He wants less CC fixtures-he said exactly that in the blog. He also said that without external financing the smaller counties couldn't survive. On the same day a Derbyshire committee man stated that they made a year on year profit on a turnover of £5m.
-
The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
Please read this thread for more details.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Tim Bostock on Sky’s County Chanpionship preview vodcast
- Thread starter Inside Forward
- Start date
MustardAndOnions
Winger
I was responding to someone who said he was Talking about less counties
I don’t get the criticism he is getting. He’s done unbelievable at Durham.
Voice of fair play
Striker
There has been a lot of exciting talk from Durham fans going into this year and they seem to have a great first choice bowling attack and real chance this year, that was unthinkable when Bostock took over.
He deserves massive credit for that, and yes he could have choose his words more carefully recently, but that should not detract from the bigger picture of the great job he has done.
He can take credit for a tremendous turnaround in Durham's finances undoubtedly but criticising cricket loyalists is a lot more serious than "choosing your words more carefully". Members are within their rights to object to proposals to sell off the family silver when there's no need to do so. The game nationally make a profit year on year, it only requires these finances to be distributed more fairly. There's absolutely no necessity for franchising. Bostock has shown a complete lack of respect in speaking out of turn and fully deserves the condemnation which has resulted.
I get all that but gay people, journalists etc are being murdered by the people funding that. It’s blood money and Durham would be done with for me.
Saying that, if it was SAFC I’d find it much harder and would probably carry on begrudgingly so I couldn’t take the moral high ground with anyone doing the same with DCCC.
I love my cricket but I could get by on club and international games. With football it’s SAFC or nowt for me.
Voice of fair play
Striker
Yeah his language was disrespectful and unnecessary but that one statement/article needs to be balanced imo with everything else has has done as part of a very big turnaround
MustardAndOnions
Winger
Aye I’d be proper gutted like.
Yeh but it's been a very serious misjudgement. Richard Gould ,ECB chief,found it necessary to quickly go public distancing his organisation from the comments and mentioning that "representatives of Durham" had been in contact with him within 30 minutes of the comment going public. Bostock needs to add some clarification if he wishes to exonerate himself.He is one of 3 members of the committee which submits the counties agreed recommendations to the ECB committee. He appears to have spoken out of turn.
Last edited:
Voice of fair play
Striker
I don’t think it appears he has spoken out of turn, I think he has definitely spoken out of turn. I think too late to totally exonerate himself and tbh his comments should not be exonerated.
Just making the point that everything else he has done since taking over the job should not be overshadowed by one all be it bad mistake.
As everything else he has done to get the club to where they were to where they are is a massive turnaround
Last edited:
I wasn’t talking about ‘going forward’, I was talking about historically. It’s a fact, we had to be voted in to the First Class structure by the counties. I don’t like the sound of biting the hand that feeds.
I’ve argued against this before, but no, I don’t think cutting the numbers of counties would strengthen the competition - I also strongly believe it would weaken England significantly.
The talent pool would be shrunk, because more players would leave the game earlier due to lack of opportunities. What’s more, fewer players would get an opportunity in the first place. There are several players in the last decade who have been late developers, such as players like Keaton Jennings and Mark Stoneman, who at other counties wouldn’t have been given as much time to develop. I remember with both of those lads the early years were lean and full of frustration, but they were allowed to fail and given time to grow. Other players need a second bite at the cherry, who perhaps have been let go by a ‘bigger’ county and given a chance to thrive at a different county and gone from strength to strength.
Alex Lees being a prime example close to home. He’s played for England, scored thousands of runs for Durham and continued his profession, in a 10 team league he gets released from Yorkshire and probably seeks employment outside of cricket. Another example is Ben Raine, he was released by Durham and continued his profession at Leicestershire. Without a Second Division he probably leaves the game too, but he was able to further develop his skills and his craft and in two days time he’ll likely lead an attack in Division One.
I’ve seen it in other sports too, but to suggest that by shrinking the number of teams you’ll improve the top end standard whilst keeping the same talent opportunities coming into the game is just demonstrably wrong.
The newspaper article from last week that took extracts from the book seemed to suggest that was the case (the way I read it). Happy to be proven wrong on that.
BUT I still feel like ultimately, if you’re in an administrative position and you’re watching the damage that is being done to the county game by the 16.4 and your overriding thought is to want MORE of it, not less, then perhaps you’re part of the problem. Bostock may not know it - or perhaps I’m not giving him enough credit and his motives are darker - but he’s in a very privileged position and one which I consider to be that of a guardian of the game.
Really?? He’s called county members ‘luddites’, he’s accused a group of people a name and insinuated they’re resistant to change when the actual fact of the matter is that county members are arguably one of the most adaptive to change groups amongst any group of sports fans.
I haven’t seen a single person question that, but it doesn’t give him a free pass to go and do what he wants and/or say what he wants* in future. Let’s be frank, the 16.4 is the single biggest threat to the future of domestic cricket in this country and he wants to expand it and be a part of it.
*totally hypothetically.
I’ve seen some complete nonsense from you over the years, but this might just top the lot
Our immense bowling talent was all at the club (with the obvious exception of Boland) before Bostock arrived. Add to that the fact that he doesn’t pick the team, or coach the team, or decide which players are acquired.
But aye, it’s all Bostock’s work
Last edited:
Aidan11
Striker
His comment was very insulting though. He was effectively saying the members and fans who are the lifeblood of cricket were damaging it because we aren't rolling over and accepting what they want to do which is pretty much turning English domestic cricket into a business to the detriment of the game itself.
These franchise models are not making huge money outside of India and I mentioned in an earlier post exactly why it works in India and is unlikely to work anywhere else.
