Page 80 of 152

Re: Random Cricket Thread (Domestic Cricket)

PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:31 pm
by westoelad
Most impartial cricket fans would, I hope, accept that after a club has invested not inconsiderable cost in developing a player then they are entitled to be compensated for that cost from the club who acquire the player. It is interesting that it is one of, if not the, wealthiest club, Surrey, that has put a motion to this effect to the County AGM. If adopted it goes to ECB for ratification. It's also worth noting that it is Durham, not Surrey, who receive the funding when Stoneman is selected for England as they will with Jennings.
Greater weight allocated in number of home developed players in a county teams selection in a county's ECB grant would also discourage "poaching".

Re: Random Cricket Thread (Domestic Cricket)

PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 11:42 pm
by sussexpob
westoelad wrote:Most impartial cricket fans would, I hope, accept that after a club has invested not inconsiderable cost in developing a player then they are entitled to be compensated for that cost from the club who acquire the player.


I think you would be surprised have low some of the costs are. I read recently about football academy costs, and was very surprised at how relatively low they were. The most costly systems in the world are Bayern and Arsenal, at £3 million a year. I believe this figure is all in (coaching, scouting, travel, etc). La Mesia, the Barcelona Academy, is 10 million a year but its less of a strictly footballing academy, more of a 24 hours a day boarding school where kids are educated academically, and where they stay all the time (take Lionel Messi, who moved from Rosario to Barcelona to train there). Its common for teams to tie in academic facilities to councils, part fund them so they double up usages, and save costs.

I checked through my Sussex Docs from all the members releases, and the last financial accounts released state that Sussex spent a net of just over 100k per year on their age group teams/academy setup. We have an average of 15 players spread over 13 different youth age group teams from U-10 years, we have 12 players in the academy who are going through pathway development, which is done with the county and with the ECB. Thats about 207 players. This doesnt include the list of senior representation teams (we have senior teams up to over 70 years, believe it or not, which come out of that net cost), but I cant get an accurate gauge on which age groups past professionals exist.

That leaves a net cost of £483.00 per player. Assuming a player makes a professional contract at about 20 (possibly 16 at the earliest, 21 at the latest) thats only a development cost of under £5000.00 if they join at the earliest point. This is a youth setup that was rated by the ECB as number 1 out of all counties in 2016, based on school age international representation, proportion of professional contracts given to academy players, and general representation in womens and mens full internationals. So we arent talking a cheaply run, badly neglected system, quiet the opposite.

Yet, the sports courts are awarding teams in football the compensation costs that are totally disproportionate. Ings played two years for Burnley, and that "development cost" at its highest amount if clauses are met, would have been over 3 years the total cost of the worlds most expensive youth system? This isnt compensation! How can you justify that compensation based on development costs? Its like opening a pandora's box.

It is interesting that it is one of, if not the, wealthiest club, Surrey, that has put a motion to this effect to the County AGM.


I hardly think thats surprising, Westo. A team with the most disposable income wanting to base player acquisition on how much money you can throw at the situation obviously works well for them; it takes competition out the market, and opens player movements only to teams that can afford it.

How many teams are cutting profits when ECB money is being cut, and costs are rising? Hardly any counties will be able to afford top talent, so yes, Surrey would no doubt love to have a free pick.

Re: Random Cricket Thread (Domestic Cricket)

PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:56 am
by meninblue
Poaching of resources is very common. It is impossible to stop it. There are clauses in business contracts to stop poaching of resources, however ultimately it happens as there are ways to get around it. Usually very few cases are registered against poaching if the poaching rules are violated.

Re: Random Cricket Thread (Domestic Cricket)

PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 11:12 am
by westoelad
It costs DCCC £300k per year to run their academy which is by far the most costly of all counties; that'll be partly but not wholly the reason why it's the most successful. It's cost effectiveness can be judged on how many players graduate to county standard. If you get 2 per year it's been 100% successful and it'll develop a wholly home grown squad which Durham have if you include their England players. I'd argue therefore that it costs in effect £300k/2(£150k) to produce each successful product- and that's in the country's most effective academy.
A player's right to move has to be protected but equally the
club he departs from have to replace him.
So we look at the situation from different viewpoints -that's certainly not a problem and I hope it isn't with you.
As to the obscenities of football finances, let them get on with it.

