Hampshire Cricket History


Hampshire Survive?
September 27, 2016, 1:40 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized

The Times today is reporting that Durham face a points deduction after requiring ECB financial support to survive the season and they could be relegated. It’s common these days in football of course but less so in cricket and Durham finished 45 points ahead of Hampshire. Durham are about to change financial/governing status and the ECB considers the change to be an “insolvency event”.

Any penalty might be imposed in 2017, in which case life gets easier for the other seven counties next year, and even if they were to be relegated this year, it might mean promotion for Kent – reverting to two-up?

There again it might be that nothing will happen.

PS: Rod Bransgrove is quoted on BBC site, suggesting that perhaps they should be relegated: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/37487298

 

Advertisements

18 Comments so far
Leave a comment

It would be extremely harsh to kick Durham down when they are already in such difficulties

Comment by joster69

I agree Jo. Once upon a time there was a sense that counties supported each other in a collective enterprise. My feeling is that it is less and less the case today.

Comment by Dave Allen

I have just read the report on the BBC and my opinion of Bransgrove has just dived to not much at all. Does he really think that the players on the field are thinking about the finances of the clubs involved in the game? If they do I will emigrate to Outer Mongolia to support their senior tiddlywinks competition!

Comment by John West

BBC South Today reports Rod Bransgrove claiming that if Durham are relegated, Hampshire not Kent should benefit.

Comment by Dave Allen

He would not say anything else would he. It is me, me and me……

Comment by John Cottrell

To be fair this describes it in a less ambulance chasing fashion:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/27/durham-relegation-ecb-points-deduction-county-championship-division-one?CMP=share_btn_tw

Interesting similarity between the projected 2016 loss, and the £923k ECB fee for staging a test match in the arctic immediately after one just down the road, but that’d obviously be a coincidence.

Comment by Jeremy

Many thanks – this is the best piece by far on the issue, although it strikes me there is a solution no one is discussing yet. Since the ECB is keen to reduce Championship matches – especially among the proper teams – why not relegate Notts, Hampshire AND Durham; promote Essex and play with just seven in Div One (12 games each). Then there could be 20 matches between the 11 Div Two teams (who cares about Div Two?) and with a bit of luck Hampshire will never get promoted and we’d get 10 home Championship matches each year.

Comment by pompeypop

Pure genius!

Comment by Jeremy

We played like a relegation team for most of the season – injuries didn’t help but every team has to cope with those.
I want Hampshire in the top division as much as anyone else – but on our playing record, nothing else.

This would just be wrong

Comment by Keith Fray

I would suggest that it depends on any sanction applied to Durham. If it is a points deduction that results in them being below Hampshire then I suggest that Hampshire should stay up after applying the normal promotion/relegation procedures. If Durham are demoted then Hampshire should be relegated, then Hampshire and Kent should apply for the vacant division 1 position. May be they should go to the Middle East and have a playoff in this case.

Comment by Bob Murrell

Let me first say I have heartfelt sympathy for the Durham members/supporters of which I know many (as I did for Glasgow Rangers supporters). Without knowing the true facts and only what’s reported it’s difficult to make a totally informed assessment. However, if the powers that be determine it hasn’t been a fair playing field and there have been failures by the Durham Board and relegate/demote/move them then the position is clear in my mind. The ECB made a huge issue, and presumably agreed at various Chairman meetings, about 2 will be relegated and 1 will be promoted and, as such, need to honour that to maintain any of their integrity. If they move Durham to Division 2 for any indiscretions, whether it’s a points deduction or not, that has to be regarded as a relegation whatever spin anyone else may put on it. It has the same effect. That leaves Notts also relegated and Essex promoted.
A play-off is as impractical as unjust as you couldn’t get the players together till after all holidays/tours and fixtures need sorting.
We have to wait and see what transpires. I’m sure we’ll all be there for the first match whether it be Derbyshire or Yorkshire.
Cannae get down on Friday but I hope you all have a great evening.

Comment by Richard Griffiths

Never mind Rangers – what about the other team in blue shirts, white shorts, red socks!!

Comment by pompeypop

If there was to be a points deduction this year, it should have been mid-season. The situation with Durham hasn’t suddenly arisen after the end of the season.
Doing it now would be unfair –
– if less than the 45 needed for us to catch up, it would merely deprive Durham of prize money making their position even worse.
– if they lost, say, 30 points, teams would argue that, had they known that, they might have played the last few games in a different way. For example, a draw in the last game with maximum batting points would have kept us up. We wouldn’t have had to go off hell for leather in the second innings, and we wouldn’t have had to declare. (And Lancs and Warks might comment about their last couple of games too). It would descend into a ‘what if?’ farce.
If they are to lose points, it would have to be at the start of next season, as with other penalties.
If it’s a straight relegation, then I think Rod is right: the rules say two relegations and one promotion. If Notts and Durham go down, we’d stay up. I can’t believe they’d do that though – just means the last weeks of the season would have been a farce.

Comment by Ageas

The specific relegation issue seems to revolve around Durham’s proposed change of status as much as their financial situation (I think – finance ain’t my thing). If that’s the case, why was there no issue at the ECB when Hampshire County Cricket Club became Hampshire Cricket plc when the alternative was that HCCC ceased trading/went bankrupt back in 2001?

Comment by pompeypop

Possibly because although Hampshire teetered on the brink, they didn’t get financial assistance from the ECB. Hampshire sorted themselves out. Durham’s change of status is an enforced one, I understand, because lenders (and possibly the ECB) wouldn’t support a limited company structure whose first duty is to shareholders, leaving the lenders with unsecured loans.

Comment by Ageas

The council and other funders appear to have said no more to Durham leaving the ECB pretty much as lender/refinancer of last resort; something they are, I think, well able to be with their pot of reserves. Wouldn’t be too sure quite how independent the vote of the Durham chair will be at the next meeting to discuss the 8cityteam proposal; or the knock-on effect on the chances of West End being the base for one of them.

It is interesting that the ECB appear to be insisting on a CIC rather than a for-profit operation. If a city competition does happen, and this is the way to organise the teams, then the odds of cricket going the way of football and selling out to those abroad may be less.

Comment by StephenFH

Rather than leap on the journalistic bandwagon suggesting Durham’s relegation Mr Bransgrove would be better served championing the counties rights to be properly recompensed for the millions they make for the ECB by providing the players and the grounds for international cricket.

My respect for our chairman has also lessened considerably.

I wish Durham all the very best and trust other counties realise that there for the grace of God ….

Comment by James

I know near nothing about Soccer, but it’s fairly clear that more money buys better players that almost directly leads to better results.

So financial irregularities that buy on the field success reasonably attract points penalties.

There’s no suggestion Durham have bought survival, they don’t even have an overseas player.

So a points penalty is a wildly inappropriate response, presumably just lamely copied from football.

Comment by Jeremy




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: