Should The Ashers Urn continued to be held only in England !!!!

[Anil]

Originally posted by Rik

Originally posted by anilramavarma

Originally posted by marc71178

If the urn belongs to the museum, why is it being used as the trophy in the Ashes series? If you play for a trophy, the winner should get it.

It's more a symbolic trophy - and has never really been played for as a trophy, just as a name!

...and what is it symbolic of? Supremacy on a cricketing field between Aus and Eng, right? So, who has been by far the better team? The fact that England is still clinging on to that urn, what does that symbolise?

It symbolises that Lord's own the Urn and therefor decide what is best for it. The Ashes are owned by the museum, not the countries. England and Australia play for the trophy now, its the way it is.

If that's the way it is, why is Eng inventing excuses like the fragility of the urn for not transporting it to Australia? Couldn't they have just told the Aussies off just like you did to me right now? The very fact that they are trying to concoct feeble excuses like this shows that their actions are best questionable and the ownership issue isn't as simple as you make it sound.

 

[Rik]

Originally posted by anilramavarma

Originally posted by Rik

Originally posted by anilramavarma

Originally posted by marc71178

If the urn belongs to the museum, why is it being used as the trophy in the Ashes series? If you play for a trophy, the winner should get it.

It's more a symbolic trophy - and has never really been played for as a trophy, just as a name!

...and what is it symbolic of? Supremacy on a cricketing field between Aus and Eng, right? So, who has been by far the better team? The fact that England is still clinging on to that urn, what does that symbolise?

It symbolises that Lord's own the Urn and therefor decide what is best for it. The Ashes are owned by the museum, not the countries. England and Australia play for the trophy now, its the way it is.

If that's the way it is, why is Eng inventing excuses like the fragility of the urn for not transporting it to Australia? Couldn't they have just told the Aussies off just like you did to me right now? The very fact that they are trying to concoct feeble excuses like this shows that their actions are best questionable and the ownership issue isn't as simple as you make it sound.

They are nopt making excuses, the simple matter is that the Urn will break apart if transported, this thing is much older than any of us remember (except possibly Eddy but I'll have to ask him that). The ownership is simple, the Lord's Museum own it, neither the Australians or the English teams own it. Zip

 

[marc71178]

Originally posted by Gotchya
Just in the last 10 years, dont you think Australia simply deserve to keep the urn ?

Regardless of wether it is up for grabs or not, Australia's domination means that they MUSY be given accolade and recognition for their efforts.

They do have the recognition - no-one doubts they are the holders of the Ashes, but they're not the keepers of the Ashes, as the Ashes are not, strictly speaking, up for grabs.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Originally posted by Neil Pickup
They aren't fit to travel currently, but yeah, Australia should have them. Maybe it'll motivate our lot...

There was some independent inquiry published of late here that said the 75-year-old glue was falling to bits or something.

If they can be safely transported, then Australia should keep them until we beat them! (If...)

 

[marc71178]

I think that the sensible solution would be to commission a trophy perhaps 3 times in size or so, but the same dimensions and shape as the Ashes, and physically ahnd that over after every series?

 

[Anil]

Originally posted by Rik

Originally posted by anilramavarma

Originally posted by Rik

Originally posted by anilramavarma

Originally posted by marc71178

If the urn belongs to the museum, why is it being used as the trophy in the Ashes series? If you play for a trophy, the winner should get it.

It's more a symbolic trophy - and has never really been played for as a trophy, just as a name!

...and what is it symbolic of? Supremacy on a cricketing field between Aus and Eng, right? So, who has been by far the better team? The fact that England is still clinging on to that urn, what does that symbolise?

It symbolises that Lord's own the Urn and therefor decide what is best for it. The Ashes are owned by the museum, not the countries. England and Australia play for the trophy now, its the way it is.

If that's the way it is, why is Eng inventing excuses like the fragility of the urn for not transporting it to Australia? Couldn't they have just told the Aussies off just like you did to me right now? The very fact that they are trying to concoct feeble excuses like this shows that their actions are best questionable and the ownership issue isn't as simple as you make it sound.

