Yes, they are to blame for the financial mess they're in but it does appear to me that the punishment is way over the top by both punishing Durham now ie relegation but also in the future ie 48 points deduction plus other points deductions in other competitions and being prohibited from hosting test matches. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/37541136 Other Counties have been in as severe financial difficulties but none have faced such draconian penalties. Wonder why Durham have? Hmmmm?
it's the big North / South divide Durham has done very well the last couple of season's winning trophies so they have decided to take away the competition
I can understand the points deduction in a way. We do the same in football. I can't understand why they have removed test status though. That just seems vindictive, and aimed at keeping test matches down south.
But why points this season AND next season? Why have other Counties who are in as big a financial mess not been punished? Does suggest southern /established Counties not wanting the new northern upstarts to get above their station.
I have split loyalties here. I support Durham AND Yorkshire, aka god's county. Both have been getting ****ed over for years.
Exactly Root and Bairstow not playing the last game was bent, decision made professional twat Andrew Strauss who used to play for Middlesex. Him and the other ECB members are crooked, wouldn't surprise me if Hampshire have bribed them.
You might get some interesting opinions there, Durham phyiso has tweeted the following "Durham were encouraged by ECB to bid for internationals under a crazy system. They now get hammered for needing a bailout. That's immoral." https://twitter.com/silver_fox24.
The ECB actively encouraged counties to bid for tests as they sell the rights to host the test to the clubs and then they have to make their money back - it is in the ECB's interests to have more clubs competing for this. Durham played the game but lost money through it. We are a success story as a team and the way we bring players through without any foreign talent aiding us and manage to compete at the top of the league is amazing given the amounts of money clubs like say Surrey fling at 'superstars'. I'm annoyed. More annoyed about this than anything in football, quite simply the likes of Surrey would not have been given this punishment. We have been relegated and then precluded from being promoted next season (effectively). It also sickens me that players likes Stoneman (who has won three titles with us) has moved to the bang average Surrey to aid his England chances - because winning titles with us isn't getting him the kind of attention simply playing at Surrey would do. For ****s sake.
They made it harsh to show that clubs getting into financial trouble can't just go running to ecb to get bailed out. Will make plenty other clubs think twice about it now knowing the implications are big. Are kind ins of being made an example of but someone had to be unfortunately. What i I don't get is why they are making div 1 8 teams and div 2 10 teams so those in div 2 have to cram 2 more 4 day games into already tight schedule where they don't actually make any money from due to tiny crowds.
I'll be a dissenting voice. I think there must have been some serious mismanagement here. Their efforts on making effective use of the venue year round is pathetic for example. I'm gutted and I think the players are simply unacceptable collateral damage in all this. I don't know if Jennings, Collingwood etc were advised before signing contracts, if not then that is an absolute disgrace. Keaton Jennings in particular has been ****ed over for me, he is right on the brink of an international breakthrough. Indeed I would argue he should have been next cab off the rank for test opener instead of Duckett (who I do like). For him to amass the runs he did in Division 1 with a notoriously difficult home ground (though slightly better for batting this year), then get overlooked felt really harsh. I wonder if his SA heritage played against him in that call. The ECB need to be consistent with this however. What are the parameters? I assume there is some sort of financial governance rulebook which Durham have failed to adhere to. If that is the case, then I'm afraid they need to look within rather outside. The only thing I would say is it is a lot easier to make cricket pay the further south you go. I'll reserve judgement until we see how this has come about, and if mistakes have been made which mean it could have been avoided. Durham and the taskforce need to look around. They need to analyse how other counties make it pay and glean as much as they can (though they are not alone in debt!). What have they done about getting investment into the club? They need to go and invest in a commercially savvy director who can take the club forward in a proper fashion which is sustainable. The worst thing you can do in business is just blame others. Right your own ship.
