Update

[JasonP]

Murdoch's attempts to introduce Rugby League franchises failed, for example.

In this country.

It worked to an extent in Australia & the Big Bash is the template the ECB are obviously cribbing.

In the Big Bash they basically used the 6 state teams that we already used and added another team in Melbourne and another in Sydney.

[Andy]

I had to laugh when one of the proponents of the city-based T20 said that the £1.3m per year the counties would receive would allow them to develop the game in their locality.

I know where the £1.3m will be going and it won't be for the wider benefit of the game.

Just resting in the account of...?

[squarelegumpire]

Murdoch's attempts to introduce Rugby League franchises failed, for example.

In this country.

It worked to an extent in Australia & the Big Bash is the template the ECB are obviously cribbing.

Difference with Big Bash, surely, is that, with the exception of the Sydney area, the big centres of population are reasonably compact and big when compared with ‘the rest’. I can imagine some at least in Essex identifying with a North London team ....... although I wouldn’t ...... but Liverpudlians supporting a Manchester team? Dream on. Or Bradford/Sheffield being happy with Leeds? If the Leeds side was called the Yorkshire Roses, of course, they might get away with it, but then it wouldn’t be a ‘Leeds’ team.

In any event unless it’s on 'free to view’ TV it won’t do anything to publicise the game.
In the Big Bash they basically used the 6 state teams that we already used and added another team in Melbourne and another in Sydney.

[firehazard]

I had to laugh when one of the proponents of the city-based T20 said that the £1.3m per year the counties would receive would allow them to develop the game in their locality.

I know where the £1.3m will be going and it won't be for the wider benefit of the game.

Just resting in the account of...?

A good long rest.

[Andy]

Actually, if the ECB followed the 'principles' of the BBL I wouldn't mind, it is that they've lazily tried to copy the 'structure' almost verbatim with no understanding of the different cultural and practical context in the UK.

The BBL has tried to spread the 'brand' of cricket back to perhaps an audience jaded by success and certainly a public whose sporting interests focus upon Aussie Rules and Rugby as well as increasingly that other form of football. Not all the ideas (e.g. free to view) were in the original plans, but have emerged as critical to success. It's that pragmatism that is required here - given poor decisions by the ECB and deleterious trends in wider society (e.g. schools sports policies etc.).

[Slogger]

Well it seems to me that the focus on cities is a mistake - most people don't live in them! I suppose the ECB think that is where the new audience lies and one presumes they've done extensive research to establish that they will tap into that market. I read the other day that 37% of the population of London were born outside the UK, which suggests that's not such a wonderful pond to fish in?

I would have gone for a two division county competition played in a block, with promotion and relegation (including play offs) and a finals day, which seems to be what our Chairman advocates.

If we must have super teams why not combined teams, say 6 teams each combining 3 counties, with every county hosting at least one match. At least that would take the games around the country rather than focusing on six or seven big cities. It would also provide a direct link with the county game. An Essex/Middlesex/Surrey team might play 2 games at Stratford and one at Lords, Chelmsford and The Oval for example. The northern team Lancs/Yorks/Durham would have three international grounds to play on and maybe take a game to Scarborough. Of course this will never, ever happen.

[smandlej]

The combined team idea is excellent, Slogger: retaining the loyalties of county fans whilst still producing a 'super' competition, and making the games accessible to the maximum number of people.  Maybe three players from each county plus two superstars (if that is what's needed to attract the crowds), which would mean that no county felt they were upstaged by another.  As you say, it will never happen.

Lynda and Steve

[nat]

It's a busted flush. Michael Vaughan trotted out some stats - current average attendance of 7,500 for T20 county games. Not good enough he says (level of League 2 football).

I say ... 7,500 x 18 counties = 130, 000 spectators.

So are 8 city-based teams going to attract more than 130k spectators? i.e. an average per game of 16k. I'd bet my house they won't.

[Andy]

MV is a moron.

[honkytonk]

Isnt the idea that every county will be linked to a team (so as said, one of the sides could be an Essex/Middlesex side)?? 

[squarelegumpire]

Isnt the idea that every county will be linked to a team (so as said, one of the sides could be an Essex/Middlesex side)??

Half of them at Lords half at Chelmsford.

Yeah, right!!!!!!

[nat]

Isnt the idea that every county will be linked to a team (so as said, one of the sides could be an Essex/Middlesex side)??

I don't think so. They're saying a Yorkshire player could be 'bought' by a London franchise! That'll please Fred Boycott.

[jimmy]

The various ideas listed above fall down due to the fact that they try to find a compromise between the slash and burn of the ECB and the loyalties of existing supporters, however the ECB are not interested in compromise or existing supporters, Michael Vaughan's magic number is going to be even harder to attain due to the fact that some existing T20 watchers won't bother with the new competition and as we know it is a complete red herring to judge the validity of cricket attendance through comparison to football . If that criteria is used them out goes rugby union, league, horse racing, athletics and any sport that fails to attract 40,000 plus to every domestic fixture, indeed if Vaughan thinks a division two attendance level is inadequate then presumably he thinks football itself from that division down is not justifiable.
Incidentally, I read somewhere that 75% of the general public make up three quarters of the population.

[honkytonk]

Isnt the idea that every county will be linked to a team (so as said, one of the sides could be an Essex/Middlesex side)??

Half of them at Lords half at Chelmsford.

Yeah, right!!!!!!

I didnt say that games would be split at both grounds, I said that every county would be linked to a Franchise.  Something like

Durham/Yorks - Headingley

Lancs/ Derby - Old Trafford

Notts/Leics/Northampton - T Bridge

Warks/Worcs - Edgbaston

Glams/ Gloucs (Either ground would do)

Somerset/Hants - Rose Bowl

Sussex/Kent/Surrey - Oval

Essex/Middx - Lords

3 O/S players and the idea (hope) is that each side is mostly made up of players connected to the sides involved (ie, the Ess/Middx side is drawn from players that play for those sides)

[mawallace]

I am not too sure.

Several people have been told that the players will be signed by the franchise with the highest bid. It could be possible that Root would play for a south team and so on!