We nearly went down a dangerous path with Allen Stanford. Heaven knows how much he'd have damaged the game if the Feds hadn't got to him just in time.
Cricket doesn't work as a business model. Sure we could have investment from India and the Sheikhs but what happens when they get bored and move on? Well the answer is the businessmen currently running the game will have made a nice few quid out of it but the game will probably end up on its arse.
Re your other point about Boscock...yes he has made some good decisions for the club but also some baffling ones. For example he voted for the three division conference rather than the current two division set up. Thankfully he lost that one.
And turning the ground into a student booze up centre whilst there's a cricket match taking place
niallquinnsdisco
Midfield
Aramco are taking over international cricket though.
Voice of fair play
Striker
I think you take my words far to literally mate.I wasn’t talking about ‘going forward’, I was talking about historically. It’s a fact, we had to be voted in to the First Class structure by the counties. I don’t like the sound of biting the hand that feeds.
I’ve argued against this before, but no, I don’t think cutting the numbers of counties would strengthen the competition - I also strongly believe it would weaken England significantly.
The talent pool would be shrunk, because more players would leave the game earlier due to lack of opportunities. What’s more, fewer players would get an opportunity in the first place. There are several players in the last decade who have been late developers, such as players like Keaton Jennings and Mark Stoneman, who at other counties wouldn’t have been given as much time to develop. I remember with both of those lads the early years were lean and full of frustration, but they were allowed to fail and given time to grow. Other players need a second bite at the cherry, who perhaps have been let go by a ‘bigger’ county and given a chance to thrive at a different county and gone from strength to strength.
Alex Lees being a prime example close to home. He’s played for England, scored thousands of runs for Durham and continued his profession, in a 10 team league he gets released from Yorkshire and probably seeks employment outside of cricket. Another example is Ben Raine, he was released by Durham and continued his profession at Leicestershire. Without a Second Division he probably leaves the game too, but he was able to further develop his skills and his craft and in two days time he’ll likely lead an attack in Division One.
I’ve seen it in other sports too, but to suggest that by shrinking the number of teams you’ll improve the top end standard whilst keeping the same talent opportunities coming into the game is just demonstrably wrong.
The newspaper article from last week that took extracts from the book seemed to suggest that was the case (the way I read it). Happy to be proven wrong on that.
BUT I still feel like ultimately, if you’re in an administrative position and you’re watching the damage that is being done to the county game by the 16.4 and your overriding thought is to want MORE of it, not less, then perhaps you’re part of the problem. Bostock may not know it - or perhaps I’m not giving him enough credit and his motives are darker - but he’s in a very privileged position and one which I consider to be that of a guardian of the game.
Really?? He’s called county members ‘luddites’, he’s accused a group of people a name and insinuated they’re resistant to change when the actual fact of the matter is that county members are arguably one of the most adaptive to change groups amongst any group of sports fans.
I haven’t seen a single person question that, but it doesn’t give him a free pass to go and do what he wants and/or say what he wants* in future. Let’s be frank, the 16.4 is the single biggest threat to the future of domestic cricket in this country and he wants to expand it and be a part of it.
*totally hypothetically.
I’ve seen some complete nonsense from you over the years, but this might just top the lot
Our immense bowling talent was all at the club (with the obvious exception of Boland) before Bostock arrived. Add to that the fact that he doesn’t pick the team, or coach the team, or decide which players are acquired.
But aye, it’s all Bostock’s work
I meant they have a great chance this year due to the brilliant work he has done to turn the club round of course he not responsible for the actual bowlers
If you want to put laughs next to sentence and have a go yet again nothing much I can do as tired of it now.
Was simply just trying to get across a view that Bostock has been extremely good for Durham and they in a much a lot much better place than when he arrived and that should be taken into account before the name calling towards him.
Last edited:
seaham ftm
Winger
You definitely didn’t used to get T20 as part of your membership at Durham as well. Always remember having to buy a separate book with tickets in. Anyone know when that changed?
Voice of fair play
Striker
Yeah of course can see that balanced view, just think the work he has done over the years deserves a little more respect than some of the name calling towards him.
While fully accepting and respecting the points you make
GordonMuchallNo1Fan
Striker
I'm told they have met with Ashworth
How else are we meant to take them when you literally say that Bostock deserves credit for our bowling attack:
The evidence is there in your own typing. You can’t blame others for interpreting what you said exactly how you said it. If you meant it differently then you should’ve worded it better. You can’t blame me if I can’t imagine up an entirely different sentence to the one you actually said.
Does that mean Sir Jim Ratcliffe is putting a bid in?!
Last edited:
Voice of fair play
Striker
Mate like say I am tired of it, I get your passionate about Durham, I get your passionate about County Cricket and once again I respect that.How else are we meant to take them when you literally say that Bostock deserves credit for our bowling attack:
The evidence is there in your own typing. You can’t blame others for interpreting what you said exactly how you said it. If you meant it differently then you should’ve worded it better. You can’t blame me if I can’t imagine up an entirely different sentence to the one you actually said.
Does that mean Sir Jim Ratcliffe is putting a bid in?!
To me however you perceived I worded it and taking account the other discussions I have had with posters on this thread surely it was clear I was trying to get across a view of the work Bostock has done to get Durham to where they were to where they are is brilliant work and I was given him credit for that.
And not for the actual bowlers who you correctly say was here before him.
I meant real chance because of his work to get them back to challenge.
Last edited:
wayne entwhistle no9
Winger
They tried to withdraw it after t20 really took off i think they may have even done it for a year but they also attempted to withdraw it from life members and i think because of the objections of one certain life member they realised they where on a sticky wicket so relented and its also part of a full annual members package.
