Wastemen etc

[S.Kennedy]

...isn't the point of using the Kolpak Ruling as a loophole that the ECB can't​ clamp down on it?

Well they have tried. The ECB ruled that a player must not have played for their nation for a year to gain Kolpak status; the ECB then abandoned this policy as unenforceable when Yorkshire signed Jacques Rudolph. They also used financially incentives to encourage home-grown players; clubs would get £1,000 plus ECB handouts for domestically qualified players over Kolpack players. They also dished out fines for Kolpacks It was however changes in EU Employment law in 2008 which curbed Kolpack players, demanding that they secure a four-year work visa (rather than the original holiday visa),

BBC Sport - Cricket - ECB wins overseas player battle

This has been successful. Mid-late 2000s, there were around sixty Kolpack players employed by the eighteen counties. This has been reduced now to around fifteen.

(Ironically ''Kolpack'' is a bit of a misnomer. it is not the Kolpack thing which affects English cricket but the Cotonou Treaty; ''Cotonous'' has yet to catch on!).

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Regardless of the why and how (and I do wish him all the best of course) this is just stupid. Abbott is awesome and only 29 years old. Him having to give up playing test cricket to play County Cricket is absurd.

 

[Immenso]

I thought the Kolpak, and other similar clauses are just legal loopholes that allow cricketers (and others) to work in the EU.

That these guys then have to give up their international careers (for anyone but England) was purely an ECB rule / incentive.

Am I right?

Eg we have foreign cricketers using U.K. Or other EU passports to play county cricket, not kolpaks, but they still have to give up international careers with their original countries.

 

[S.Kennedy]

I thought the Kolpak, and other similar clauses are just legal loopholes that allow cricketers (and others) to work in the EU.

That these guys then have to give up their international careers (for anyone but England) was purely an ECB rule / incentive.

Am I right?

Eg we have foreign cricketers using U.K. Or other EU passports to play county cricket, not kolpaks, but they still have to give up international careers with their original countries.

No, that is not right. It is to do with EU employment law.

 

[Immenso]

No, that is not right. It is to do with EU employment law.

Really? I'm sceptical.

I'm not saying I'm informed, but I'm sceptical.

Maybe because of the mutiple Aussies, kiwis, Saffas on U.K. and Irish passports also have to give up international careers, I'm lumping kolpaks in with this purely ECB ruling on EU and UK nationals.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Really? I'm sceptical.

I'm not saying I'm informed, but I'm sceptical.

Maybe because of the mutiple Aussies, kiwis, Saffas on U.K. and Irish passports also have to give up international careers, I'm lumping kolpaks in with this purely ECB ruling on EU and UK nationals.

If you have an UK passport you are allowed to stay indefinitely, and can in effect qualify for England's national team. Different thing entirely.

If the ECB had the power to ban Kolpacks from internationals, they would have simply eradicated the Kolpacks altogether as they hate Kolpacks. This is an European Union thing. Note the 2008 change in employment law, requiring players to get work visas and not holiday visas, was a missive from the EU, not the ECB.

 

[Immenso]

If you have an UK passport you are allowed to stay indefinitely, and can in effect qualify for England's national team. Different thing entirely.

I know. The fact that they then need to be England qualified or working to be England qualified is an ECB ruling. With the enforcement I assume being linked to central funding to the counties.

Eg I don't think Kyle Jarvis is a kolpak.

I think that is a perverse intintended consequence of an ECB policy, Who want their distributed central funding spent on English qualified players.

If the ECB had the power to ban Kolpacks from internationals, they would have simply eradicated the Kolpacks altogether as they hate Kolpacks. This is an European Union thing. Note the 2008 change in employment law, requiring players to get work visas and not holiday visas, was a missive from the EU, not the ECB.

The EU allows them the right to work. Whether Kolpaks or someone like Cachopa in a Portuguese passport.

The EU are allowing the loophole that means Abbot can work in the U.K. But I don't think the EU are preventing him continuing his international career with SA outside his county commitments.

With only 1 overseas player per county, plus the ECB circling the wagon on foreigners with UK and EU passports, this leaves me sceptical on how the ECB interpreted kolpaks.

County cricket used to be a cradle for developing good test cricket around the world. Now it's s bit of a scourge. Which is their right, but I just don't but the 'it woznt us, it woz the EU' line.

 

[S.Kennedy]

I know. The fact that they then need to be England qualified or working to be England qualified is an ECB ruling. With the enforcement I assume being linked to central funding to the counties.

Eg I don't think Kyle Jarvis is a kolpak.

I think that is a perverse intintended consequence of an ECB policy, Who want their distributed central funding spent on English qualified players.


The EU allows them the right to work. Whether Kolpaks or someone like Cachopa in a Portuguese passport.

The EU are allowing the loophole that means Abbot can work in the U.K. But I don't think the EU are preventing him continuing his international career with SA outside his county commitments.

With only 1 overseas player per county, plus the ECB circling the wagon on foreigners with UK and EU passports, this leaves me sceptical on how the ECB interpreted kolpaks.

County cricket used to be a cradle for developing good test cricket around the world. Now it's s bit of a scourge. Which is their right, but I just don't but the 'it woznt us, it woz the EU' line.

