***Official*** English Domestic Season 2008

[GIMH]

The point would be that the wider community need not know about it, and no investigation need be called by anyone.

Obviously if it was something that emerged into the open it'd be a recipe for disaster.

I think enough people would be suspicious for balls to start rolling quite quickly, though

 

[zaremba]

Why? Surely there can be no one individual (talking overseas players here) who can offer a shred of evidence that they would have been offered a deal and have now not been because of their ICL connections.

For British players, the situation might be different.

Believe me, there is good money to be earned by lawyers in exposing cover-ups, collusion and skullduggery.

Now think about it for just a moment. 18 counties plus the ECB plus (in the background) the BCCI would have to be involved. And think how many individuals in each county, and in the ECB, would need to be "in on the deal". Maybe 100 individuals, minimum.

And even if you got all the key decision-makers at each county on board, the fact that no ICL players ever seemed to be signed would surely strike someone sooner or later. And what of the agent of the world-class ICL player, continually being rebuffed where in the past he would have had counties beating down his door?

And what if one county (or one individual at one county) decided not to sign up to this unlawful enterprise? What if an individual who was in on the deal got made redundant and developed a grudge? It only takes one whistleblower to bring the whole thing down.

In short, it won't happen this side of hell freezing over.

 

[Goughy]

The point would be that the wider community need not know about it, and no investigation need be called by anyone.

Obviously if it was something that emerged into the open it'd be a recipe for disaster.

Firstly it would. Like any small community, the cricket comunity is gossip filled. Also, its impossible to keep a decision like the one you suggest private. It would automatically leak.

If it happened, there would be automatically a bad smell associated that would lead into an enquiry. It couldnt be avoided.

Maybe, and just maybe, it would be easier to not break the law and dont treat people that have done nothing wrong like criminals.

 

[Richard]

Believe me, there is good money to be earned by lawyers in exposing cover-ups, collusion and skullduggery.

Now think about it for just a moment. 18 counties plus the ECB plus (in the background) the BCCI would have to be involved. And think how many individuals in each county, and in the ECB, would need to be "in on the deal". Maybe 100 individuals, minimum.

And even if you got all the key decision-makers at each county on board, the fact that no ICL players ever seemed to be signed would surely strike someone sooner or later. And what of the agent of the world-class ICL player, continually being rebuffed where in the past he would have had counties beating down his door?

And what if one county (or one individual at one county) decided not to sign up to this unlawful enterprise? What if an individual who was in on the deal got made redundant and developed a grudge? It only takes one whistleblower to bring the whole thing down.

In short, it won't happen this side of hell freezing over.

I see what you mean.

I guess the only thing that's going to stop counties signing ICL players is either for those in charge there to decide against it for themselves or for someone who British law can't control offering enough of a carrot against it - which the BCCI appear to be trying to do with the Champions League and refusing to allow their own players to play for counties that also emply ICL players - for the counties to decide it's in their best interests not to sign them.

However, to touch on the "wouldn't it be suspicious" comment mentioned in all three of the previous posts - there are very few ICL players of sufficient quality to make it especially dubious or unusual to see none signed. That's what annoys me a little about several of the signings - the players are really not all that good at all (Vincent, Sami) and still counties are happy to have them despite their ICL links.

 

[zaremba]

I see what you mean.

I guess the only thing that's going to stop counties signing ICL players is either for those in charge there to decide against it for themselves or for someone who British law can't control offering enough of a carrot against it - which the BCCI appear to be trying to do with the Champions League and refusing to allow their own players to play for counties that also emply ICL players - for the counties to decide it's in their best interests not to sign them.

The ECB has yet to test whole ICL issue in the courts. Giles Clarke was on the telly earlier in the summer saying he'd taken Counsel's advice to the effect that the system of NOCs wasn't an unlawful restraint of trade. So it may be that a legal battle lies ahead. But I'd rather have the brief for the player than the ECB on this one.

 

[GIMH]

Sorry for maybe being dumb here but it's late, NOCs?

 

[Richard]

No objection certificates. Issued by a home board whenever a player is signed to play as an overseas-player for a county.

 

[zaremba]

No objection certificates. Issued by a home board whenever a player is signed to play as an overseas-player for a county.

