• 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.

Racism at Yorkshire CCC

Silly Point said:
I'd they've pleaded guilty that should be that surely
Click to expand...

True, but they should still be entitled to make representations regarding punishment, like a plea in mitigation if they were appearing in a court.
Parkside said:
They've admitted guilty to  amended charges which suggests there's been some plea bargaining discussed and agreed.
As for the individuals can't see how any imposed sanctions can be fulfilled. None of them are employed by ECB so what control have ECB to ensure any sanction is fulfilled?
Click to expand...

Is it not akin to a footballer, who is governed by the rules of the FA/EPL/EFL once they are registered as a player? Couldn’t apply to Ballance of course. I don’t know the answer, just saying!
 
Last edited:

Parkside said:
June 27th before Yorkshire's sanctions decided. They've admitted guilt so why the indecision?
Click to expand...

Probably sweating over the fact that they wanted to just give them a slap on the wrist but they know that the punishment has to be more severe than Durham's was for just being in debt. Otherwise the media will be all over it.

Karma Graves. Karma.
 
TheRey said:
Should be permanently banned from anything to do with cricket if they refuse. Including attending matches.
Click to expand...

I agree. If they thought the procedure was flawed, withdrawing from it was effectively surrendering any arguments they might want to put. They therefore have made their beds and will have to suffer the consequences.

And I’m not defending the process. But if you take your ball home, you have to take whatever is coming to you.
 
Parkside said:
As for the individuals can't see how any imposed sanctions can be fulfilled. None of them are employed by ECB so what control have ECB to ensure any sanction is fulfilled?
Click to expand...
You don’t need to be currently employed or currently registered for those contracts to have created obligations that give rise to currently enforceable liabilities. I’m not saying this is the case but it certainly could be. Even if it is I’m not sure the ECB taking individuals to a civil court for recovery is a very likely outcome though.
 
Last edited:
Fleagle said:
You don’t need to be currently employed or currently registered for those contracts to have created obligations that give rise to currently enforceable liabilities. I’m not saying this is the case but it certainly could be. Even if it is I’m not sure the ECB taking individuals to a civil court for recovery is a very likely outcome though.
Click to expand...
The ECB are understood to be aware they may face problems collecting any fines imposed by the CDC, who are not expected make a decision on the punishments until next month. The governing body's only recourse of action if the players refuse to pay would be to take their case to a small claims court, although this could cost more money than they would be due to recoup.
That's another fine mess ECB have got themselves in to.
mosi said:
I agree. If they thought the procedure was flawed, withdrawing from it was effectively surrendering any arguments they might want to put. They therefore have made their beds and will have to suffer the consequences.

And I’m not defending the process. But if you take your ball home, you have to take whatever is coming to you.
Click to expand...
Or there lawyers have instructed them that any sanctions imposed are not legally enforceable. I'm sure that they wouldn't have taken this action without seeking counsel.
Oops,"Their" lawyers
 
Last edited:
Why would anyone pay a fine imposed retrospectively by an ex ' employer' after they'd retired. Especially if they still denied anything untoward had taken place.
Its like working for a place and colin from accounts says 5 years before you retired you bullied him. 😄
Its a joke no one would , you wouldnt go back and investigate the process with them , tell your side, youd just say fuck off...they have said " fuck off"
 
Yahrba said:
Why would anyone pay a fine imposed retrospectively by an ex ' employer' after they'd retired. Especially if they still denied anything untoward had taken place.
Its like working for a place and colin from accounts says 5 years before you retired you bullied him. 😄
Its a joke no one would , you wouldnt go back and investigate the process with them , tell your side, youd just say fuck off...they have said " fuck off"
Click to expand...

Good point, but not quite the same?

The ECB aren’t their employers. They are the game’s regulators in England and Wales. So as long as these individuals are playing/coaching in E&W, they will be subject to ECB jurisdiction. I don’t know off hand what status any of these currently have (except Ballance, who is retired), but they might find that ECB still have some clout.
 
Yahrba said:
Why would anyone pay a fine imposed retrospectively by an ex ' employer' after they'd retired. Especially if they still denied anything untoward had taken place.
Its like working for a place and colin from accounts says 5 years before you retired you bullied him. 😄
Its a joke no one would , you wouldnt go back and investigate the process with them , tell your side, youd just say fuck off...they have said " fuck off"
Click to expand...
This
 
mosi said:
Good point, but not quite the same?

The ECB aren’t their employers. They are the game’s regulators in England and Wales. So as long as these individuals are playing/coaching in E&W, they will be subject to ECB jurisdiction. I don’t know off hand what status any of these currently have (except Ballance, who is retired), but they might find that ECB still have some clout.
Click to expand...
Yeah thats why i put it in quotes . I think to be fair the ECB jumped on its rainbow coloured charger without thinking things through to rescue the distressed Rafiq. Theres potentially more to come on this with potential counter litigation i expect , restriction of trade etc if they try and interfer with ex players livelihoods in any way on the ' proofs' they have . I expect they will be looking to keep lines of retreat open
 
Yahrba said:
Yeah thats why i put it in quotes . I think to be fair the ECB jumped on its rainbow coloured charger without thinking things through to rescue the distressed Rafiq. Theres potentially more to come on this with potential counter litigation i expect , restriction of trade etc if they try and interfer with ex players livelihoods in any way on the ' proofs' they have . I expect they will be looking to keep lines of retreat open
Click to expand...

I suspect their main target was YCCC. As they have made admissions, it’s job done (at least in part) so far as they are concerned. If the players/coaches refuse to recognise sanctions etc, then I suppose it’s only relevant if they are still in the game in some capacity.

I hear what you’re saying about restraint of trade etc, but I suspect they wouldn’t get much sympathy from a Judge, given that they withdrew from the process (even on legal advice).

Although we all agree on here that this needs sorting quickly, I doubt that it will be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top