THERE is often talk in local cricket about players moving clubs for money.

We play in an open league, which means teams are free to pay anyone they like.

Some clubs will have more money, which can skew the competition, but it has always been this way, whether in an open league or not.

The real issue for any club that chooses to pay more than a handful of players is what do they do when the money runs out? But we are all grown-ups, and I think players and clubs should be left to make up their own minds.

I do think there needs to be some kind of check and balance, though. I would like to see the minimum amount of time a player has to spend at a club restricted to at least two, maybe even three years.

If a player signs for a club knowing they will have to stay that long then it will make them think seriously about why they are doing it and what they want to get out of it.

Likewise, it will force the clubs to do the same.

I don’t like to see players flitting from club to club, just thinking of short-term gain, and chairmen or executive committees should have a clear plan about the long-term benefit they want to see at their club of signing a particular player.

A rule like that would preserve the soul of the local game without creating a financial system that would be impossible to police.