westoelad wrote:It would have been a nice gesture though if Hants members had signed the petition to have the extra 48 pts deduction rescinded.
SaintPowelly wrote:westoelad wrote:It would have been a nice gesture though if Hants members had signed the petition to have the extra 48 pts deduction rescinded.
Didn't your board agree to that as part of the bail out?
westoelad wrote:SaintPowelly wrote:westoelad wrote:It would have been a nice gesture though if Hants members had signed the petition to have the extra 48 pts deduction rescinded.
Didn't your board agree to that as part of the bail out?
That's never been made clear. The time scale suggests that the financial terms of a bail out were agreed with the ECB determining the exact sanctions after Durham left the meeting. Durham understandably would have presumed that the sanction imposed would be within the existing rulebook's framework of sanctions i.e. maximum penalty being a 50pt penalty deduction.Despite repeated media requests ECB have refused to reveal which rules they were acting under to determine the actual sanctions imposed. A petition has been set up on chance. org. requesting that the further 48pts be rescinded.
I thought perhaps Hants supporters, as beneficiaries of these sanctions,would look sympathetically on Durham's plight.
westoelad wrote:Thanks for that clarification SW. It's this "fairy godmother", " lender of last resort" posture that ECB propagate that riles me. It's not the ECBs money,it's the counties money- they supply the players for England and that's almost exclusively the source of revenue. As for that petition if cricket followers believe Durham were harshly treated then they can sign it, if not they won't.
SaintPowelly wrote:I have every sympathy with Durham fans, as with just about every sporting collapse its the innocent fans who suffer the most. I experienced it myself with Southampton in 2007-2008.
In the case of Durham, I don't have a clue of what has happened. I know you got fined for breaching the wage barrier, how did that happen? you haven't had a marquee signing in a while (if I remember Kumar was really cheap as we wanted to adapt to English conditions ahead of the test series) Presumably your core players Colly, Onions, Rushworth, Rocky, Borthwick and Stokes are rinsing the club
IF this is the case and it is self inflicted then I think the points deduction is fine, it sets a terrible precedent if sides rack up massive debt without major repercussions.Did Hampshire benefit from Durhams problems? yes, but I wish we hadn't, we were the 2nd worst side in the league and deserved to go down.
westoelad wrote:Things came to a head in the Summer with the sudden and unexpected recall of £1 million loan from Barclay and poor income from the Sri Lanka test.
It's up to individuals to decide whether the sanctions imposed were too severe but what should be of greater concern is the manner in which they were decided. ECB repeatedly refuse to divulge which rules they acted upon to decide the sanctions,suggesting that they weren't adhering to any rule book. 2ndly, should officials who counties stage test matches be themselves be deciding if rival counties should compete to host such matches? Could such individuals be seen to be truly independent in such decision-making
Hampshire wrote:Cricinfo have reported that we tried to sign McLaren as a kolpak last season but the ECB barred it due to McLaren changing from a kolpak to an overseas in the past.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 64 guests