It is often said that you can do anything if you have the money, and in the modern world that may be true, but I believe there are certain things that money can’t buy! Remember the Beatles and their big hit in the Sixties “Money can’t buy me love,” although I’m told by some female acquaintances that it sure makes an older man look prettier if he has mega bucks in the bank! But when all’s said and done, money can buy certain things, and if you have the buying clout then it all depends on what you see as important in your life.
Will Manchester City turn the Premiership upside down because they have the buying power to spend 100 million plus on AC Milan’s Kaka, 32 million on Real Madrid’s Robinho, and a mere 25 million to bring back Wright-Phillips and lure Bridges from Chelsea? Highly unlikely, but given that Chelsea adopted a similar policy and won two league titles, and had John Terry not slipped, perhaps even the Champions League, they may feel they are on the right road.Chelsea,Liverpool and Real Madrid also have money to burn, but right now it’s also richBarcelona and Manchester United that are topping their respctive league tables. But at the end of the season there will only be a few winners, so huge investment does not guarantee success.
When all this is applied to the current economic environment, it is difficult to apply any sort of logic. Indeed, is logic applicable when money of this magnitude comes to the table?
So what has this got to do with local cricket you may ask?
The recent debate on player movements whether enticed or otherwise, has resurrected the old cantankerous arguments about buying power, facilities, development, ambition, greed, and success. It’s old hat that never seems to go away, and it is always taken out of context by the armchair critics who have scant respect for a club’s right to do whatever they want with their financial resources. It’s a fact of life that those clubs with buying power have options to develop and expand their club, and those without resources don’t. It doesn’t really matter how they gained their buying power, whether from sponsors, patrons, bar takings or fund-raising, but rest assured it came from vision and hard work.
Club funds are hard-earned these days!
So other clubs can either cringe with envy, or take the perceived ‘higher ground’ and do what they feel is in their own best interests. As always it’s different strokes for different folks and much like your neighbour takes a foreign holiday every year while you opt to put your money into home improvements, or into savings, everyone has options.
I’m bemused that anyone could criticise individuals for receiving payments and clubs for offering ‘terms’ because the world has changed so much and every modern sport has similar circumstances. Only dinosaurs lurk behind anonymous emails that belittle personal and club ambitions, and to lick their lips at the prospect of the tax man honing in on alleged clandestine payments reeks of jealousy and envy.
Enticements to play at another club have taken many forms over the years, but every club has been involved! While the modern spotlight has been on payments/expenses to play, there has been a host of other ways to attract players to a club and they go back to the start of local competitive cricket in the 1880s. Players were encouraged to join other clubs because of employment, friendship, no membership fees, the possibility of success, the opportunity to play at a higher level, representative recognition, and yes, payment. At the same time, the vast majority of players preferred to stay with their home club, but in a democratic world neither is right and neither is wrong. It’s a personal choice, and if someone was perfectly happy at their home club then surely they wouldn’t consider moving in the first place?
It’s time for the critics to get off the backs of ambitious clubs and players and move with the times and accept they have the right to do what they feel is in their best interests. Remember that old quote from the home of competitive cricket, “In Yorkshire we don’t play for fun?” Seems like the message has finally reached Ulster.
Or maybe it was here all the time? Aren’t the clubs at the top of the ladder still the same clubs that were at the top in the 1880s?
Clarence Hiles
Editor
