Monday musings

There's times when some comments baffle me.

Like today. 'Anon' says that the club should make a statement on the Groenewald 'situation'. You'll all know, I'm sure, that Groenewald has given 28 days notice of his intention to speak to other counties. As he comes to the end of his contract that is his right and I'm sure that all of us, in his situation, would do exactly the same thing.

At the same time, the player has made it known that he wants to stay at Derbyshire, where the team spirit and positive attitude in the dressing room is obvious and a tribute to the senior people in the club. As I've written before, the player will see if there are bigger offers out there and will then speak to the club to see if they are prepared to match those offers. The size of them will dictate what happens next. It may be that the current economic climate in the game means there are no more lucrative takers for the player's services. It could equally be that there are, but they are of a level that the club can match and probably keep the player accordingly, assuming he's enjoying the club as much as he says. He may also want to play in Division One and if that's the case there's little we can do, unless we get better luck with the weather in the second half of the season.

There's a lot of supposition in it all, but what do you expect the club to say or do, Anon? They will want to keep him, without doubt, but if we're paying (my guess) £40-45K a season and someone else offers £80K he will go, simple as that, as we can't afford him. Graham Wagg went for an even better deal, but if anyone thinks his current 28 batting average and 13 wickets at 49 is worth a rumoured £90K a season plus perks you're on your own. If the difference between Groenewald's best option and ourselves is £10K there's a better chance of our striking a deal, but at the end of the day we are a business. We have a finite and small playing budget, the smallest in the country and need to have enough players on the staff to account for injury problems and ensure competition for places. To suggest that a refusal to match big offers from elsewhere is short-sighted and indicative of a lack of ambition is baloney of the highest order.

Let's assume that we have £650K to pay for player salaries. I don't think that's too far away, from my reading of club accounts etc. A decent senior player can probably expect to get around £40K a season (I'd guess) so you could have 16 for your money. So what happens when they are tired or injured? Don't forget you also need to pay more for an overseas star of any stature. Had we matched Glamorgan's offer for Wagg, what do you think that Madsen, Smith, Groenewald, Durston and Sutton, senior players as good, if not better than Wagg would have thought? Do we give them all £90K to keep them happy? OK then, that's £540K of your £650K gone on six players. I'm sure that the rest of our squad would play for £10-15K a summer. Palladino, Hughes, Redfern, Jones, Park - they'd all be happy with that. Your overseas player would too. You would wouldn't you?

I didn't think so...

Nor, as I've written before, can we expect the Chairman to make up any shortfall. There may be occasions he chooses to help the club, but he is involved as much for his financial acumen as the depth and contents of his pockets. Living beyond our means is a sure route to financial meltdown.

I hope that we keep Tim Groenewald. I hope that we keep Greg Smith. The reality is that if another club with more money decides that they want them, we won't hang on to them because money talks, for you, for me, for everyone. What we will have to continue to do is bring on youngsters, spot those lacking opportunity elsewhere and give it to them for as long as we can afford to.

One thing we have going for us is that there are financial issues everywhere. The ECB age-related payments mean that increasing numbers of clubs are bringing in younger players. That's why Usman Afzaal and Bilal Shafayat are no longer in the county game, because they're priced out of the market and they're too old to make money under current regulations. Kent were linked with Greg Smith a couple of years back and now can only pay a staff of 18. Lancashire and Yorkshire made seven figure losses, Warwickshire only made money because they sold land for development, but you can only do that once. Other than that, they made a trading loss, like almost everyone else.

Here's a question for you. Would you sooner spend beyond our means for the next five years, maybe win a few trophies and then go out of business, or be in this for the long haul? The former gives no guarantee of success, the latter will see good days and bad, but ensure that we have a club to entertain us for a long time to come.

I know which option I prefer and it ain't the first.