professional sportsperson has to meet.
I think today's players train a lot harder than those of even Harmison's generation. There may be a gap between those who play the franchise leagues and the everyday county pro, but the days when players turned up a few weeks before the season started and did a few laps of the field are long gone. Pros from both eras have said that the intensity of play is a lot more now, mainly due to T20 and the pressures to get a franchise gig.
But in terms of amount of cricket played, there probably was more in the 90s, and there weren't the long gaps with no red ball cricket.
Pressure to get franchise gig from whom??
Themselves. And pressure for what reason? Greed and earning more.
Which is fine but let's not dress that up or pretend it's not purely selfish and financial. Nowt to do with physical stresses.
-
Pressure to get franchise gig from whom??
Themselves. And pressure for what reason? Greed and earning more.
Which is fine but let's not dress that up or pretend it's not purely selfish and financial. Nowt to do with physical stresses.
Why shouldn't players seek to maximise their earning potential? It's not greed, it's making the most of a short career. If I had the talent to play at anything more than a park level when no one else showed up, I'd have done the same. And so now the players will look at a schedule that they see makes it more difficult to safeguard their futures, and try and avoid flogging themselves into the ground physically and mentally.
To be clear, I'd rather have one championship division of 18 and back to the days of at least 17 games, but that is fighting against the dying of the light. And it's not sustainable to have a situation where a lot of players are unhappy and threatening to strike, because that is the worst situation for everyone.
I would like to see the players put their arguments, I'm just going by what I've heard some of them say. I'd like to hear what Sam Cook has to say, for example.
-
Pressure to get franchise gig from whom??
Themselves. And pressure for what reason? Greed and earning more.
Which is fine but let's not dress that up or pretend it's not purely selfish and financial. Nowt to do with physical stresses.
Why shouldn't players seek to maximise their earning potential? It's not greed, it's making the most of a short career. If I had the talent to play at anything more than a park level when no one else showed up, I'd have done the same. And so now the players will look at a schedule that they see makes it more difficult to safeguard their futures, and try and avoid flogging themselves into the ground physically and mentally.
To be clear, I'd rather have one championship division of 18 and back to the days of at least 17 games, but that is fighting against the dying of the light. And it's not sustainable to have a situation where a lot of players are unhappy and threatening to strike, because that is the worst situation for everyone.
I would like to see the players put their arguments, I'm just going by what I've heard some of them say. I'd like to hear what Sam Cook has to say, for example.
As if by magic ;D ;D
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/c336g0dp785o
-
Pressure to get franchise gig from whom??
Themselves. And pressure for what reason? Greed and earning more.
Which is fine but let's not dress that up or pretend it's not purely selfish and financial. Nowt to do with physical stresses.
Why shouldn't players seek to maximise their earning potential? It's not greed, it's making the most of a short career. If I had the talent to play at anything more than a park level when no one else showed up, I'd have done the same. And so now the players will look at a schedule that they see makes it more difficult to safeguard their futures, and try and avoid flogging themselves into the ground physically and mentally.
To be clear, I'd rather have one championship division of 18 and back to the days of at least 17 games, but that is fighting against the dying of the light. And it's not sustainable to have a situation where a lot of players are unhappy and threatening to strike, because that is the worst situation for everyone.
I would like to see the players put their arguments, I'm just going by what I've heard some of them say. I'd like to hear what Sam Cook has to say, for example.
I haven't said they shouldn't I would.
My issue is the dressing it up as about performance and intensity in the current environment that's simply a faslehood.
-
Pressure to get franchise gig from whom??
Themselves. And pressure for what reason? Greed and earning more.
Which is fine but let's not dress that up or pretend it's not purely selfish and financial. Nowt to do with physical stresses.
Why shouldn't players seek to maximise their earning potential? It's not greed, it's making the most of a short career. If I had the talent to play at anything more than a park level when no one else showed up, I'd have done the same. And so now the players will look at a schedule that they see makes it more difficult to safeguard their futures, and try and avoid flogging themselves into the ground physically and mentally.
