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!
The Professor wrote: Ouch.....hit me where it hurts.
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.
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.
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.
westoelad wrote:Word is Chris Nash is Lancashire bound!
Durhamfootman wrote:westoelad wrote:Word is Chris Nash is Lancashire bound!
everybody else is, seemingly
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.
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?
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests