Another thing that Kolpaks have done- because the market is now more scarce:this is really Economics 101 when you think about it- is to really push up wage demands from Home players.

Harmy is on 600k over 4 years on his new Durham deal..leaving Bumpy to say this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/counties/worcestershire/8331304.stm

I thought it was the IPL and unscrupulous agents driving up domestic and international player wage demands?

I have seen conflicting information regarding the cost of Kolpaks but the counties are going after them not the other way around so they must be cheaper than domestic players.

Depending what packages the counties are offering if you consider 1GBP = 12.8 Rand and that the adjusted cost of living in Johannesburg is 55% that of London it adds up.

Of course 90% of cricketers don't live in those cities (for various reasons) but you get my point.

They are consistently cheaper than their English equivalents and its the restrictions on them that is helping driving domestic wages up, plus a few other things like the new prize money, and the new incentives on young players. The ECB never quite think things through IMO.

As Sweaty and Kim will tell you kolpaks are my pet subject. I do not think the new rules go far enough as they should stop any new ones and once the current kolpaks contracts expire they should be proper OS. The counties should be allowed 2 OS
per team as they used to and indeed some of these kolpaks would get contracts as Os but alot would not as they are not even ints and moderate county players
ie Smith Derby
Flower
Kruger
Ireland
Du Plessis
Du Toit and Claude Henderson
Berg Dexter( may now be Uk)
Would any of these become proper OS players and have they
really improved CC?? Not imo.
Get rid of those 9 and that leaves about 16 left who could become proper OS if counties played 2 OS.

Apologies for interrupting this thread sussexsteve, but I have been trying to contact you by PM and email - could you please send me a PM with your email address?

Admin

PM sent to you with my email address.

Have now read elsewhere that in addition to the 2xU22's and 3xU26's, counties are limited to 4x028's so have updated the table accordingly. As previous this assumes that for each 028 over and above this there is a 1000 fine.
OS K NEQ U26 U22 O28 Payment Fines Balance

Worcs 1 0 1 3 2 3 260,000 0 260,000
Leics 0 1 0 4 2 3 320,000 -80,000 240,000
Warks 1 0 1 2 2 4 200,000 0 200,000
Middx 1 1 1 3 1 4 220,000 -80,000 140,000
Notts 1 1 0 2 2 5 200,000 -120,000 80,000
Yorks 0 2 0 2 2 1 200,000 -160,000 40,000
Glam 0 0 1 2 0 6 120,000 -80,000 40,000
Derby 1 1 2 1 1 2 100,000 -80,000 20,000
Sussex 1 2 0 3 0 4 180,000 -160,000 20,000
Lancs 1 1 1 2 0 5 120,000 -120,000 0
Essex 1 0 2 1 0 6 60,000 -80,000 -20,000
Gloucs 1 0 2 0 1 6 40,000 -80,000 -40,000
Surrey 1 2 1 2 0 4 120,000 -160,000 -40,000
Durham 0 2 3 1 0 3 60,000 -160,000 -100,000
N'hants 0 3 0 0 2 4 80,000 -240,000 -160,000
Hants 1 2 1 0 1 5 40,000 -200,000 -160,000
Somerset 1 3 2 1 0 3 60,000 -240,000 -180,000
Kent 0 2 1 1 0 7 60,000 -280,000 -220,000

We come out on top but will have to juggle Solanki, Mason, Kabir, Smith & Richardson - but can't see this being an issue. Notts, Lancs, Hants - 5, Glam, Essex & Gloucs - 6 and Kent -7 are the main offenders. The current make-up of Kents squad is the the furthest from the ECB 'norm'. But then are the PCA and the counties going to be told how old and from where 9/11 of their squad can be?

This is all a bit unsatisfactory as I have also read that the maximum ECB payment is actually 82,000 which IMO is an insufficient incentive to any county to comply - it is only 1.5 to 2 squad players salaries. Let normal (lip)service resume

It is interesting to note that adding all the balances, the net is only 100,000 (not withstanding Derbyshire is missing..)

Derbyshire now added - of course the financial numbers used are completely arbitary and the system is simplified - if the ECB say you must have 3 under 26's I don't think for a moment that they will reward a county 33% of the sum for playing 1. Your point is taken though - are the ECB robbing Peter to pay Paul?

I do wonder though if the counties that came in for and have pulled out of the Hoggard chase following discussions have considered the ECB quota in their strategies? A request for considerable dosh seems to be the reason for Kents apparent withdrawal but their probable first eleven next year has 7 EQ players over 28 (Tredwell, Jones, Stevens, Cook, Key, Khan & Hockley) whereas Leics have just 3 (Harris, Nixon & Jefferson). Similarly Essex are likely to field 6 (Foster, Napier, Masters, Walker, Phillips & Maunders). Hoggard appears to be hanging out for a test match county but ironically the only club able to accomodate Hoggard without rocking the ECB boat are Yorkshire with only McGrath over 28 in the first xi.

Given the max. 82K pat on the head mentioned it probably hasn't crossed the test counties minds...

I can't see the PCA wearing this ECB misguided nonsense, and rightly so. They have a duty to protect their members. The first principle is that players get picked on merit not birthdate. Then one goes about limiting overseas and Kolpaks. To blindly reward quotas based on age, irrespective of quality, is plainly wrong, and does nothing to raise the quality and standards.

Interesting observation by Graeme Smith about Kolpaks in this article from Friday's Telegraph (last five paragraphs)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/6555217/South-Africas-Graeme-Smith-stirs-it-up-ahead-of-England-series.html

Smith trying to start a war of words ! I did hear a Sth African joke the other day (was it on here ?) : where do the England players stay when touring Sth Africa ? Answer :: with their parents