Off The Field continued

Donnylad

Well-known member
Interesting decisions - Josh Sullivan I expected when he didn't make the RLODC squads, but Harry looked a reasonable bowler, and has the advantage over Shutt of being a left armer, so less similar to Bess. Loten...I would have advocated for earlier in the year, but he did sort of impress in the RLODC and we are starting to look a little thin in terms of depth again - I mean, thats three in (one of them one of our Overseas slots) and seven out.
They were put in the frame by the assistant coach at the start of the RLODC right enough. Agree about Sullivan H ....... please remember these postings when one of them or one of the departees gives us a stuffing in seasons to come!!
 

Hawke

Administrator
Staff member
I wondered if HS was going to play at OT. He has the advantage of being a left armer. Sad day for them all but best of luck in the future. We have signed two seamers and with limited finances Loten was vulnerable but he does also bat. Well time will tell.
I hope DG has not made the decision.
With all the South Africans etc playing in this country, options to go to other counties are more limited than in days gone by.
 

Tykemania

Active member
Loten does, as you say, bat. But I suppose he is behind Lyth, Masood, Hill, Root, Brook, Bairstow, Malan, Ballance, Bean, Fraine, Duke, Tattersall, Revis and Wharton in that regard.

I know a lot of it is England calls, but we do have an imbalance in the squad.
 

Hawke

Administrator
Staff member
Speaking of the old familiar theme, the Rafiq affair, there was a report in the Daily Mail on the subject...the newspaper is not usually on my reading list but seems to be prepared to challenge the accepted themes and publicise inadequacies in AR camp's accusations...

 

tbsteve

Active member
As others, I'm surprised and a little saddened to see HS and Loten go - both seem to have something about them and have shown signs of improvement. They both did ok in the Royal London and surely these are the types of players we should be developing - isn't that why we have coaches? Our depth is looking weak again, and come next August when the Hundred starts, we'll be again looking for players to fill the gaps so that we can play.

Of course, as Hawke alluded to with Williams, they don't help us show equal opportunities. I hope that isn't the reason, but it's not a stretch to imagine the hierarchy wanting a more diverse range of junior pros.
 

tbsteve

Active member
Just reading the OS, our chief clown (or acting director of cricket as he claims to be) says there are limited squad sizes and difficult decisions to be made. So these 3, plus Willey, TKC, Waite and Patto mean 7 out and four in - Bean remember was signed up this year mid-season.

If squad sizes are so tight, why sign Mike, who hasn't done all that much.

I'm also surprised that there's been no mention of Wharton leaving. I don't think he's played in any match since July, and then there is the 4th keeper, Birkenhead. Other who watch the academy may know, is there a huge pool of youngsters waiting for their first pro contract?
 

Newby

Well-known member
It might all come to down to finances at the end of the day and the squad of players we are talking about are not the only ones who we have to pay for.

We now how professional women's cricket and, although I'm not completely au fait with how they are financed, the Northern Diamonds must be taking some financial resources out of the club.

I note they have a game on Sunday at Headingley in the Rachael Heyhoe Flint trophy 50 over competition, for which the entry is free.

Lots of places I don't want to go with this but it is a factor when it comes to the wage bill.
 

Hawke

Administrator
Staff member
yes finances following Covid, Ukraine but mostly, the allegations and pay outs
 

Karma

Well-known member
Just reading the OS, our chief clown (or acting director of cricket as he claims to be) says there are limited squad sizes and difficult decisions to be made. So these 3, plus Willey, TKC, Waite and Patto mean 7 out and four in - Bean remember was signed up this year mid-season.

If squad sizes are so tight, why sign Mike, who hasn't done all that much.

I'm also surprised that there's been no mention of Wharton leaving. I don't think he's played in any match since July, and then there is the 4th keeper, Birkenhead. Other who watch the academy may know, is there a huge pool of youngsters waiting for their first pro contract?

Are the difficult decisions about squad sizes anything to do with Lord P's hamfisted 'unconstitutional actions' when he was first appointed and seemed to make decisions which were not permissible and have cost £000's .???

This has nothing to do with the 'Headingley Sixteen' where I see another of them has quite rightly just been awarded a payment but because of a NDA we have no way of knowing the individual amount (total estimated compensation runs into seven figures). Can't spend the same money on squads and payouts.

I'm still unhappy about how we got Lord P, was it a YCCC free choice or was it a 'take it or suffer' appointment from the ECB?
 
Last edited:

Hawke

Administrator
Staff member
Surely suffer etc
There is the £200,000 to AR plus presumably large amounts to MM and MA and wasn’t a much bigger sum set aside in anticipation of having to compensate the 16.... which was an early admission that their sackings would be successfully challenged....I’m amazed we don’t need to release more players.
 

Donnylad

Well-known member
Interesting reads, both the CW reports.

The 'f-o back to Zimbabwe' statement is not a racist comment ...... if he had added 'you w****e so-and-so' then maybe. It is a red herring really.
It seems to me that the coach is hopping from stone to stone rather than get his feet wet by deciding if he wants GB .. or he doesn't...... I feel m'learned friend's advice has been issued.

The second report has a key phrase ... 'an employment tribunal ruled that the club did not follow a fair procedure and that he was unfairly dismissed on procedural grounds'. I have said this before - procedure is one thing but it is not a judgement of the facts of the matter of the case. What the letter said or claimed or was about is not judged by this (probably expensive) response which deals with the proper process of employment law.
 

