Was the name 'Royals' taken up because of the Royal porcelain connection, or the Civic motto given us by Charles II , ''Civitas in Bello et Pace Fidelis''? As the porcelain has gone now, we could think up a new name. Perhaps we could start a new thread.

I don't see why we need change our name. Derbyshire, Surrey and now Hants. chose to- but why should we be forced to?

My complaint is not the loss of the "Royals" name, which as several of you have said is only of marginal relevance to us, but the fact that we have allowed Hampshire to ride over us again. I am very concerned at the loss of any stock in the shop with that name (unless Hants are paying us for that loss), unless we are both going to be called "Royals", after all there are several footy teams called "United".

However my main concern is that this global franchising will create a huge gap in revenue, far bigger than it already is, and so large that we will never be competitive again, indeed, I feel for the first time that we might struggle to survive in the medium term. A bad feeling, indeed

........ on the other hand, many Indians, New Zealanders etc might get confused and buy our shirts by mistake. It could be a cunning ploy after all !

I was told yesterday that the Committee of the time had originally chosen Cavaliers as our name and Graham Thorley-the Commercial Manager and his assistant,Steve Rhodes-yes,he!-had done a great deal of work to introduce the nomenclature to the masses.Unfortunately,Mike Vockins took exception to the name as he felt it smacked of insincerity and louche behaviour and managed to inflict the much `softer`Royals title on the team.I took the trouble to look up `Cavaliers` in Brewers Dictionary of Phrase and Fable this morning where `The Cavaliers` are described as `The Royalists or adherents of Charles I at the time of the Civil War.`It adds `their opponents were the Roundhads`so perhaps, he should have opted for that alternative! History lesson now over-please leave the room quietly!

I read this story on the BBC.....in two minds as to my views.

It is a big and grand two fingers to Hampshire and Slurry- in fact the question there is of a Portsmouth effect in a year or two given the expenditure inwards and the resulting collapse in income. Quite funny for many, I am sure.

But bad news in the future for the rest of us- potentially.

Brigham- a Rupert Murdoch employee like the rest of The Wisden Cricketer now, don't forget- heeds His Master's Voice with a call for 10 teams....and then rambles about a shorter season from May to August. How far are we going back here then- to 1972 or 1892?

The real answer doesn't lie, I predict, in snuggling up to Murdoch as it didn't to Stanford. It lies in recognising that the powerbase now lies in India and devising- a la women's cricket- four superteams- the Reds, the Blues, the Yellows and the Greens- to play in these supercompetitions. Domestically, it may or may not lie in a regionalisation of the Twenty20, loss leading on reduced membership rates for a year or two, early October play, free to air Ashes [if nothing else] and maybe even as a last resort, a cap in both salaries and in squad sizes that may be more savage in both departments than we can imagine. But that is back to 1955- not 1855.

It does lie in defending an independent Worcestershire, playing Championship and Sunday League cricket. And that, at least, is something that Brigham signally fails to do.

Is this Daniel Brigham G Dobell in disguise ?

daniel Brigham says:
February 11th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
It’s not just journalists Bomber. I love county cricket but it’s stagnant and unmarketable in its present form. Things simply have to move forward to survive, and that just isn’t happening.
If you’re happy to sit at a freezing New Road ground in April with 60 other people then fine, but it’s not doing anything for the greater good of cricket in this country.

I think we all agree that there is a problem with English cricket but it's more about the distribution of income than anything else. As for this writer/article, all we have here is yet another wannabe writer who finds it all too easy to say 'it's broke' but hasn't come up with any solutions. Reducing the number of teams is his only (and unoriginal) idea, and we know that won't work.

Some of these 'younger guys' look at the IPL, the money etc with starry eyes and think it's a formula that will automatically work here. It won't. The dynamics in India are completely different, and correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't we already got a deal with Sky - the best cricket has ever had.

...... now a proper suggestion might be that when the next TV rights bid come along we bring in India, revamp one or two competitions that generates interest and revenue in India, and this would also open the door for free-to-air cricket.

Always amuses me that the answer is less teams when the last extra team they let in, Durham, produce half the England test side.

"the ECB flippantly ruled out MCC chief executive’s Keith Bradshaw’s well though-out and argued proposal for an English rival to the IPL."

It wasnt flippant. It was, according to Giles Clarke, based on research that showed the English cricketing public wasnt interested in artificial franchise based teams.

Kim, I see Warks are now linked to a franchise although they're waiting for details. How would supporters react, given what you've said about the way they get treated and the financial state of the club ? I'm sure it was Warks who were very anti 'franchise' when discussed 2 years ago, so this is quite a turnaround.

The smell of what they see as easy porridge is too tempting for most Bears

.....and that's the issue.


I've been doing a little Googling- freeish afternoon- and noted that:

The consensus is that Rajasthan Royals want to create a worldwide brand- hence Victoria having a long hard think about it. The MCG as a mere outpost? What are Hampshire letting themselves in for?

Bumble wonders if Hampshire can remain in the County Championship if they are in this franchise.

Somerset CEO Richard Gould openly wonders if the Championship will survive past 2013 and views the next few years as a possible steady flow of resignations.

It's not good to Google on this theme....

Many counties are deciding which way to jump based on various issues

a) Franchise situation
b) Sky funding
c) Player squads & wages
d) Basic survival

The real issue for many of the smaller clubs is (d) but not just based on making the books balance. The over-riding concern could be that some counties will disappear altogether from the professional arena.

In my humble opinion, WCCC's key issue is how to put itself in a position not to be in the most likely 3-4 counties to suffer a terminal fate.

So, who would forum members believe would face the axe before WCCC, particularly as there only 9 first class counties who now cannot stage a Test Match?

Of the other 9 (inc WCCC), Essex, Sussex and Somerset have good incomes and recent success / strong squads. In the short term, they couldn't be viewed as 'weaker' counties.

The issue is for WCCC to stay ahead of Derbyshire, Kent, Gloucestershire, Leicestershire and Northants.

Is that possible and what do we have to do to ensure that happens?