Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

The Professor wrote: Ouch.....hit me where it hurts.

It was meant to be playful, but probably came across arrogant.

It did send me in confusion to google! Why would Moeen quit county cricket so young!

No not arrogant......was true.

My boys would be disappointed.

Making_Splinters wrote:Given your definition, Sussex, I really don't see how this is enforceable as it seems to rely entirely on someone doing a bad job of it.

It seems much simpler to just have a compensation system where clubs who have developed players are rewarded when they move on.

I dont really get the point, Splints.

To tap up a player in a system where transfers arent allowed is hardly useful. No team is going to give away an asset for free just because another team gave them a phone call, so it hardly happens. When a player is out of contract, or coming to the end, its not tapping up. A player or individual is perfectly within their rights to safeguard their future before the end of their contract comes if they havent had another deal agreed. In football, players are allowed to sign for another club within 6 months of a deal coming to an end.

Saying that compensation should be paid to a club that loses a player is a extremely bad policy. Yeah, you safeguard the county, but what of the player? As soon as you introduce a transfer fee for players leaving after their contract expires, you get Bosman. Ie players held against their will because the club they want to leave to cant afford the transfer fee. They end in some playing type of purgatory, trapped in a deal they dont want to be in. Its not far of professional slavery, which is why it was outlawed in the early 90s.

Transfers might work, but arent we just inviting the Surrey's of this world to win the next 20 championships. There are counties that are so desperate for money, Id imagine the bigger clubs would hoard talent, and the death of county cricket as a viable 18 team format would follow soon after. Key to the argument, transfer systems are the exact situation that gives rise to tapping up situations. Of agents begging their client to hand in transfer requests all the time because he gets signing bonuses. It breaks the system further, not fix it.

The whole issue was created by the mass exodus at Durham and Botham complaining, but this is probably the worst example to pick. These youngsters are a result of economic doping that the ECB ended up paying for, why should the county benefit when it turns out they cant actually pay these players decent wages to stay anymore?

Coughlin leaving caused the storm, but hes 25. Hes played 90 odd professional matches at Durham. Id say that he has adequately paid of his debt to his countys development costs in him. Yeah, if he was 18 and red hot, then it would be a bit galling to see him leave before making his mark, but surely you dont leave your most promising youngsters without professional deals before playing them.

sussexpob wrote:

Making_Splinters wrote:Given your definition, Sussex, I really don't see how this is enforceable as it seems to rely entirely on someone doing a bad job of it.

It seems much simpler to just have a compensation system where clubs who have developed players are rewarded when they move on.

I dont really get the point, Splints.

To tap up a player in a system where transfers arent allowed is hardly useful. No team is going to give away an asset for free just because another team gave them a phone call, so it hardly happens. When a player is out of contract, or coming to the end, its not tapping up. A player or individual is perfectly within their rights to safeguard their future before the end of their contract comes if they havent had another deal agreed. In football, players are allowed to sign for another club within 6 months of a deal coming to an end.

Saying that compensation should be paid to a club that loses a player is a extremely bad policy. Yeah, you safeguard the county, but what of the player? As soon as you introduce a transfer fee for players leaving after their contract expires, you get Bosman. Ie players held against their will because the club they want to leave to cant afford the transfer fee. They end in some playing type of purgatory, trapped in a deal they dont want to be in. Its not far of professional slavery, which is why it was outlawed in the early 90s.

Transfers might work, but arent we just inviting the Surrey's of this world to win the next 20 championships. There are counties that are so desperate for money, Id imagine the bigger clubs would hoard talent, and the death of county cricket as a viable 18 team format would follow soon after. Key to the argument, transfer systems are the exact situation that gives rise to tapping up situations. Of agents begging their client to hand in transfer requests all the time because he gets signing bonuses. It breaks the system further, not fix it.

I think where players are out of contract is a separate situation to be honest, Sussex. I'd rather just see a system where the developmental side of cricket is rewarded.

Making_Splinters wrote:
I think where players are out of contract is a separate situation to be honest, Sussex. I'd rather just see a system where the developmental side of cricket is rewarded.

Players out of contract are free to speak to any club from April 1st of the final year of their contract. Clearly clubs should be compensated if players who they've developed leave before a certain age as is the case in football. It should be quite straight forward for PCA and ECB to come up with a suitable formula.
Word is Chris Nash is Lancashire bound!
Chris Adams, with Matt Prior, are both returning to Sussex according to Dobell.

westoelad wrote:Word is Chris Nash is Lancashire bound!

everybody else is, seemingly

Durhamfootman wrote:

westoelad wrote:Word is Chris Nash is Lancashire bound!

everybody else is, seemingly

Not entirely sure why we need him given the top order we have was good enough to finish second and has already been strengthened by the arrival of Jennings, unless of course we're expecting at least two of Davies, Hameed, Jennings an Livingstone to be playing for England at the same time. Maybe we're just signing him with an eye on the one day stuff. Would have rather seen us pick up Finn to be honest.

Making_Splinters wrote:

Durhamfootman wrote:

westoelad wrote:Word is Chris Nash is Lancashire bound!

everybody else is, seemingly

Not entirely sure why we need him given the top order we have was good enough to finish second and has already been strengthened by the arrival of Jennings, unless of course we're expecting at least two of Davies, Hameed, Jennings an Livingstone to be playing for England at the same time. Maybe we're just signing him with an eye on the one day stuff. Would have rather seen us pick up Finn to be honest.