Hawke

Administrator
Staff member
yes the procedural grounds are probably costing us over a million pounds......as well as undermining or indeed, in some cases, wrecking reputations and, in one case at least, a career

I am not sure if a judgment on the accusations will ever be made....though the ECB are investigating/interviewing a number of people this autumn....but they have self-interest

I think the Parliamentary sub-committee, and indeed public, would have interpreted "F.... o.. back to P....." as racist
 

Karma

Well-known member
I only joined this Forum in early Summer this year and it might be that you've' done to death' some topics so please bear with me

I think we are agreed that compensation is being paid for incorrect procedure by YCCC via Lord P. This does not though explain why those employees were sacked and if there is 'no reason' given by YCCC then it is impossible to defend or counter-argue by those individuals. Many have been through a tribunal once, so I believe they have no grounds for going through another tribunal. And difficult to re-gain their professional standing, though fortunately some have and gained new employment. Having to sign NDA's doesn't help and is almost like the excellent explanation of the Rugby appeals procedure elsewhere on this forum ie talk and it could get worse.

Yes, there has been mention of a letter that most signed (but apparently one didn't) but so what? What is the reason? I don't like a 'reason' that is a nebulous 'you've not moved on'. That doesn't mean anything in relation to the 'Headingley Sixteen' or to me as a member. You must have grounds for dismissing someone (or sixteen)

This does not include from Lord P, ' You are not accepting my decision that there has been institutional racism at YCCC, and any dissent puts at risk the return of International Cricket at Headingley'. This implies that, they were thrown under a bus, sacked for money and not because they were bad employees. Affecting someone's professional standing as well as future earning potential can place a tremendous strain (not just financial) on sacked individuals and families too. Well, when it comes to balancing the books, I suppose YCCC, and Lord P will have a lot of weight on the debit side.

John Lennon wrote a bitter song to/about Paul McCartney:'How do you Sleep?'

Well Lord P?
 

Karma

Well-known member
E-mail from YCCC today @ 17:42 basically cancelling the EGM on 13th September following the "Death of HM The Queen... and as we follow a period of national reflection........ New date will be notified after the funeral ....

With respect to the High-Performance Review, we will ensure that we allocate appropriate time ........to actively engage and consult with our members and key partners to understand their views."
 

Newby

Well-known member
E-mail from YCCC today @ 17:42 basically cancelling the EGM on 13th September following the "Death of HM The Queen... and as we follow a period of national reflection........ New date will be notified after the funeral ....

With respect to the High-Performance Review, we will ensure that we allocate appropriate time ........to actively engage and consult with our members and key partners to understand their views."
I did see some speculation, I think it was in the Daily Telegraph, that the ECB now realised they had left it all too late to consult properly with all the stakeholders, and that next season would be the same as this, with hopefully just a bit of tweaking.

That would include 14 CC games and 14 T20 blast group games with the RLODC once again playing alongside the hundred.

Can't find the article now, will try again later.
 

tbsteve

Active member
Interesting reads, both the CW reports.

The 'f-o back to Zimbabwe' statement is not a racist comment ...... if he had added 'you w****e so-and-so' then maybe. It is a red herring really.
It seems to me that the coach is hopping from stone to stone rather than get his feet wet by deciding if he wants GB .. or he doesn't...... I feel m'learned friend's advice has been issued.

The second report has a key phrase ... 'an employment tribunal ruled that the club did not follow a fair procedure and that he was unfairly dismissed on procedural grounds'. I have said this before - procedure is one thing but it is not a judgement of the facts of the matter of the case. What the letter said or claimed or was about is not judged by this (probably expensive) response which deals with the proper process of employment law.
Isn't that racist? Wasn't Gales comment on the kolpack similar? I don't remember any mention of skin color then. This notion of racist is getting very subjective and seems to have a higher threshold for some than others!
 

Karma

Well-known member
I did see some speculation, I think it was in the Daily Telegraph, that the ECB now realised they had left it all too late to consult properly with all the stakeholders, and that next season would be the same as this, with hopefully just a bit of tweaking.

That would include 14 CC games and 14 T20 blast group games with the RLODC once again playing alongside the hundred.

Can't find the article now, will try again later.
I must admit I originally thought that the major changes set out in The High-level Review had been put back until 2024 because there was such a groundswell from supporters opposed, basically to most of the report. But from the Telegraph article it seems that the ECB has owned up to making a mistake in being tardy with its procedures (had to be a first time they would admit doing something wrong)

I actually think the reason given for cancelling the EGM is a bit of a cop-out, the meeting could still have gone ahead, and also gone ahead on-line too. As the CC game v Essex starts next week (but the EGM will not proceed), how are the players and other staff going to have a period of reflection following the death of our Queen (i.e. as set out in the FULL announcement on Friday evening) Both should proceed

I may be biased and not a major fan of Lord P, but I must say I think he's acting a bit like our last PM. I seem to recall Johnson taking an urgent but non-important and expensive trip to the Far East to avoid answering questions in Parliament whilst he was foreign Secretary and also hiding in a fridge when cornered by journalist when PM. Ducking the issue.

Lord P would likely get questions not just upon the High-Level Review but also in relation to high publicity and highly topical cases of the 'Headingely Sixteen', some of whom have been awarded serious amounts of money but who have been forced to sign NDA's. Doesn't mean however we can't bring the subject up as we're not subject to NDA's. To avoid this, he's cancelled the EGM in my opinion.

I appreciate others will take a different view. My fear for the High-Level Review and consultation is that this drip drip propaganda from Strauss
and others will lead to a much smaller and more muted response from members and other stakeholders if put back for a year.

As regards doing the meeting on-line as well, feedback from YCCC is that it would be too difficult to arrange. However, I can recall a similar meeting proceeding two years ago with pretty modest numbers attending in person but with an on-line facility to watch and listen. I did watch and listen on-line, and they read out and answered a question I'd previously submitted in writing about Livestreaming future games. They also appealed on-line for more in person attendance so a proper quorum for voting was present. More turned up in person.
 
Top