Are Kolpak players hurting English cricket?

[Richard]

Yep. Expenses (plus match fees to the players themselves) would obviously have to be paid. In this day-and-age, who knows, it might be more expensive doing it that way than having full-time pros - I know nothing of things like mini compensation packages for having a few days off.

Only if such a thing was viable would it be of any use to lower numbers of pros.

 

[Uppercut]

Yep. Expenses (plus match fees to the players themselves) would obviously have to be paid. In this day-and-age, who knows, it might be more expensive doing it that way than having full-time pros - I know nothing of things like mini compensation packages for having a few days off.

Only if such a thing was viable would it be of any use to lower numbers of pros.

Aye. Budding cricketers would be forced into a career where they are instantly expendable at any point during the year, for a sport they aren't deemed good enough at to be employed properly. Hard to see how it could work. Shame, because i agree there are far too many players.

That said, will be sad to see Pro40 go- it's been a lot more entertaining than FP or T20.

 

[morgieb]

I see. Well there are already a fair few who've had long-term provincial\franchise careers amongst those playing as overseas-players or Kolpaks. What d'you reckon would be the case for these? Excluded are those who could be classed as current internationals. I guess there's 4 categories:
Getting on but with a successful career in SA behind them and potentially still with something to offer:
Charl Langeveldt, Rory Kleinveldt, Imran Tahir, Martin van Jaarsveld, Boeta Dippenaar, Hylton Ackerman, Claude Henderson, Garnett Kruger, Johann Louw, Zander de Bruyn, Charl Willoughby, Alfonso Thomas.
Getting on with a successful career in SA behind them but ICL contracted:
Dale Benkenstein, Mornantau Hayward, Justin Kemp, Andrew Hall, Lance Klusener, Nico Boje, Johannes van der Wath.
Young or not old and with some franchise success:
Dominic Telo, Ryan McLaren, Francois du Plessis, Dillon du Preez, Jacques Rudolph.
Never good enough for franchise cricket:
Greg Smith, Garry Park, Grant Hodnett, Jacques du Toit, Riki Wessels.

There's also Deon Kruis, who I'm pretty sure is about to hang-up his boots.

Obviously those in the second group, playing in the ICL, don't need to do anything other than play ICL as that's enough of an earner, though each of them would improve the quality of the SA system if they weren't banned (as IIRR they are). Surely the third group would go back and try their luck? The first and the fourth are those who I'd guess have most questions to ask themselves.

Klevident isn't old. And Tahir, Louw & Dippenar aren't Kolpaks.

 

[morgieb]

Dwayne Smith has been signed as a Kolpak for Sussex.

 

[morgieb]

Just have some super-counties, and the rest can become minor counties. Read South Africa's situation.

 

[Richard]

Klevident isn't old. And Tahir, Louw & Dippenar aren't Kolpaks.

How many times? They could be if their counties wanted them to be. Louw and Dippenaar both played last season for counties with about 6 or 7 SAfricans on their books anyway.

 

[Richard]

Dwayne Smith has been signed as a Kolpak for Sussex.

He was, about 4 months ago. Quite why is beyond me - he's nothing more than a useful bowler and his batting is clearly by now not going to amount to anything much.

 

[zaremba]

He was, about 4 months ago. Quite why is beyond me - he's nothing more than a useful bowler and his batting is clearly by now not going to amount to anything much.

He was signed as a 20:20 specialist because Mushy was injured. He's had a contract only to play one-day cricket this season. Potentially a very useful 1-day all-rounder (particularly 20:20) given the way he plays. His batting is incredibly unreliable but on the rare occasions when he fires he's explosive, and he is an amazing fielder.

 

[Uppercut]

How many times? They could be if their counties wanted them to be. Louw and Dippenaar both played last season for counties with about 6 or 7 SAfricans on their books anyway.