... and the grimly grinding gearbox of the BCCI restraint-of-trade-machine

 

[GIMH]

Right, so zaremba is there a case for these certificates being outlawed and any Indian player signing for a county without one?

 

[zaremba]

Right, so zaremba is there a case for these certificates being outlawed and any Indian player signing for a county without one?

Well there's a case for saying that, if the reason why an NOC has been withheld in respect of a particular player is that that player has exercised his right to earn a lawful living by playing in the ICL, the absence of an NOC should not be a reason to prevent a county side from subsequently employing him.

There may also be a legal case to be brought against his home cricket board which has refused to grant him an NOC. I'm not sure how the law stands in different parts of the cricketing world, although it may well be similar to the English law (most if not all of the cricketing nations have adopted the English common law system, and much of the common law.

So to answer your question, yes there would be a case. It wouldn't be a cut-and-dried issue because agreements in restraint of trade (which the squish-the-ICL deals plainly are) can be justified if they are reasonable. So it would all come down to the reasons put forward by the cricket board(s).

The issue nearly arose before the start of the season with Mushy at Sussex. However legal action was avoided because the PCB eventually gave him his NOC.

Fertang, any views?

 

[fredfertang]

Tempted as I am to make another flippant remark about Saj Mahmood I will for once resist temptation and treat that invitation with the respect it deserves.

In my opinion these NOC's are, well abhorrent may be a bit too strong a word, but certainly something like that. They are doubtless well intentioned but no doubt so was Robert Mugabe once - they clearly have the potential to be abused and restrain professional cricketers from offering their services in a free marketplace. A detailed knowledge of employment law, certainly not this branch of it, is not something I possess but I find it difficult to believe that if challenged they would be upheld.

As to the question generally the ICL players are not highly paid superstars - they should be treated as what they are - ordinary working men with families having to squeeze the most they can out of a short career - the BCCI should be told to foxtrot oscar.

 

[brockley]

http://www.supersport.co.za/cricket...e=Ryan McLaren to play for Proteas?&id=268156
South africa out to reclaim ryan mclaren.

 

[Richard]

Graeme Hick has announced he will retire at the end of the season.

And is promptly dropped for Moeen Ali.

Goodbye, at long last, to what is likely to be one of the last truly outstanding servants of a single county. Worcestershire have benefited to untold degrees from his presence, but no-one can go on forever and I for one feel he's picked the perfect time. Even at 42 his performances have done him proud this season and he leaves with his head held high.

Certainly hope some sort of high-up role can be found for him within the county as Worcestershire without Graeme Hick in some capacity has become almost unthinkable.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Graeme Hick has announced he will retire at the end of the season.

And is promptly dropped for Moeen Ali.

Goodbye, at long last, to what is likely to be one of the last truly outstanding servants of a single county. Worcestershire have benefited to untold degrees from his presence, but no-one can go on forever and I for one feel he's picked the perfect time. Even at 42 his performances have done him proud this season and he leaves with his head held high.

Certainly hope some sort of high-up role can be found for him within the county as Worcestershire without Graeme Hick in some capacity has become almost unthinkable.

Gutted

I really thought he'd go on for at least another year. A true legend. No way we could ever replace him. Ali has potential but really needs to step up now.

 

[Prince EWS]

And is promptly dropped for Moeen Ali.

Apparently he failed a fitness test and was ruled out injured.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Apparently he failed a fitness test and was ruled out injured.

Yep. Reported on the local news this afternoon.

 

[gettingbetter]

Gutted

I really thought he'd go on for at least another year. A true legend. No way we could ever replace him. Ali has potential but really needs to step up now.

I want Ali to be a success as much as you, but unfortunately, he has been dismissed for a duck.

 

[Scaly piscine]

So what's the story with Jonathan Clare then? Unusual to see someone that young have such a good FC record with both bat and ball. In comparison his limited overs record is awful.

 

[stumpski]

Anyone watching the mismatch at the Oval?

Surrey might be going down by 200 and something runs here. Too many passengers in this side. Tudor went for 44 off four, Newman let his second through the gate and Walters, a number 3 averaging 17, failed to achieve even half that.

And what was Afzaal doing bowling eight overs for 56? He's bowled far too much this year for my liking. Potential partnership-breaker, but he's no Samit Patel.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Ugh, Surrey's batting is horrible to watch. The fact that Denly dropped the sitter of the season in the covers has made no difference.