Is Chanderpaul with Lancs in 2018 M-S?

westoelad wrote:

Making_Splinters wrote:

Durhamfootman wrote:

westoelad wrote:Word is Chris Nash is Lancashire bound!

everybody else is, seemingly

Not entirely sure why we need him given the top order we have was good enough to finish second and has already been strengthened by the arrival of Jennings, unless of course we're expecting at least two of Davies, Hameed, Jennings an Livingstone to be playing for England at the same time. Maybe we're just signing him with an eye on the one day stuff. Would have rather seen us pick up Finn to be honest.

Is Chanderpaul with Lancs in 2018 M-S?

He only signed a one year contract last year, but I've not heard anything about his plans for next year, he's not listed on the website anymore so I assume he's done. It's not as if we've not got the players to replace him - not in terms of class mind - especially with Jennings signing on. Jones et al are capable of coming into the side over Nash. I guess we've just signed him expecting a couple of international call ups next year.

Nash to Lancs was only rumour -I haven't seen it confirmed by either player or club.

Nash would be useful at Durham. No world-beater but a very good county pro who is ready for a new challenge. I doubt we'll get him though - Lewis is probably looking to sign someone from the minor counties!

Making_Splinters wrote:

westoelad wrote:

Making_Splinters wrote:

Durhamfootman wrote:

westoelad wrote:Word is Chris Nash is Lancashire bound!

everybody else is, seemingly

Not entirely sure why we need him given the top order we have was good enough to finish second and has already been strengthened by the arrival of Jennings, unless of course we're expecting at least two of Davies, Hameed, Jennings an Livingstone to be playing for England at the same time. Maybe we're just signing him with an eye on the one day stuff. Would have rather seen us pick up Finn to be honest.

Is Chanderpaul with Lancs in 2018 M-S?

He only signed a one year contract last year, but I've not heard anything about his plans for next year, he's not listed on the website anymore so I assume he's done. It's not as if we've not got the players to replace him - not in terms of class mind - especially with Jennings signing on. Jones et al are capable of coming into the side over Nash. I guess we've just signed him expecting a couple of international call ups next year.

Interesting comment from Jennings in the Cricket Paper today " I'm looking forward to working with guys like Shavnarine Chanderpaul... ". Either Jennings hasn't done his homework, which would be most uncharacteristic of him, or Chanderpaul is staying at Lancs.

westoelad wrote:

Making_Splinters wrote:
I think where players are out of contract is a separate situation to be honest, Sussex. I'd rather just see a system where the developmental side of cricket is rewarded.

Players out of contract are free to speak to any club from April 1st of the final year of their contract. Clearly clubs should be compensated if players who they've developed leave before a certain age as is the case in football. It should be quite straight forward for PCA and ECB to come up with a suitable formula.

Well its not straightforward in football, one could argue the whole system is rather inequitable. Chelsea lost a top English prospect and got paid 3 million, this was at the same time he was looking a class apart at the FIFA Under 20 World Cup where I believe he top scored. On the flipside, Liverpool were ordered to pay a potential value of near 9 million for Danny Ings, who Burnley had bought a couple of years before for 1 million, and who had quite clearly paid his value back on that deal. Why should Burnley make up to 9 times the value of a player after enjoying their own investment being successful?

On the flipside at the poorer end of the spectrum, you get people like Curtis Nelson at Oxford who is ruled to cost a minimum of £200k with add ons that could double it, but in a league where only two players were signed for a transfer fee this year, and for a total value that is not much more than Nelson's top end valuation. Essentially, its like asking a Premier League team to stump up the total league spend of 1.4 billion for an unwanted player. Its ludicrous, and one wonders how many players end up dropping off the bottom of the professional system because they simply cant pay these compensations. The most bizarre thing is, a lot of these players are not even homegrown by the teams that end up getting them. They are cast out of top academies (Nelson was a Stoke City academy player) where the compensation isnt paid because there has to be evidence of the team offering a real deal (in these cases, they arent up to standard and arent offered deals, so the teams then signing them get them for free), but then the buying club gets a decent player whos economic value is deemed to be tremendously higher than the actual value.

The fact is, cricket does not have the money of football, and therefore potential barriers for player movement, no matter how small, are far more likely to destroy careers then help the system as a whole.

I don't think football is a reasonable analogy to be making, Sussex, given there are hundreds of players passing through Academies any given year and orders of magnitude more teams for them to go to or be drawn from. In comparison top level cricket, if we're just focusing on the professional game, wouldn't even compete with a single league in the UK in terms of human resources.

Even in such a small environment there is a huge disparity between the clubs, at OT we've not had a problem with players being poached, but that simply isn't true for the smaller clubs especially in Division 2. How can smaller sides be expected to improve and compete for places in Division 1 when their best young players are lured away? It seems completely reasonable there should be compensation paid to allow for more youngsters to be brought through to replace the players they are losing.

I can fully sympathise for the Durham fans on here who've seen their three best batsmen lured away with promises of better wages and Test opportunities in the last two seasons alone.