• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

English Domestic Season 2024

Y

Yeoman

U19 Captain
Open question: at what point do people think that counties would draw the line and hold players to their contracts / require them to be available all season rather than going to play in other competitions? Is it a question of seniority or age of the player or one of how many players a county might lose?

Clearly, if a county demanded exclusivity from April to September, an in-demand player could switch to another, more flexible county when his contract was up. It would still however make taking a short-term overseas gig less of a free hit than it is now.

I cannot think of any other occupation or sport in which this situation occurs (happy to be corrected if there is one), international calls aside.
 
Molehill

Molehill

Cricketer Of The Year
Yeoman said:
Open question: at what point do people think that counties would draw the line and hold players to their contracts / require them to be available all season rather than going to play in other competitions? Is it a question of seniority or age of the player or one of how many players a county might lose?

Clearly, if a county demanded exclusivity from April to September, an in-demand player could switch to another, more flexible county when his contract was up. It would still however make taking a short-term overseas gig less of a free hit than it is now.

I cannot think of any other occupation or sport in which this situation occurs (happy to be corrected if there is one), international calls aside.
Click to expand...
Nope, can't think of any other sport where a player could be contracted to about 5 different teams through a year. It's why the T20 World Club thing failed really as players were split between too many teams.
 
T

tony p

State Regular
Maybe these franchise players who play around the world and miss much county stuff should be only paid on a match by match payment.
Have a small retainer ( X number of $$$) that is the same for all 18 counties and if a Salt or Jordan etc only play 7 matches all season, they only get 7 match payments plus the retainer.
Might save some counties a few $$, who knows.
 
social

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
IPL owners have teams in India, UAE, America and (I think!) South Africa

The day is coming soon when a player will be contracted to an ownership group on a yearly basis
 
Third_Man

Third_Man

First Class Debutant
Yeoman said:
Open question: at what point do people think that counties would draw the line and hold players to their contracts / require them to be available all season rather than going to play in other competitions? Is it a question of seniority or age of the player or one of how many players a county might lose?

Clearly, if a county demanded exclusivity from April to September, an in-demand player could switch to another, more flexible county when his contract was up. It would still however make taking a short-term overseas gig less of a free hit than it is now.

I cannot think of any other occupation or sport in which this situation occurs (happy to be corrected if there is one), international calls aside.
Click to expand...
Buttler is always justified as he promotes the club (Lancashire) around the world. He might hardly ever play, but Lancs were happy to give a new three year contract in October 22, in some cases it's about marketing more than playing.

social said:
IPL owners have teams in India, UAE, America and (I think!) South Africa

The day is coming soon when a player will be contracted to an ownership group on a yearly basis
Click to expand...
This has been suggested before, wonder how long before you can add England to that list?
 
Y

Yeoman

U19 Captain
social said:
IPL owners have teams in India, UAE, America and (I think!) South Africa

The day is coming soon when a player will be contracted to an ownership group on a yearly basis
Click to expand...
I’m sure it will come very quickly. Up until now, traditional cricket structures have preferred to appease the franchise leagues, reckoning that it is best to have their players for part of the time rather than be confrontational and risk players leaving traditional cricket behind altogether. The prospect of these year round contracts could be a tipping point however and players may be forced to choose one employer over another.
While a higher-risk strategy for traditional cricket boards, would it be worthwhile for them to take a stronger line if this happens - say that signing up for a franchise will cut a player out of traditional international and domestic cricket altogether? As it stands, traditional cricket is suffering from death by a thousand cuts.
 
Third_Man

Third_Man

First Class Debutant
Yeoman said:
I’m sure it will come very quickly. Up until now, traditional cricket structures have preferred to appease the franchise leagues, reckoning that it is best to have their players for part of the time rather than be confrontational and risk players leaving traditional cricket behind altogether. The prospect of these year round contracts could be a tipping point however and players may be forced to choose one employer over another.
While a higher-risk strategy for traditional cricket boards, would it be worthwhile for them to take a stronger line if this happens - say that signing up for a franchise will cut a player out of traditional international and domestic cricket altogether? As it stands, traditional cricket is suffering from death by a thousand cuts.
Click to expand...
"Tom Curran and Jason Roy agree new Surrey contracts accommodating county and franchise commitments" according to thecricketer.com. "Curran and Roy are understood to be expected to play just a handful of games - perhaps as few as six - for the club in the 2024 season" whatever that means as it's behind a paywall.
- pay per game? Nothing on the Surrey website yet.
 
