Counties fear the loss of their assets (13 May 1999)

13 May 1999

Counties fear the loss of their assets

Michael Henderson

The reformers who want to transform English cricket by taking the best players away from their counties, putting them on central contracts and making them employees of the England and Wales Cricket Board, will meet fierce opposition at Lord's today.

When the First Class Forum (the 18 counties and MCC) meet to discuss the recommendations of a report drawn up by Don Trangmar, the chairman of Sussex, the debate will be full and frank. There is sufficient scepticism within the first class game to lend spice to proceedings, and it is likely a vote will be deferred to the autumn meeting in October.

The case against the report will be prosecuted by Mark Arthur, the chief executive of Nottinghamshire, who said: "We can't vote for it and we have alerted the board to that fact. We believe they have to get the structure of English cricket right before they look at central contracts.

"There are all manner of things, relating to pensions and benefits, that must be thought through. English cricket must come first but we are not confident in the current structure." Arthur said he was "looking for common sense"; in other words, a referral of the matter back to the clubs for further deliberation.

Nottinghamshire can expect support from many other counties, notably Lancashire, whose chief executive, Jim Cumbes, was explicit in his criticism of the Trangmar Report.

The matter of compensation (£61,000 per player) was not enough, he said, and if the proposals were carried through, cricket could become a semi-professional sport. "How will young players become better unless they are playing against the best cricketers? And how will we bring in casual spectators when the best players are not playing? These are important matters."

Cumbes believes that a figure of £100,000 would be appropriate if Andrew Flintoff was taken away from Lancashire on a six-month contract, to come into effect next spring.

"Yet we are producing players like Flintoff and not getting anything for it. We have the player, but we don't have him playing for us, and these are the people who generate money for the rest of the game. If we had him playing for Lancashire in a day-night game against Yorkshire, say, and Gough was playing for them, that would bring a few through the gate. They're taking our assets away from us."

Arthur believes the matter can be dealt with easily. "The England supremo, be he coach, team manager, or whatever, has the power to withdraw a player from domestic cricket at any time. If that is maintained, it is not going to cost the board so much money and the player will have a home base."

He also highlights another problem, not properly considered so far. "The players on contracts will be perceived as 'elite' cricketers and they will have a hard time if they are released from their contracts and have to fit into the dressing room back at their clubs."

Source :: Electronic Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk)