Kent had as good a case as Hamp­shire

The Cricket Paper - - VIEWS & FEATURE -

I MUST take is­sue with Derek Pringle's com­ments on the Durham sit­u­a­tion as it af­fects Hamp­shire and Kent.

He sug­gests that Hamp­shire have the strong­est case to play Di­vi­sion One cricket next sea­son. How so? They have had only two sea­sons in the top flight.

Last year they missed the drop at the last gasp by two points and this year they should have been rel­e­gated. Hardly an im­pres­sive record.

He says that Kent’s claim to pro­mo­tion seems ten­u­ous be­cause two down and one up was known at the be­gin­ning of the sea­son. But what was not known then was that it would be three down and one up. The logic for now mak­ing it three down and two up is in­escapable.

Kent also get ac­cused by him of try­ing to ben­e­fit from the sit­u­a­tion. But the Hamp­shire chair­man, Rod Brans­grove, is quoted as say­ing:“We’ve ben­e­fited from some­body else’s mis­for­tune.”

If it’s OK for Hamp­shire, why not for Kent?

There is also a veiled threat in his ar­ti­cle that tak­ing le­gal ac­tion could be ex­pen­sive.

If Kent want to spend their money on lawyers what busi­ness is it of his or any­body else’s?

If the ECB is found to have acted ul­tra vires by sav­ing Hamp­shire, then the fi­nan­cial ben­e­fit to Kent will far out­weigh the le­gal costs. AN­THONY HODGES

Broad­stairs GRUDG­ING ad­mi­ra­tion to Hamp­shire’s Mr Brans­grove.

In the im­me­di­ate af­ter­math of the Durham rel­e­ga­tion he set the agenda as “Hamp­shire re­prieved” be­fore any­one ques­tioned it.

JOHN REID, Maid­stone

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.