To be clear, I'd rather have one championship division of 18 and back to the days of at least 17 games, but that is fighting against the dying of the light. And it's not sustainable to have a situation where a lot of players are unhappy and threatening to strike, because that is the worst situation for everyone.
I would like to see the players put their arguments, I'm just going by what I've heard some of them say. I'd like to hear what Sam Cook has to say, for example.
As if by magic ;D ;D
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/c336g0dp785o
A load of rubbish. Bowling at 75mph isn't a massive strain just be open and say it's about earning money in a franchise gig.
-
I haven't said they shouldn't I would.
My issue is the dressing it up as about performance and intensity in the current environment that's simply a faslehood.
Yes, I just read Sam's interview :-) I don't think the players would have been arguing about high performance in their WhatsApp group.
-
Dissappointing view from Sam there, which every County fan would disagree with.
I don't crticise players for being self interested, but please be honest with your position - it's about money and nothing else.
Players would much rather chase the dollar playing franchise cricket earning more, than the day in day out of the county circuit.
in simple terms, they would rather do less work for more money. I get that, and wouldn't we all, but please credit the cricket fans with some intellgence.
This nonsense about mental health, burn out, need to be peak performance etc..........absolute rubbish.
Sadly, we will see more and more players sign white ball only contracts as the ECB champion the crisp cup, marginalise 50 overs at the expense of red ball.
-
Dissappointing view from Sam there, which every County fan would disagree with.
I don't crticise players for being self interested, but please be honest with your position - it's about money and nothing else.
Players would much rather chase the dollar playing franchise cricket earning more, than the day in day out of the county circuit.
in simple terms, they would rather do less work for more money. I get that, and wouldn't we all, but please credit the cricket fans with some intellgence.
This nonsense about mental health, burn out, need to be peak performance etc..........absolute rubbish.
Sadly, we will see more and more players sign white ball only contracts as the ECB champion the crisp cup, marginalise 50 overs at the expense of red ball.
Agree. Very disappointed with my boy. I'll disinherit him.
More generally we need a revolution at the ECB that prioritises Test cricket and by association 4-day County Cricket. Players must be incentivised (salary and prize money) to play 4-day county cricket.
The money is there to do it.
-
Surrey have such a large squad that they can rest players and cover for injuries and international callups. The players are going to be happier with the status quo. Essex can't do that, so the players are going to end up knackered, carrying injuries and generally going through the motions at times.
Derbyshire are another county where it's been made public that the players were unanimously against a reduction. They are a smaller club, presumably in a similar position to Essex in terms of playing staff. So whatever is driving player opinions, it can't be as simple as stronger players v lesser players, or big clubs v small clubs.
As for the schedule, it'd be interesting to know how much more packed it is compared to previous years. In 1992 each county played 22 CC matches (a mix of 3 and 4 day games, in one of the ECB's characteristic fudges). '93 was the year it went to being fully 4-day, each county playing 17 matches, plus the various one-day competitions: the Sunday League was 50 overs per side that year, the B+H 55 overs, the Natwest 60 overs. Nothing as short as 20 overs or 100 balls. So it's hard to see how player workload could have massively increased since then, although I'll admit I have neither the time nor the inclination to pick through the fixture lists to work that out precisely. What is certain however is that the season is longer now, and I wonder if the way the CC has been shunted to the beginning and end of the season has devalued it for current players.
Yes because Derbyshire hardly have any players who play in the 100 or go off and play franchise cricket. The only cricket that 95% of Derbyshire players will play across an English summer is county cricket, so why on earth would they want a reduction? Not to mention a strike would probably see a number of those players ultimately out of work, laid off by Derbyshire to make up the revenue shortfall.
-
The only cricket that 95% of Derbyshire players will play across an English summer is county cricket, so why on earth would they want a reduction?
They don't. That's the point. I was responding to the suggestion from another poster that players at smaller clubs would be more likely to support the proposed reduction.
-
The future, for me, is apart from a chance meeting. Not see anyone until the start of next season. Then call the roll and, as has been the case, in the previous few seasons. Two or three will not answer.
The bag, with the Cricket stuff, has gone into the wardrobe for six months.