They are nopt making excuses, the simple matter is that the Urn will break apart if transported, this thing is much older than any of us remember (except possibly Eddy but I'll have to ask him that). The ownership is simple, the Lord's Museum own it, neither the Australians or the English teams own it. Zip

Unzip. My point was that if the Lords museum owns it and the two cricket boards have no say in where it goes, why should there be excuses like the urn will fall apart(why should they even discuss transporting it?)? Why can't they simply say to hell with you, the original trophy is not yours to demand(couched in more polite terms, of course)?

 

[Rik]

Originally posted by anilramavarma

Originally posted by Rik

Originally posted by anilramavarma

Originally posted by Rik

Originally posted by anilramavarma

Originally posted by marc71178

If the urn belongs to the museum, why is it being used as the trophy in the Ashes series? If you play for a trophy, the winner should get it.

It's more a symbolic trophy - and has never really been played for as a trophy, just as a name!

...and what is it symbolic of? Supremacy on a cricketing field between Aus and Eng, right? So, who has been by far the better team? The fact that England is still clinging on to that urn, what does that symbolise?

It symbolises that Lord's own the Urn and therefor decide what is best for it. The Ashes are owned by the museum, not the countries. England and Australia play for the trophy now, its the way it is.

If that's the way it is, why is Eng inventing excuses like the fragility of the urn for not transporting it to Australia? Couldn't they have just told the Aussies off just like you did to me right now? The very fact that they are trying to concoct feeble excuses like this shows that their actions are best questionable and the ownership issue isn't as simple as you make it sound.

They are nopt making excuses, the simple matter is that the Urn will break apart if transported, this thing is much older than any of us remember (except possibly Eddy but I'll have to ask him that). The ownership is simple, the Lord's Museum own it, neither the Australians or the English teams own it. Zip

Unzip. My point was that if the Lords museum owns it and the two cricket boards have no say in where it goes, why should there be excuses like the urn will fall apart(why should they even discuss transporting it?)? Why can't they simply say to hell with you, the original trophy is not yours to demand(couched in more polite terms, of course)?

Because the Urn is well over 100 years old and will actually fall apart if bumped hard, look I've seen it, the thing has a huge bloody great crack in it where the glue was put, once they replace the glue it will be fine. Now please belive that they are telling the truth here, there is no conspiricy. I think they have got it right, it is a historical piece and its best to keep it intact rather than transporting it and finding that it's fallen apart when it gets there. Zip again

 

[Anil]

Originally posted by Rik

Originally posted by anilramavarma

Originally posted by Rik

Originally posted by anilramavarma

Originally posted by Rik

Originally posted by anilramavarma

Originally posted by marc71178

If the urn belongs to the museum, why is it being used as the trophy in the Ashes series? If you play for a trophy, the winner should get it.

It's more a symbolic trophy - and has never really been played for as a trophy, just as a name!

...and what is it symbolic of? Supremacy on a cricketing field between Aus and Eng, right? So, who has been by far the better team? The fact that England is still clinging on to that urn, what does that symbolise?

It symbolises that Lord's own the Urn and therefor decide what is best for it. The Ashes are owned by the museum, not the countries. England and Australia play for the trophy now, its the way it is.

If that's the way it is, why is Eng inventing excuses like the fragility of the urn for not transporting it to Australia? Couldn't they have just told the Aussies off just like you did to me right now? The very fact that they are trying to concoct feeble excuses like this shows that their actions are best questionable and the ownership issue isn't as simple as you make it sound.

They are nopt making excuses, the simple matter is that the Urn will break apart if transported, this thing is much older than any of us remember (except possibly Eddy but I'll have to ask him that). The ownership is simple, the Lord's Museum own it, neither the Australians or the English teams own it. Zip

Unzip. My point was that if the Lords museum owns it and the two cricket boards have no say in where it goes, why should there be excuses like the urn will fall apart(why should they even discuss transporting it?)? Why can't they simply say to hell with you, the original trophy is not yours to demand(couched in more polite terms, of course)?

