Random Cricket Thread (Domestic Cricket)

[sussexpob]

Benefactors putting interest on lending money is standard practice. It's used as a tool to recover the monies owed. If the borrower makes progress on repayment and a realistic chance of paying off in full, there is scope to renegotiate the original agreement

Yorkshire are registered as a bona fide co-operative society. The literal legal definition of such companies forbids them to pursue making profits in order to pay interest or debt owed to its members in the form of money lent or loaned - its literally says that in the first section of the 2014 Cooperative and Communities Socities Act and is the only way such companies are defined. BFCS's can loan money to finance whatever stated goals that they have, but only in so much as it facilities those aims - once debt spirals to the point that its repayment has to become the sole aim of the company, the company itself act ultra vires.

Membership in such societies has to have actual autonomy, but I think its clear in this case that this isnt the case. Graves, acting in his capacity as main creditor, he re-taken control of the board on the basis that he controls the debt, and its very clear considering the fact that Yorkshire tried everything to find someone else, that the club did not want him, but had to accept him. The bottom line is, this is no longer a co-operative society, but a creditor using his debt to control the aims of the club in order to pay that debt off. That, as far as the law states, isnt allowed, but the law itself is very poorly written (As it allows members to loan to their societies, but only as so far as that loan does not buy influence or switch the operations of the society towards its payment or burden).... Its pretty clear that these sorts of examples are ones that slip under the radar. They are ignored, and certainly against the aims and spirit of the law.

But should it be allowed? Graves has been part of the mismanagement of the club, he now gets to mold that club into an entity that specifically is focused towards paying him money. I can't see why that is right. He should never have been allowed to invest such huge sums into the club, because that created dependency, which in turned broke the bond of membership independence and unfettered interest in the cricketing side.

People like Graves should be held accountable for every single cost, and justify why that promoted Yorkshire crickets interests. What good is it to say he spend millions rebuilding a stadium for instance, if doing that bankrupts the society? It surely cannot be defended ?

One vote, one member.... no matter if you put in 50 quid or 500 million, thats what the law said. It really doesn't feel like the situation at the club is democratic, because the fact is Graves has created a scenario where he is the only answer, from his own mismanagement. Way to fall upwards, I guess.

If Graves really wanted to make money, Yorkshire CCC would be a limited company by now and members lose their voting rights. If anything, the voting rights criteria has broadened. Just buying a One Day Cup membership, costing £50 enables voting rights. Whereas the cheapest way of obtaining voting rights was a full membership costing around £240. As a result, my voting rights have been restored after 11 years.

I am not sure Graves can do such a thing legally. Well, he could if he bankrupted the entity that exists now, and reformed something new in its place. But unless the membership vote for their own extinction, its not his call to make I would believe. I am not an expert on this, so can be corrected.

I do really like the new Yorkshire membership system of "building your own season ticket" thing. Be interested to see how that pans out, many counties will no doubt be looking at it and doing it themselves if it works.

[Alviro Patterson]

Graves providing finance to Yorkshire is within how a co-operative society works. Leeds City Council have provided Yorkshire with a loan with an interest rate of 3.5%. HSBC have provided the club with finance in form of an overdraft facility.

If there is someone to be held accountable for Yorkshire's current financial plight, it is the ECB' for insisting counties must upgrade their grounds just to host international cricket. This in effect has turned the County into Leeds CC in all but name. The most ironic thing is that Leeds does not have even have league cricket in the city.

My bigger concern is that The Hundred teams is open to private investors. Which makes a mockery of the ECB model.

[sussexpob]

If there is someone to be held accountable for Yorkshire's current financial plight, it is the ECB' for insisting counties must upgrade their grounds just to host international cricket. This in effect has turned the County into Leeds CC in all but name.

The distribution of test matches has to be done on the basis of merit, because counties that host lucrative matches gain distinction financial and competitive advantages from the extra money. If the ECB were to simply award games to the handful of 5 or 6 traditional test venues every single year, then it is akin to soldifying a monopoly of these clubs in the game. The county championship has only been won by two teams from non-test match grounds since the late 90s, and in Sussex's case we happened to win the county championship just after inhereting millions of Spen Cama's money when he died (which we then spent winning championships, and have been relegated and do nothing since it ran out).

The problem is, by setting such an open and fair critieria, the ECB have also encouraged too many counties to take high risks in search of their slice of the pie. And then there is a second dividing on matches around suitable venues, based on the quality of venue. We have ended with 9 international venues, with 3 or 4 realistically only hosting a game once every blue moon. This is simply not enough to have justified the risk of investment.

But what do the ECB do? If they were to step in and inform teams wanting to invest in their test match capability, that they wouldnt be awarded matches so do not take the risk, then its extremely unfair. And in actual fact, I doubt the ECB would have the legal power to do so, because they would have to be impartial and cannot simply favour historical counties without a judgement based on merit. Its a tough question. I would have personally liked to see the ECB being very clear to counties that invested in their grounds in hope of test cricket, that there would be a clear plan and clear indication of how much cricket that investment bought.

At the end of the day though, the counties have to take responsibility. They chased high-risk, high-reward results, and if it backfires its their problem.

[sussexpob]

My bigger concern is that The Hundred teams is open to private investors. Which makes a mockery of the ECB model.

Going to be great for the English game when the only profitable part of the summer is going to Indian IPL teams. County cricket wont exist by 2040