Y

Yeoman

U19 Captain
If Curran is only going to play in six games, he and Surrey ought to hope that he is not banned for four of them as he has just been in Australia.
 
Y

Yeoman

U19 Captain
More substantively, I have never liked this concept of quasi ‘guest players’ who come in, play a few games and then fly out again. Historically this has related to overseas players but increasingly seems to be the case for England players too. Perhaps Surrey members feel more attached to Roy and Curran regardless as home-developed players.

Such contracts are though prime examples of the ‘death by a thousand cuts’ that I mentioned above. At least emotionally I would prefer the ECB to emulate the golf authorities and say to players, ‘if you want to become a franchise player then go and do not return. Like Cain wander the world cast out from your homeland with the mark of your dollars on you. We will carry on as we did before’.

Cricket is a team game and very few players genuinely ‘move the needle’ in terms of public interest, especially in T20 where the crowd is mostly causal.
 
Third_Man

Third_Man

First Class Debutant
Is the BBL pay per game, or would his contract say you lose a % if you are suspended. That would seem to be the only way he's likely to learn. And make him pay for the airline tickets.
 
Third_Man

Third_Man

First Class Debutant
mackembhoy said:
Durham CEO talking about getting a Hundred team. Hinting the Saudi PIF will be backing the team.

Further killing of the game in England if these sportwashing pricks get involved.

News not well received amongst the Durham fans on my other forum who all hate the Hundred and NUFC

www.independent.co.uk

Durham ‘100 per cent committed’ to bringing Hundred franchise to north east

The Chester-le-Street county are currently affiliated to the Yorkshire-based Northern Superchargers.
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
Click to expand...
Doesn't look like Durham will get Lancashire's vote:
www.thecricketer.com

Lancashire keen for greater control of Manchester Originals, concerned by expansion of The Hundred | The Cricketer

Lancashire chair Andy Anson keen for ECB to transfer control of Hundred teams to host venues, expansion could undermine county cricket | The Cricketer, cricket news, county cricket, the hundred
www.thecricketer.com
 
mackembhoy

mackembhoy

International Regular
Third_Man said:
Doesn't look like Durham will get Lancashire's vote:
www.thecricketer.com

Lancashire keen for greater control of Manchester Originals, concerned by expansion of The Hundred | The Cricketer

Lancashire chair Andy Anson keen for ECB to transfer control of Hundred teams to host venues, expansion could undermine county cricket | The Cricketer, cricket news, county cricket, the hundred
www.thecricketer.com
Click to expand...
I mean I could care less about us having a Hundred team. Especially if PIF backing it.

But I'm absolutely shocked that the counties with Hundred teams don't want to share pot out.

The irony of him saying it would undermine the county game, like The Hundred hasn't already :laugh::laugh:

Is he a Tory minister with that complete lack of awareness?
 
Last edited:
Third_Man

Third_Man

First Class Debutant
Reports that Bransgrove is to sell his shares in Hampshire to the co owners of the Delhi Capitals.
Presumably they would expect that includes franchise cricket in Hampshire, not just county cricket.
 
mackembhoy

mackembhoy

International Regular
Third_Man said:
Reports that Bransgrove is to sell his shares in Hampshire to the co owners of the Delhi Capitals.
Presumably they would expect that includes franchise cricket in Hampshire, not just county cricket.
Click to expand...
Yeah reads like they would be buying the ground and hotel too.

Bransgrove isn't a popular figure amongst Durham supporters.

Trying to decimate county cricket is his next mission, after being right at the front to kick Durham back the best part of 10 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top