Because the Urn is well over 100 years old and will actually fall apart if bumped hard, look I've seen it, the thing has a huge bloody great crack in it where the glue was put, once they replace the glue it will be fine. Now please belive that they are telling the truth here, there is no conspiricy. I think they have got it right, it is a historical piece and its best to keep it intact rather than transporting it and finding that it's fallen apart when it gets there. Zip again

Unzip again.:rolleyes:
You just refuse to answer my question, don't you? Agreed that it is very old(although the argument that in this day and age, you can't find a way to restore and transport it safely doesn't hold water), but that's not my question. If it is as simple as you say it is, the first time an Aussie player or the ACB asks for the urn, the ECB says, "It belongs to the Lords museum, so it's not yours to demand and not ours to give". The End, right? Well then, what's with all the discussions, allegations, counter-allegations, excuses.....? The whole thing has evolved into a big melodrama now. Please respond to my question and don't give me that old, fragile...will shatter if you look at it routine once again, ok?

 

[Top_Cat]

Guys, please stop quoting every previous post by someone. There's simply no need and it makes the thread difficult to read.

 

[Rik]

Well it will shatter thats one of the problems. The other is that you obviously don't belive that the Lord's Museum can be right for once. They have said they will send it when it is repaired. Anyway I don't know why your so bothered about it.

 

[marc71178]

I still think a new trophy is the best option.

 

[Top_Cat]

Well it will shatter thats one of the problems.

Rik, did my example involving my uncle mean nothing to you?

Look, all of you guys proffering the idea that it's too fragile to travel have no idea what you're on about so stop putting forward an idea that is quite obviously false. I mean how would you feel if someone kept trying to tell you that the sky isn't blue at all? If you cannot accept that what you're saying is completely wrong then there's little point in continuing this discussion.

Now, Marc's point is a good one (that Lord's owns the Ashes and will do with it what they damn well please) but Anil's point (that if that's all there were to it, the issue would be dead already) has merit too. Personally, I don't think ownership dictates where the trophy stays (America's Cup, for example; someone or several someones own that, yet it's given to whoever wins it) but that's just me.

But please, give up on this idea that it's too fragile to travel. I'll ask my uncle about what was done to ensure the safety of much more fragile cargo if it'll put this ridiculous idea out of its misery.

In summary; not only CAN a fragile item be taken millions of miles away undamaged but it HAS been done. Deal with it.

 

[Rik]

"Rik, did my example involving my uncle mean nothing to you?"

No actually it didn't...

Anyway the ownership means that it decides what happens to the Ashes, so like it or lump it.

Also I don't think you have looked at the fact that you could be wrong too. Just sit and think what you would do if you had this priceless 100 year old relic? Would you send it on a 24 hour plane flight when it is damaged? No, you would want to preserve it. Anyway I think you finished this discussion by just stating that their statement is "obviously fake", it just makes you sound bitter. Look there is no conspiricy and there is in fact a problem with the Urn. You know there is such a thing as the truth and people do speak it most of the time, yes, even Tony Blair...but rarely in his case...

[Edited on 23/11/2002 by Rik]

 

[Bazza]

Originally posted by marc71178I still think a new trophy is the best option.

What? A new trophy would have absolutely no meaning at all whatsoever...

 

[Rik]

This thread has turned into a slanging match and an attempt to say that the Lord's Museum is a bunch of liars, there isn't going to be any agreement here so it might as well be locked Mods...

 

[Neil Pickup]

No, it hasn't.

 

[Rik]

Originally posted by Neil Pickup
No, it hasn't.

Well in my opinion it has, Top_Cat feels the Lord's Museum is lying and we are all clueless, that doesn't really mean much of a future for this thread other than more slanging off...

 

[Neil Pickup]

Corey is a Moderator and has not done anything in conflict with the Code of Conduct.

The point is that Lord's is being economical with facts... but that isn't the point. The point is one of principle:

Forget practicality for a moment, should the Ashes go to the Winners?

 

[Rik]

Originally posted by Neil Pickup
Corey is a Moderator and has not done anything in conflict with the Code of Conduct.

The point is that Lord's is being economical with facts... but that isn't the point. The point is one of principle:

Forget practicality for a moment, should the Ashes go to the Winners?

I respect Corey as a person but neither of us are going to agree here...and sooner or later someone's probably going to come in here and stir it up...

 

[Neil Pickup]

That doesn't mean you can't try a structured discussion on prinicples...