Date: 15th Dec 2017
L&DCC is not responsible for Third Party websites

CATEGORY 3 (NOT EXEMPT) FRINTON CC OVERSEAS PLAYER RULED INADMISSIBLE UNDER HOME OFFICE REGULATIONS NEW IN 2017

Date: 9th August 2017

CATEGORY 3 (NOT EXEMPT) FRINTON CC OVERSEAS PLAYER RULED INADMISSIBLE UNDER HOME OFFICE REGULATIONS NEW IN 2017

League and ECB position upheld; club's Appeal rejected.

Last week Frinton on Sea CC took legal action against their league, the Two Counties Cricket Championship, on the grounds of discrimination over the league’s interpretation of the Home Office/ECB guidance.

The club was deducted points after being penalised for fielding an overseas player now held to be ineligible under these guidelines. The story may be followed by reading

Frinton-on-Sea overseas player case goes to court (dated 26th July 2017)

Overseas player: Club takes Premier League to court (dated 28th July 2017)

The penalty related to Frinton on Sea 2nd XI v Maldon 1st XI in Division One of the Two Counties Cricket Championship.

The following extract is a posting is from the www.twocounties.com website dated today Wednesday 8th August 2017.

 

MARSHALL HATCHICK TWO COUNTIES CRICKET CHAMPIONSHIP

Appeal Tribunal result

http://www.ldcc.org.uk/Frinton-on-Sea_CC_appeal_2017.pdf

APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Before: Mr David Lamming (barrister), Chairman

Mr Philip George (solicitor)
Mr Toby Pound (solicitor)

The Appeal Tribunal met on 4th August to considered Frinton on Sea CC’s appeal against the MSC decision taken at the Committee Meeting on 3rd July (under Rule 13a) to deduct 36 points from Frinton on Sea CC for playing an ineligible player in the Division 1 match against Maldon CC on 1st July and to award 20 points and the match to Maldon CC.

Their findings are attached and can be accessed by clicking the link

http://www.ldcc.org.uk/Frinton-on-Sea_CC_appeal_2017.pdf

However the main issue is covered in para 72 which we show below.

72. We have already noted that we have been given no information as to the nature of Mr Reed’s current employment (outside cricket) in Frinton-on-Sea (or elsewhere in Essex). We note, too, that although Mr Reed states (witness statement para 16, A69) that he does not, and has not, earned a living from cricket and plays as an amateur in Perth, he gives no information as to his employment or means of living in Australia. We consider that we cannot ignore Mr Reed’s own statement on the cricket mentoring website in which he not only describes himself as “an aspiring young cricketer” but also “a top order player.” We note, too that the webpage (R53) is headedWorld’s leading online cricket coaching service”. It seems to us inconceivable that Mr Reed would not expect to be paid for the services he is effectively advertising. Accordingly, we conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that despite his assertion to the contrary, Mr Reed is not engaging in cricket solely for personal enjoyment and that he is, whether directly or indirectly, seeking to derive a living from cricket. Accordingly, he was an ineligible player and in breach of his visa when he played for Frinton against Maldon CC on 1st July 2017.

In outline this Appeal:

1.    Rejects Frinton on Seas CC’s case that this player was eligible to play under the terms of his 2017 Youth Mobility Visa and the league points remain deducted.

2.    The Appeal supports the action taken by the league …

3.    .... in following the ECB advice which was in turn …..

4.    ..... based on Home Office guidance for season 2017.

 

 

Back to top