What about a nomination of a 'top 7 squad' in which those players are eligible to fulfill 2 season contracts?
Or you something similar just make it each club can offer out 5 2 season contracts a season or something similar.
Still, whats the point? Most likely 7 of those top 7, you know will stay anyway, so 2 season contracts for such a thing is redundant.
Who would of thought Gemmell would break away and create his own club at the beginning of the season? Who would of thought Ged would leave his beloved Sticky Wickets and start the Stingrays (even if it was eventual). It could work if each season that the top 7 were nominated and are eligible for 2 season contracts. That doesn't mean the player will SIGN it though but the club (or even Rob?) has to nominated those 7 or whatever number and then the club can offer them 2 season which puts it back on the player to accept it. Eg. Season 9: Player A (2 - For Season 9 and 10) Player B (2 - For Season 9 and 10) Player C (2 - For Season 9 and 10) Player D (1 - For Season 9) Player E (1 - For Season 9) Player F (2 - For Season 9 and 10) Player G (2 - For Season 9 and 10) Season 10: Player A (1 - For Season 11) Player B (1 - For Season 11) Player C (1 - For Season 11) Player D (2 - For Season 10 and 11) Player E (1 - For Season 10) Player F (2 - For Season 11 and 12) Player G (1 - For Season 11) The idea has a number of variations for Rob to play with but it has merit IMO. @ Jabba. You just copied what I said and changed the number. What do they do in NZ schools?
I'm all for it. Really, this compensates for inept ability to run teams, doing tis would hep (Not cure) the fact that we don't have enough members ATM who are capable of running a team and some that are capable are at clubs that they are loyal to. I would say ATM there is about 6-7 blokes that are worthy candidates for club ownership and not all of them are presidents, so for the blokes that really don't have the time or don't have a good senior group. on the other hand, clubs like Vipers, Gamblors & Stingrays would in the end have a small advantage from it because they don't neccesarily go after the most loyal and this would help trap players around longer, although, clubs like Cyclones, Ravens and SWXI wouldn't really be at a disadvantage, their work that is put into obtaining loyal members isn't as usefull. all in all, I'm for it because it helps the petty clubs.
The Vipers are a joke, only reason you haven't lost anyone is because there is nobody worthy enough for other teams to approach. Maybe the Stingrays or Gamblors asked some of you guys but lets face it, that's like choosing to drink piss or eat shit.
Gamblers will get to the point where they realise they won't be able to fill two full sides, so they'll sign dead set anyone. So look out Vipers.
I don't see why people can't sign contracts guaranteeing BS and such. I don't mean say I sign with the Ravens and am gauranteed to bat at no.7 all season, but say a fringe player is stuck in reggies, they can sign a contract that guarantees them x amount of BS games. A full season isn't really applicable as even the best bowler in cricsim spends a bit of time in the ALC, but it would make it so that newer players aren't going to new clubs with false hope.
Because each team must play their best team each round. If guarantees are in place, this wont happen.
i was thinking of this the other day actually i dunno if its neccesarily a good thing though, really only the incredibly loyal players should be signed up long term
