Brutal Durham punishment reflects poorly on ECB

If it is the brutality of the ECB’s decision to punish Durham that strikes first, it is the inconsistency that follows close behind.

Oh, yes. There is some logic in the ECB’s stance. A financial punishment would clearly have been inappropriate and this action – relegation and a heavy points deductions for next season – certainly sends out a strong deterrent.

Against what though, is unclear. Against building a ground in an out-of-town location more than 20 years ago? Against bidding for international games in an over-crowded market place? Against slipping into debt? If so, the ECB needs to be relegating a few other teams.

The only difference between Durham and Glamorgan is that, at Durham, the creditors – notably the local council – declined to waive the debt. In Cardiff, they allowed the taxpayer to pick up the bill. Warwickshire owe Birmingham City Council around £20m and have already benefited from a “repayment holiday”.

So, if the ECB is to be consistent, shouldn’t Glamorgan, who were stripped of a Test in 2012 and obliged to swap a fixture in 2013 after struggling to pay staging agreements for Sri Lanka Test in 2011, be treated in the same manner?

And what is the difference between Durham and Hampshire? Or, indeed, Yorkshire? Hampshire, the beneficiaries of this action, have been bailed out to the tune of £10m or more by Rod Bransgrove, while Yorkshire are indebted to Colin Graves. The club owes – and continues to pay interest upon – trusts set-up by Graves totalling £24m. All were insolvent. The difference is that Hampshire and Yorkshire found benefactors; Durham found judgement. The ECB, with reserves of £70m and more, could have taken a more sympathetic approach.

Such was Yorkshire’s plight that, in interviews with ESPNcricinfo, Graves referred to Yorkshire as bankrupt and “48 hours from being written off”. So we can only presume that Durham are not being punished for financial mismanagement but for failing to find a sugar daddy to bail them out.

Did Durham have to be punished at all? Might the ECB not have reflected that it was, at least in part, complicit in Durham’s descent into debt? Might it not have concluded that, having encouraged Durham to build an international venue – a condition of being granted first-class status in 1992 – and then given them a May Test against Sri Lanka starting on a Friday, it had contributed to the difficulties the club has faced?

Might it not have reflected that, by encouraging the counties to bid against one another to host international games, things were always going to end this …

continue reading in source www.espncricinfo.com