Re: Random Cricket Thread (Domestic Cricket)

PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 1:12 pm
by sussexpob
Westo,

The problem is, 150k is a lot of money in a world where modest profits are also balanced by huge debts. I wonder how many clubs are debt free and posting significant and consistent earnings per year to justify placing such a barrier on movement? Id hazard guess that outside of international hosts, such a price would be astronomically high, and would as such place too much of a barrier on players moving. And should teams like Yorkshire/Lancs who owe 25-30 million in debts be allowed to gain players at increased spending from other counties?

This is before we talk about the compensation model that has been roughly suggested. A player costs what he costs, not what the unified cost of failures cost plus him as a positive example. If Durham have an academy squad of 30 players, then that player in question costs £10,000. Essentially enveloping all the risks of academy management and expecting your successful players to fund it all is not equitable for that player. One can only expect that player to return what he took out. If those costs are too high, then one has to look at the financial model in place.

There is also the question of how much a player plays to pay off that initial funding. Take someone like Jack Burnham, hes 20 and played nearly 50 all format games. If his cost to the academy is 150k, then its roughly displayed as £3,000 quid a game. Thats less than what Id imagine the average employee is getting paid to play, so Id argue he's paid off his due through the usage Durham have gotten out of him. The 150k investment is cheaper than the price they would have paid to other players to fill that gap.

Maybe as a general rule, you can take the squad average wage minus the academy costs for a given year divided by how many professional contracts are given, and once that number produced reaches 0, no compensation is due. For me there has to be a point at which clubs acknowledge their payment is also met in place of recruiting another player.

So in this case, you say 2 get professional deals a year from a 300k investment. Each player is therefore rated at a 150k cost. The squad average is say 1.6 million salary cap spend, divided by 16 players. 100k each. Say that boils down to 3 grand a game average salary in the team. So once Burnham plays 50 times in any format, hes met his 150 investment cost. If he plays 20 times and wants to go, the team signing him have to pay 30 x 3 grand, or 90k.

Id be happy with that, or a simply compensation based on sheer costs. Expecting the sums you mention I think is simply unfair

Re: Random Cricket Thread (Domestic Cricket)

PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 1:37 pm
by westoelad
As I've said, we have different interpretations of players' values. Not that I ever suggested £100k as a compensation figure which is pretty insignificant in any case when counties are prepared to be £40m in debt. As always I fully recognise your right to have a differing viewpoint.

Re: Random Cricket Thread (Domestic Cricket)

PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 2:57 pm
by sussexpob
westoelad wrote:As I've said, we have different interpretations of players' values. Not that I ever suggested £100k as a compensation figure which is pretty insignificant in any case when counties are prepared to be £40m in debt. As always I fully recognise your right to have a differing viewpoint.


Out of interest, what figure do you think is fair? And what criteria should be taken into account.

Re: Random Cricket Thread (Domestic Cricket)

PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:15 pm
by westoelad
sussexpob wrote:
westoelad wrote:As I've said, we have different interpretations of players' values. Not that I ever suggested £100k as a compensation figure which is pretty insignificant in any case when counties are prepared to be £40m in debt. As always I fully recognise your right to have a differing viewpoint.


Out of interest, what figure do you think is fair? And what criteria should be taken into account.


Based on the players current salary or the salary on the table and the player's experience. Surrey recommend compensation set at double the current salary. I'd go with that up to 22 years of age with it decreasing by 25% each year and so not applicable after 25 years of age. Players under 22 years are rarely on sizeable salaries, PCA recommend £17k-23k for the age range, so compensation payments shouldn't be too restrictive to movement.

Re: Random Cricket Thread (Domestic Cricket)

PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:56 pm
by andy
anyone know if Shiv Chanderpaul has actually retired yet?

Re: Random Cricket Thread (Domestic Cricket)

PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:20 pm
by westoelad

Re: Random Cricket Thread (Domestic Cricket)

PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:34 pm
by Durhamfootman
he'd better hope that they don't see him as a natural replacement for the born again Zimbabwean

unless he's feeling a bit tired and fancies more of a rest these days

Re: Random Cricket Thread (Domestic Cricket)

PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:12 pm
by westoelad
andy wrote:anyone know if Shiv Chanderpaul has actually retired yet?

No!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/41859596

Re: Random Cricket Thread (Domestic Cricket)

PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:57 pm
by andy

Re: Random Cricket Thread (Domestic Cricket)

PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:04 pm
by meninblue
andy wrote:http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21272319/ranji-trophy-game-halted-man-drives-pitch-delhi

lol


:lmaoagain

Re: Random Cricket Thread (Domestic Cricket)

PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:12 pm
by Durhamfootman
andy wrote:anyone know if Shiv Chanderpaul has actually retired yet?

he's 43!

makes Colly look like a youngster