MustardAndOnions
Midfield
I dunno what an employee claiming racism at Yorkshire has got to do with with what happened to Durham like
Yorkshire post losses of £7 million
- Thread starter mackembhoy
- Start date
I dunno what an employee claiming racism at Yorkshire has got to do with with what happened to Durham like
brandon
Striker
I’ve already told you, it’s the differences in treatments. Let’s not totally ignore Yorkshire’s debt, either, nor should you avoid the fact I mentioned two other counties who were treat differently to what we were.
MustardAndOnions
Midfield
But they are different offences, its a thread about Yorkshire thats why, I thought them losing any test cricket was absolutely ridiculous
brandon
Striker
Yep, as ridiculous as us losing Test Cricket.
A club struggling financially, having its biggest revenue stream taken away as ‘punishment’.
Idiots.
MustardAndOnions
Midfield
I dunno why you are telling me this like, I’m a life long Durham fan
Nothing to do with the Yorkshire racism scandal tho
brandon
Striker
Well, exactly. This thread is about Yorkshire trading losses. It’s not about the racism. We weren’t punished for making trading losses. We were punished for being unable to cover them and requiring an ECB bail out. Yorkshire haven’t required an ECB bail out. Whichever way you dress it, they are not the same. None of this means that I disagree with your underlying view that our punishment was disproportionate. But it was for an “offence” that Yorkshire haven’t committed.Look at the thread title man
I think they may come to regret the alternative they sought too an ECB bail out to cover their losses. I hope they do. When you sup with the devil and all that. But until and unless they do find themselves obliged to come cap in hand to the ECB for money you can’t compare the two cases. The ECB has never punished a club just for making a trading loss.
brandon
Striker
So what is the point then? Because I don’t seem to be the only one not getting it. Is it just the usual fatuous football supporter whinge about two different situations being punished differently “so where is the consistency“? Or do you genuinely think that losing money and finding a commercial investor to cover those losses is the same as losing money and requiring an ECB bailout?
mackembhoy
Striker
Only because of that twat Colin Graves.
ECB backed Durham into a corner and pretty much made them build a ground and bid ridiculous sums to host tests we wouldn't get our money back on. They are the biggest contributors to Durham demise, all while Graves and Bransgrove were happy to stick the knife in to help their own counties.
I really fail to see how Yorkshire having a rich owner to prop them up is any different to the ECB propping us up.
He's not just a commercial investor he was Chairman of the ECB!!
He was in charge of making the decision to shaft us because of the threat we posed to Yorkshire.
If you then don't think that his previous position hasn't held sway when deciding Yorkshire's punishment then your living in a fantasy land.
Weren't Durham also blocked from having a commercial investor?
Forced to take ECBs shite deal. Funny that.
Last edited:
Is it really necessary to use provocative and insulting terminology in an attempt to enhance your point of view? Both Yorkshire and Durham have been guilty of gross financial mismanagement but two different " benefactors " bailed them out. Yorkshire's " benefactor" was in charge of the club when racism allegations were made about the club yet ECB regard him as a "fit and proper" person to again run the club.
Different benefactors doesn't alter the incompetence of both boards financial management.Both , therefore, should receive similar sanctions to the charge of financial mismanagement.
Language was unnecessary. Apologies. But the situations are different. You talk about the charge of financial mismanagement. What charge of financial mismanagement? Yorkshire haven’t been charged with anything because they haven’t broken any rules. They may be morally bankrupt in relation to Graves, but there is nothing they can be punished for.
I continue to fume about the draconian and disproportionate punishment we had from the crap deal that we were forced into. And I’d be happy to agree that they may have got off likely for the disrepute and racism charges that they pleaded guilty to. But the post I was responding to was drawing a direct equivalence between their financial situation and ours suggesting the ECB had somehow applied double standards. They haven’t. There is nothing they can do when a member club breaks no rules.
I'm no authority on business finance but Yorkshire have posted a loss of £7.5m and are at least £20m in debt and you're stating there's been no financial mismanagement? Durham's sanctions were for financial mismanagement.
Yorkshire have been on the verge of bankruptcy twice in the decade
Last edited:
MustardAndOnions
Midfield
Look at the thread title man
You’re talking about Durham in the thread. I still don’t know why. It’s got nothing to do with it
The 7.5m is due to this Rafiq farce mind. The bloke basically wanted the county to go bust and the MPs, the ECB and Patel nearly made it happen.
Was a complete hatchet job. I don’t like Colin graves but they’d have gone bust without him and talents like Brook and co would have nowhere to play.
Last edited:
Certainly a hatchet job and Rafiqgate was costly but not £7m costly. You seriously suggesting that Brook and Root wouldn't have been inundated with offers had Yorkshire folded?
The only point I'm making is that Yorkshire have been financially mismanaged for years.
Durham were and were punished. That's why Durham are brought into the discussion.
MustardAndOnions
Midfield
The next Root and Brook would have no club to go to
I can't even believe this a discussion tbh, people wantin Yorkshire to go bust just to prove some unrelated point to Durham, sorry makes no sense, I dont get it mate.
The punishment for Yorkshire was ay over the top, was ridiculous
brandon
Striker
Literally NOBODY has said that they want that.
Why do you invent things in order to gain the upper hand during an internet argument?
MustardAndOnions
Midfield
Then what are people moaning about? Its also not an argument
Yorkshire's punishment was too harsh, yet people are complaining its too soft
Nobody has said nor implied that they want Yorkshire to go bust. Both Durham and Yorkshire have been financially mismanaged.-that's the related point.
Hope this helps your understanding.
Don't understand your last sentence.
Last edited:
Of course not, they’re a basket case. But I am saying there is nothing that breaches ECB rules, and so nothing that the ECB could punish them for, and that accordingly the ECB is for once doing nothing biased, sinister, duplicitous or unfair in not punishing them.
If Yorkshire had come to the ECB for a bailout and the ECB had said of course chaps, here you are, no strings, keep the test matches that would have been treating them differently in the same scenario. This isn’t. It’s doing nothing because they have no power to do anything, pure and simple.
