DURHAM RELEGATION REACTION!
The rights and wrongs of a sorry affair...
It is unusual for stick and carrot to be applied simultaneously as a solution but that is what the England and Wales Cricket Board have done to Durham by relegating them from Division One of the County Championship after easing their debt burden.
It is money for cold comfort, with Hampshire, resurrected to the top division after being relegated, the principal beneficiary.
Only the hardest of hearts, and there must be a few of those at the ECB given this decision, could not have felt sympathy for Durham, the last county to win first-class status back in 1992. Their dilemma – none of which is the fault of the players – is a fable of our sporting times. As a new county with big dreams they were encouraged to overreach themselves, not by some payday loan shark, but by the body now simultaneously punishing and helping them, the ECB.
Durham began their adventure in the County Championship 25 seasons ago by playing home games around the county at venues like the Racecourse ground in Durham, Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees. Part of the agreement to being awarded first-class status was to build a new stadium on a greenfield site. The Riverside stadium at Chester-le-Street has a magnificent backdrop in Lumley Castle, but it is halfway between Newcastle and Durham, just far enough away from both to be an inconvenience to casual fans.
In line with the ECB’s policies of staging international cricket it also had to be built to a high spec, which further increased cost and therefore debt. When people ask why grounds like the Riverside and the Ageas Bowl in Southampton should bid for international cricket there are probably two reasons. The first is that major benefactors, like Rod Bransgrove, who gave enormous amounts of time and money to creating the Ageas Bowl, wanted the best for their investment, which was international cricket or more accurately, the right to bid for it.
It also suited the ECB at the time to increase the number of Test match grounds in order to even-up voting patterns. Before that, the six traditional Test grounds, Lord’s, Headingley, Old Trafford, Trent Bridge, Edgbaston and the Oval (‘the haves’), would traditionally side with the Board while the other 12 counties (the ‘have nots’) would tend to vote against key matters of policy. But by getting Durham and Hampshire to become Test match grounds, traditional voting patterns were altered. Or at least that was the plan.
Durham is not without sin and there is no doubt that some of the club’s decisions – a playing staff that broke the salary cap bidding for Tests that were never going to pay their way in a region betrothed to football – have been flawed.
But there has never been any suggestion of impropriety. Incompetence, yes, but this is a big stick to wield for that wrongdoing, especially by those that encouraged the financial risk-taking, itself exacerbated by a recession in 2008 which few saw coming.
To punish them so comprehensively – by relegation; a further 48-point penalty in Division Two of the Championship next season; the removal of Test status; the docking of four and two points in the NatWest Blast and the Royal London Cup respectively – was obviously a strong deterrent to prevent other counties playing fast and loose with their finances.Yet, debt remains a problem with clubs both big and small, with Yorkshire and Warwickshire both servicing loans far bigger than the £3 million Durham have so far had written-off or repaid by the ECB.
But then as one ECB insider said during the summer after it was decided that the Board would assist Durham:“We really don’t want to set a precedent where the floodgates open and that the ECB becomes the lender of last resort to every county that is badly run.”
Since central contracts were introduced in 2000, it has been the raison d’etre of counties to provide players for England. On that front, at least since 2005, Durham have performed better than most having provided seven Test players, one fewer than Nottinghamshire and two fewer than Yorkshire, the leaders in that particular table.
It is not clear whether that was taken into account when deciding their punishment. If not, it is about time the ECB rewarded counties more handsomely for the England players they produce.
They have also achieved on the home front, winning three Championships and the odd cup though not without criticism after breaking the salary cap in 2012. Durham immediately rectified the matter but a precedent, albeit an unfortunate one given that several England players previously on central contracts returned to Durham in 2012 to inflate the wage bill, had been set. Which is why sympathy from other counties is not widespread given Durham stayed up with a team, the prolific Keaton Jennings among them, they could only afford with a leg-up from the ECB.
Inevitably, given the upheaval, there have been those, Kent, who have tried to benefit from Durham’s relegation. Instead of Hampshire being handed a reprieve, Kent, second in Division Two, believe they should be promoted and are seeking legal advice as a result.
Their claim seems tenuous and before they spend money they don’t have on expensive lawyers, the mechanism of one up from Division Two and two down from Division One, was well established before Durham’s woes came to light.
Kent’s only hope is to prove that the ECB acted ultra vires in resurrecting Hampshire, who given Durham’s misfortune, also have the stronger case to play Division One cricket next season.
Durham achieved on the home front, winning three Championships and the odd cup though not without criticism after breaking the salary cap in 2012