To all intents and purposes they jettison their nationality and become 'English' (they indeed would qualify for England in seven years).

 

[harsh.ag]

This sucks.

He could have told us. A Kickstarter type campaign could have worked maybe to help him stay. But maybe that's just a little fantasy.

Just sad. Was looking forward to seeing him play for a long time in all formats.

 

[DriveClub]

Yeah I thought SA's fast bowling looked set for the next 5-6 years with rabada, vern,abbott and lots of talented guys in the wings

 

[Zinzan]

Why can't he still play for SA? Couldn't SA pay out his contract for time misses, and if not, if the contract is all season or nothing, then why not pick him during the home season when county cricket is finished?

Just too much uncertainty about the politics and what seems to be the never ending changes to the quota rules. If you're a white S African, unless you're an absolutely rock star in the AB, Steyn, de Kock bracket, there's just too much uncertainty when it comes to national honours. Let's be honest even Faf's place was looking suspect before doing really well and securing the captaincy spot once and for all.

 

[honestbharani]

I dont think that is the reason he is quitting RSA though? I think almost anyone who takes a Kolpak contract becomes unavailable for their national teams as otherwise they cant consider them "local" players in the CC. Is that the reasoning or is it something else?

 

[91Jmay]

The Kolpak stopping player for international teams reasoning is solid. Otherwise you'd have players popping over for 3/4 weeks as Kolpak players then going back to their international teams whenever they fancied.

However it is a Home Office rule that came in 2009, not a ECB rule.

 

[Immenso]

The Kolpak stopping player for international teams reasoning is solid. Otherwise you'd have players popping over for 3/4 weeks as Kolpak players then going back to their international teams whenever they fancied.

No.
You could apply this same logic to the one foreign player per county. But each party to a deal aren't complete numpties, and manage to sign contracts the county and player are happy with.

An example. Jeetan Patel is Warks foreign player, but he turns down an NZ tour to Windies in May as it clashes with his county contract and he doesn't have an nzc central contract. No drama. But for a tour to India in October, or an NZ home summer he is available and occasionally picked.

Kyle Abbot and Rilee Roussouw: despite SAF having their summer in the county cricket off season - has this option removed. For no ones benefit.

 

[91Jmay]

No.
You could apply this same logic to the one foreign player per county. But each party to a deal aren't complete numpties, and manage to sign contracts the county and player are happy with.

An example. Jeetan Patel is Warks foreign player, but he turns down an NZ tour to Windies in May as it clashes with his county contract and he doesn't have an nzc central contract. No drama. But for a tour to India in October, or an NZ home summer he is available and occasionally picked.

Kyle Abbot and Rilee Roussouw: despite SAF having their summer in the county cricket off season - has this option removed. For no ones benefit.

SA cricket board are the ones who ban them from playing domestically. Nothing about Kolpak does that.

It is for English domestic games benefit. We don't want loads of non-English qualified players playing in CC, it stops young English players coming through and doesn't help our game. If you are on an overseas contract that is fine, it is 1 player who lifts the standard and should be allowed to go and play international cricket because it is fair for all teams. There should be a downside to being a Kolpak player, else you get the scenes that happened in 2008, Northants vs Leicestershire where 13 non English qualified players played in a CC game. You'll note that since the 2009 changes the number of Kolpak players has fallen greatly, and in the meantime Northants have produced Ben Duckett + Olly Stones two exciting English talents. Leicestershire also had a really improved year with a young team.

 

[TheJediBrah]

SA cricket board are the ones who ban them from playing domestically. Nothing about Kolpak does that.

It is for English domestic games benefit. We don't want loads of non-English qualified players playing in CC, it stops young English players coming through and doesn't help our game. If you are on an overseas contract that is fine, it is 1 player who lifts the standard and should be allowed to go and play international cricket because it is fair for all teams. There should be a downside to being a Kolpak player, else you get the scenes that happened in 2008, Northants vs Leicestershire where 13 non English qualified players played in a CC game. You'll note that since the 2009 changes the number of Kolpak players has fallen greatly, and in the meantime Northants have produced Ben Duckett + Olly Stones two exciting English talents. Leicestershire also had a really improved year with a young team.

Haven't you got 18 county teams? Even if every side had half it's players overseas players you'd still have 100 English locals playing First-class cricket, which is a lot more than most countries have.

Just saying

 

[StephenZA]

SA cricket board are the ones who ban them from playing domestically. Nothing about Kolpak does that.

A player must give up his right to play for his country during the length of his deal with a county.

 

[91Jmay]

Haven't you got 18 county teams? Even if every side had half it's players overseas players you'd still have 100 English locals playing First-class cricket, which is a lot more than most countries have.

Just saying

100 FC English cricketers to pick 11 from, given the dilution of quality because they are 18 counties isn't enough. It isn't like Australia where Grade cricket is basically same standard as Div 2 English cricket so the pool is deep underneath the FC structure.

 

[91Jmay]

A player must give up his right to play for his country during the length of his deal with a county.

That has nothing to do with what I posted. Domestically they can play in SA, any bans there is SA cricket boards doing.

 

[StephenZA]

That has nothing to do with what I posted. Domestically they can play in SA, any bans there is SA cricket boards doing.

Apologies, missed the word domestically...