I don't think anyone is saying Durham shouldn't have been punished . For me it's the level of punishment that appears over the top. I appreciate I hgave just said "appears" but it has to be as only those in the "know" do actually know the full extent of the problems. I'm sure I have read somewhere though that it is accepted that there has not been any mismanagement as such which I take to mean fraud or personal financial gain. My queries are what happens if a second division team falls into financial problems necessitating a bail out, how are they going to be relegated? Secondly, why a points deduction for two seasons? Why are Durham not allowed to bid for Test Matches? Why was the punishment not administered sooner? Why wait until the end of the season when the bail out was well before the end of the season? Also why are Hampshire saved as opposed to whoever was second in the Second Division being promoted as would have been the case in most other years?
Test matches is a simple one for me - you have to have your house in order to start speculating to accumulate. Its also the pinnacle of the game, you can't have a county with very poor financial governance being representative of the game here. This for me is without question the correct decision 100%. Its unfair on the area and fans but we need to look at the club not the ECB for that bastard of a sanction. They have brought that on. The ECB has clearly been trying to protect Durham, given I'm not sure this was coming to light until the papers got hold of information. The ECB then had to get out in front of it. I don't think that is correct - they should have exposed Durham a lot sooner. The lack of transparency is exactly what leads to the "its a corrupt organisation". They never think through the full consequences of their actions. I think in terms of waiting until the end of the season, that is common practice in many sports. You wait until the end of a period (season) to see if they have managed to turn it around (Durham may have stated mitigating factors and claimed there were events etc coming which may bring in much needed revenue) The ECB may have given them time to drag in investment. As for a second division team falling into financial problems - the simple answer is don't! The clubs need to live by their means. Without knowing why they clubs are running up debts, and why Durham got into such a bad situation, its a difficult one to answer fully. I haven't seen the financial governance regulations these clubs are operating under - I don't know what punishments are set for each transgression. I assume they have been guided by this, hence Durham's silence in speaking out against the sanctions. So the points deductions I assume are dictated by the regulations. If not and this is just finger in the air stuff, then of course the whole system needs an overhaul from the top of the ECB. I would say I find that hard to believe in such a big organisation but nothing really surprises me. The bottom line is though, Durham must look within rather than pissing and moaning. Something is badly wrong to get into that situation. If there are financial regulations in place and they were aware of them, then they should be grateful they have a club! Hampshire - I don't know. I suspect this is probably a Test ground related decision...
The problem with financing in cricket is it's a bit of a lottery due to it being very weather dependent. It very hard for any of the county's to decide how much to bid for a test as they can never be sure how much money they will receive. If it rains for all 5 days of the test then they are going to make a loss even if they bid £1 for the test. If you look at the tests in recent years all the ones held in the north have been early in the season and so more likely to finish early because of the conditions making it harder for them to make money. Apparently they are changing the bidding process for tests in the future which, apparently, but I don't know what is changing
Some factors I have heard that seem to be missing on here, that prove that Durham's punishment was far too harsh. 1. Counties were forced to bid for test matches, the club were told to build floodlights in 2015 to keep test match cricket. 2. The Durham debt is £7.8 million, the debt in all County Cricket is £140 million, meaning that Durham's debt is less than the average. 3. 4 other counties were helped out with debts by local councils, Durham weren't due to them not having any money due to being hit harder by the government. 4. Durham had a deal with Emirates in 2010, personally haven't seen what benefit (if any) this has had on the club. 5. There was supposed to be investment to build hotels as part of the cricket complex, this has never happened. Alright the last two points don't prove that, but looking through everything Durham weren't faultless but the ECB have been savage and have done nothing to save Durham IMO, aslo think that is disgraceful how the Chief Executive David Harker has had the grace to leave the club, despite saying he was resigning in 2012.
Point 2 is not really relevant in most cases though. The reality is there are counties with far larger debts than Durham (cricket has serious issues) but those counties can offset it better because they are more commercially savvy and have greater income. An example would be some hosting pop concerts with high profile acts. The ECB do have an agenda though, as this warning punishment acts as a perfect backdrop to pushing their 20/20 plans which will generate income. I think it's a good thing but I don't doubt this situ has been discussed as an opportunity. The stuff about bidding for tests and lights is fair enough, but same playing field for everyone. So you need a CEO who looks for funding solutions. I need to see more info but on face of it, it appears to be a complete financial failure by those running the show. That's particularly sad when the coaches and playing staff have pulled their weight.