Don't think Tahir would be happy to give up the chance of playing for Pakistan for county cricket tbh. I don't like the Kolpak ruling because it leads counties to recruit average, unambitious players over those like Tahir.

That's not to say it's ruining English cricket in any way, shape or form. Just that i don't like it.

 

[Richard]

Don't think Tahir would be happy to give up the chance of playing for Pakistan for county cricket tbh.

Huh? Tahir will be playing for SA, not Pakistan. And why would he have to give-up the chance of playing either?

 

[Uppercut]

Huh? Tahir will be playing for SA, not Pakistan. And why would he have to give-up the chance of playing either?

Yeah, sorry. And the Kolpak contract. Although they're pretty easy to lose if you want to play for your country i guess so maybe it's no consideration.

 

[Richard]

I don't think there is especially such thing as a "Kolpak contract" TBH. The Kolpak ruling is just a ruling that enabled (until recently) anyone with a trade agreement with the EU to ply their profession and made restrictions on these players unlawful.

Any contract - be it as an official overseas-player or not - can have stipulations that players will only play when their home board lets them. Though given that the ruling has now been declared void it doesn't really matter any more.

 

[Goughy]

I don't think there is especially such thing as a "Kolpak contract" TBH. The Kolpak ruling is just a ruling that enabled (until recently) anyone with a trade agreement with the EU to ply their profession and made restrictions on these players unlawful.

Any contract - be it as an official overseas-player or not - can have stipulations that players will only play when their home board lets them. Though given that the ruling has now been declared void it doesn't really matter any more.

A player that signs a Kolpak cannot play for their original country anymore (as long as they remain a Kolpak). It is very different to an overseas or domestic agreement.

 

[Richard]

A player that signs a Kolpak cannot play for their original country anymore (as long as they remain a Kolpak).

Who enforces that?

ICC surely wouldn't meddle in these sorts of affairs. SABC, they'd be cutting off their nose to spite their face. The ECB, they'd be breaking EU law, same as they would've been with their attempt to impose the "must not have played for their country within the last 12 months" clause. The EU, they're not concerned with cricket but with employment.

Who else is there?

 

[zaremba]

The EU, they're not concerned with cricket but with employment.

A false opposition when what you're considering is the employment of professional cricketers.

 

[Richard]

The point is that the EU's concern is for the welfare of individuals, not for the good of a game. They are not going to impose conditions which limit the prospects of employment when what they are seeking is to allow maximum opportunity for that.

 

[zaremba]

The point is that the EU's concern is for the welfare of individuals, not for the good of a game. They are not going to impose conditions which limit the prospects of employment when what they are seeking is to allow maximum opportunity for that.

True. And I think that in general their attitude in that regard is correct.

 

[Richard]

I can't find any terribly reasonable reason to object to EU-passport players being allowed to play cricket professionally in the UK, even if I'd probably prefer it if they weren't (there was at one point a suggestion that the EU constitution might be amended to recognise the "specific nature of sport", though nothing yet appears to have come of this). But it has troubled me greatly for the last couple of months that all the trouble that Kolpak players have caused the game over here was in fact caused because someone, somewhere misinterpreted a trade agreement to be a labour agreement.

 

[zaremba]

I can't find any terribly reasonable reason to object to EU-passport players being allowed to play cricket professionally in the UK, even if I'd probably prefer it if they weren't (there was at one point a suggestion that the EU constitution might be amended to recognise the "specific nature of sport", though nothing yet appears to have come of this). But it has troubled me greatly for the last couple of months that all the trouble that Kolpak players have caused the game over here was in fact caused because someone, somewhere misinterpreted a trade agreement to be a labour agreement.

I think that the problem is that the "someone somewhere" was the European Court of Justice itself...

 

[Richard]

Well that's where the case was heard, yes. But the court isn't a person (as of course you know). I've often wondered whether it was the Judge himself who made the apparent mistake, or someone else.

I suppose the only way to find-out would be to attain minutes from the case.