I wasn't really focussing on or particularly agreeing with a specific element that would be impacted by less money coming in to the game. More that £100m loss (or thereabouts) would be significant and would knock the game for six in general.

I do agree that the solution is linked to player wages as more money in to the game = higher player wages. However, I do not subscribe to the view that 'player wages .... are now out of kilt with the real world'. They simply move with the money available.

The longer term view of any club, from 2014, will have to be how long player contracts at what level can be afforded if central funding is to drop substantially. And as most player contracts do not run to 4-5 years, then that issue won't have been addressed yet.

http://www.rosebowlplc.com/news/the-worlds-first-golbal-franchise-is-announced/

Interesting

But we are the Royals.....regardless of the other stuff, which I will digest later.

But if it is not a registered trade mark........

Registered trademark or not, the very least I would expect is for Bransgrove to pick up the phone to MN and explain the situation (that there was just too much dosh on offer to worry about marching all over someone's else's territory).

Puts out all the signs of a 'bigger' club walking roughshod over a perceived 'smaller' club.

http://www.cricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/447459.html

Hampshire Royals (formerly Hawks) will be treading on the toes of their Twenty20 Cup rivals, Worcestershire Royals. The two counties are understood to have already been in discussions.

Cashing in Stanford style. Another sad day for cricket, illustrating that the county game cannot support itself financially without desperate moves like this.

What happens to all the cheap nylon tat merchandise that we have stockpiled with the Royals name and logo on?. Maybe we could 'lose' it the next time the river floods and cop for some insurance.

I'd keep the Royals nickname anyway just for a bit of a laugh. Or maybe we could just call ourselves 'Worcestershire' in one day cricket. Do we really need to be called anything else?

This is exactly the sort of thing what annoys most cricket supporters. A " unique brand " and the sort of PR guff rolled out on a regular basis by those looking to make a quick buck and by those with careers to prolong.
Presumably another deafening silence from the ECB, although I imagine that all their freeloaders are still too busy packing their trunks before they pop off to launch " The ECB brand " in that well known cricketing hotspot of Abu Dhabi or whichever money pot they end up in.

I'm with manandvans - Worcestershire suits me fine.

Whilst I'm ranting, I always used to like Hampshire, they always struck me as a " nice " county, like us. I can remember Greenidge and Richards opening, Richard Gilliatt ( ? ) as Captain, John Rice, Trevor Jesty, Nigel Cowley, that sort of club and player. As a kid collecting autographs, they always were a pleasant bunch.
Now as for Surrey, I never liked them. Full of themselves, doing you a favour playing them, and pretty miserable with it, the sort of side that you could dislike for no particular reason, and for whom signing autographs was a bit of a chore. Funny how these early cricketing memories stay with you.
I'm now starting to think of Hampshire in the same way.

There is no unique brand in calling Hampshire the Royals. The very fact that it's WCCC's name rather undermines that PR hogwash.

Also not fussed about the name Royals. Hand on heart, I've never heard anyone refer to the team as the Royals, pears whatever. It's always Worcester.

On the Bransgrove mad-wagon idea, aren't there some serious flaws ? It's a ridiculous notion of 'your' team suddenly becoming four teams who you can support all year round - just writing that makes me laugh !! Did any of the gurus ask the Hants supporters if they would buy in to this ?

They talk about players moving between teams within 'the franchise'. Unless the ECB and others allow it, this simply isn't possible. Plus, how do they actually make money from this ? If clubs can't make money out of domestic T20 then flying three or four teams in from around the world, plus hotels etc kindof gets expensive.

........ this stupid idea will die a slow and well deserved death.

It is an intriguing concept...I notice you all beat me to posting about it!

Firstly, don't be surprised if the newly cash-laden Hampshire use some of Rajasthan's money to buy us off. I don't think for a minute calling themselves 'Royals' was Bransgrove's idea- Rajasthan Royals are clearly calling the shots and well-loaded with cash. I expect Bransgrove rang us and some terms have been agreed- don't be surprised if they have bought all the old stock and arranged a confidential cash settlement- after all, the ECB need to approve the name change and then there is the little matter of 'passing off'. This is not Law Reports- so I will leave an explanation of that for another day- but needless to say that we have a very good case in court to stop the whole thing without some money changing hands and Hampshire/Rajasthan providing indemnities for any of our losses.

Secondly, maybe we need a global alliance? Western Province [?] for Dolly; either Queensland or Western Australia; and an Indian side. We would be the junior partner sadly- and I feel that from today, the die is cast in favour of Indian provincial superiority- but we would have survival and security..and that, after all, is what Hants. have signed up for.

EDIT:

Suddenly,it's all the more frightening reading this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-1249470/Hampshire-join-Royal-family-new-franchise-set-change-face-cricket.html

Because 17 into 7 doesn't go.

Interesting to note the Rajasthan CEO- step forward ex PCA mainman Sean Morris.

I disagree WBB.

First fundamental problem is that yet again the bosses talk about financial security which drives this project, as with any other. But without ring-fencing the cash for the clubs' benefit then cricket is no further forward. What level of income does a club need to become secure and players content ?

I'm not against mini tournaments as such, they could be quite good fun. But it's better to run these things at arms-length than make long term plans I'd have thought.

I imagine we will threaten to take them to court and then back down as the season gets underway.Personally,I`d sell them the rights to this insignificant name today and see if we can get more success as the Pears or Cavaliers-our T20 record as the Royals stinks,anyway!