• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Sussex in the mire

Fleagle said:
There is room to dispute “similar”. Durham were given an agreed budget. To that extent it was similar to the special measures Sussex are in. But that’s not all in Durham’s case. There was a significant cash bail out, and at least one of the operating companies was wound up and a new company formed. So far as I can tell neither of these things are happening with Sussex, or have happened in the other special measures cases.

I think Durham’s punishment was unduly harsh. But I still think you need to accept that Durham’s case was bad in ways that hasn’t been matched since.
Click to expand...
Durham's issue arose because a loan was called in unexpectedly without notice- all counties,bar Surrey, have debtors and hence are subject to that risk.
They exceeded their budget some years previously,alerted ECB to it, and accepted the penalty imposed.
There have been significant bail outs to other counties.
Durham changed their company format as a condition of a loan from Durham County Council in the form of Preference Shares.
I have studied Durham's balance sheets for the period. The accounts were approved by the auditors with no undue risk or mismanagement flagged up.
chopsfc007 said:
I justified the previous post about conspiracy by providing quotes, I don't have to justify everything to you and I say plenty of things similar to other posters or just general comments which are also fine you know exactly what you are doing I thought you were better than this.

I have the opinion everything isn't a conspiracy against Durham
Click to expand...
I simply question that when you contradict opinions you offer some justification for it.If that causes offence,none was intended.e
Certainly don't want to descend into a slanging rmatch
 
Last edited:

Parkside said:
Durham's issue arose because a loan was called in unexpectedly without notice- all counties,bar Surrey, have debtors and hence are subject to that risk.
They exceeded their budget some years previously,alerted ECB to it, and accepted the penalty imposed.
There have been significant bail outs to other counties.
Durham changed their company format as a condition of a loan from Durham County Council in the form of Preference Shares.
I have studied Durham's balance sheets for the period. The accounts were approved by the auditors with no undue risk or mismanagement flagged up.

I simply question that when you contradict opinions you offer some justification for it.If that causes offence,none was intended.e
Certainly don't want to descend into a slanging rmatch
Click to expand...
Can you just not say the reasoning and justification thing every time, as I say I justified a previous post by providing quotes from a poster,
 
Never mind the Southern counties, what about all the crap Yorkshire have got away with over the last few years? Minor rebuke and heavy punishment by not being allowed to hold test matches at Headingley in winter? Not chips on our shoulders at all, Durham have without doubt been crapped on by the ECB far worse than anyone else.

PS forgot to mention FTECB.

PPS on a more positive note I have heard that certain more fair minded parties at the ECB still feel guilty at the way Durham were treated and have in the more recent past done all they could to help out.
 
chopsfc007 said:
Looking forward to you asking everyone to justify and explain every post even when not required
Click to expand...
I always attempt to if necessary. Generally posters offer cogent reasons for disagreeing with a viewpoint hence promoting healthy debate. I'm of the impression that you frequently contradict without giving a reason. If that's a misapprehension,then I apologise.
Hope that finalises the issue
The Cricketer posing some interesting questions about The necessity of ECB putting Sussex into special measures when they're due £28m from their share of T20 Hundred sale.

" The news that Sussex are in financial strife begs the question – why can't they be given the estimated £28million due to them from The Hundred auction?

The ECB say money from Project Gemini can be used to build reserves, generate revenue and reduce debt. Around £400,000 was paid to counties in July, upon six of the eight deals being completed.

They have put guardrails in place for the good of the game, and they are not letting it be spent on operating losses.

"We will utilise the County Partnership Agreement (CPA) to ensure that while counties do have autonomy over their funds, they are operating within a framework and are held to account on their financial sustainability," a statement released last February read.

This is harsh, in my opinion. If some counties need it for operating losses, needs must. They have made enough sacrifices for The Hundred.

In men's cricket, all Sussex have to put on at Hove in the school summer holidays are 50-over games involving depleted sides; just four home matches. "
 
Last edited:
Parkside said:
Should but that's the controversy. Sussex haven't been permitted to use their Hundred allocation to pay off the debt. Crazy!
Click to expand...

It’s an absolute joke. Why is it that every single thing the ECB do, further proves to everyone that they can’t run a bath?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top