Jennings off to Notts

Status
Not open for further replies.


Sad. Maybe Botham knew and his dig at directors of cricket also being selectors fits more with a Jennings move rather than a Coughlin one.

The lesson for any organisation is, never lose control of your finances.
 
His bowling has been more effective than his batting. Watching him "play" for England you'd think he'd never held a bat in his life.

I've seen players lose touch, seen their confidence suffer & the runs dry up, but hard pushed to name someone whose demise has been greater than Jennings this term
 
Surrey are quoted in the press this morning with others agreeing with Botham about the need for either some kind of transfer or compensation system. Also a transfer window has been raised as a possibility. Here's a quote from Surrey.

On that basis, the club have written to the other 17 first-class counties proposing the following formula: “Any home developed player below the age of 24 who chooses to move to a new county, despite being offered a new and improved contract by his home county, would attract a compensation fee payable by the new county of 2 x the final salary offer by the home county.”
Click to expand...

Seems a good start to me. It may have an unintended consequence, players may feel it easier to move from their original county because they know the county will be compensated for their development. (If you recall one of the complaints it was said as reported by Martin Emmerson I think, although don't quote me on that it may not have been him, was that other counties felt a bit put out because they found it very difficult to prise players away, before FTECB gave them some assistance as it were.
 
Bri said:
Surrey are quoted in the press this morning with others agreeing with Botham about the need for either some kind of transfer or compensation system. Also a transfer window has been raised as a possibility. Here's a quote from Surrey.



Seems a good start to me. It may have an unintended consequence, players may feel it easier to move from their original county because they know the county will be compensated for their development. (If you recall one of the complaints it was said as reported by Martin Emmerson I think, although don't quote me on that it may not have been him, was that other counties felt a bit put out because they found it very difficult to prise players away, before FTECB gave them some assistance as it were.
Click to expand...

ahhhh, this explains why surrey are leading the way, i thought it a bit odd that they would be sticking their noses in.

an opportunity to make breaking contracts easier by buying players out of them.. it is a balancing act because yes clubs should be better reimbursed for developing these players, but giving buying clubs easier access to snap them all up seems to only end up with one outcome.
 
e, players may feel it easier to move from their original county because they know the county will be compensated for their development. (If you recall one of the complaints it was said as reported by Martin Emmerson I think, although don't quote me on that it may not have been him, was that other counties felt a bit put out because they found it very difficult to prise players away, before FTECB gave them some assistance as it were.[/QUOTE]
Sounds all very civil but I would imagine Surrey are probably the only county who could pay the compensation for the better players on the bigger contracts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top