Surrey CCC statement on the HPR

The big money on offer in the new UAE and USA T20 leagues next year needs to be factored in. How much? I don't know, but could be of IPL proportions.

YOU DO NOT NEED A PHYSICAL TICKET - AS LONG AS YOU HAVE REGISTERED TO ATTEND YOUR NAME WILL BE ON THE LIST !

PLG wrote:YOU DO NOT NEED A PHYSICAL TICKET - AS LONG AS YOU HAVE  REGISTERED TO ATTEND YOUR NAME WILL BE ON THE LIST  !

If you say so. No need to shout. As it's full I'm taking a ticket anyway just to be sure.

I think it's imperative that as many members as possible attend at least one of the meetings.
I've booked for both as I think there might be people with different ideas and I'd like to make sure ALL opinions are aired.
This will then give the committee the best options when meeting with the ECB.
If they do not accept the opinions of members then I suggest a vote of no confidence could be made.
Will they accept the amendment of 12 CC matches?
The idea that having fewer matches will make matches better quality doesn't make sense; surely, the more you play the better you get. Anybody remember Gary Player's quote?

I think we need to establish what precisely  the General Committee will be voting on when they meet to decide on the Club's response to the HPR.

For transparency, can we ask that each committee member's vote is recorded and published for the members who elect them to see?

PLG wrote:Oh dear - speculation from press ! And even denials by counties within this article! You can’t believe all that you read in the press . I do not work for the Club but was party to
Discussions. I respect your views but will
Now withdraw from the conversation as you obviously do not wish to hear what actually happened and I am
Unsure what your agenda is, therefore I am wasting my breath and your time - long live County Cricket !

PLG - for someone who has withdrawn from the conversation, you continue to say an awful lot.

Jackers wrote:I think we need to establish what precisely  the General Committee will be voting on when they meet to decide on the Club's response to the HPR.

For transparency, can we ask that each committee member's vote is recorded and published for the members who elect them to see?

Fully with you there, Jackers. I was planning to ask the same about each committee member's vote and will do so at the first meeting if you're not there to do so.

[quote="kjb"]I think it's imperative that as many members as possible attend at least one of the meetings.
I've booked for both as I think there might be people with different ideas and I'd like to make sure ALL opinions are aired.
This will then give the committee the best options when meeting with the ECB.
If they do not accept the opinions of members then I suggest a vote of no confidence could be made.
Will they accept the amendment of 12 CC matches?
The idea that having fewer matches will make matches better quality doesn't make sense; surely, the more you play the better you get.  Anybody remember Gary Player's quote?[/quote]

Hi kjb - if the ECB want to reduce the number of matches played, I suggest they look closer to home. In 2021 England played 15 (fifteen) Tests.

Agree with you about the suggestion of a vote of no confidence in the possible circumstances outlined.

kjb wrote:I think it's imperative that as many members as possible attend at least one of the meetings.
I've booked for both as I think there might be people with different ideas and I'd like to make sure ALL opinions are aired.
This will then give the committee the best options when meeting with the ECB.
If they do not accept the opinions of members then I suggest a vote of no confidence could be made.
Will they accept the amendment of 12 CC matches?
The idea that having fewer matches will make matches better quality doesn't make sense; surely, the more you play the better you get.  Anybody remember Gary Player's quote?

Careful with the Player quote! "The more I practice the luckier I get". Just think of all the extra time there will be for practice...

?

Chinaman wrote:

PLG wrote:YOU DO NOT NEED A PHYSICAL TICKET - AS LONG AS YOU HAVE  REGISTERED TO ATTEND YOUR NAME WILL BE ON THE LIST  !

If you say so. No need to shout. As it's full I'm taking a ticket anyway just to be sure.

Apologies, I thought it would be a good idea to contact the Club and ask for the definitive answer on tickets and pass the answer on - sorry if this has offended you, didn’t realise the capitals were on if this is what you are referring to - thought I was being helpful ‍�

Agree about the timing of the events - I've had to take the 25th off work.

But let us not get caught up in what we should have done, what we would like to do, and what we think should now happen. That is not the choice being presented to us at these meetings. The choice is simple: whoever is doing the voting has to either vote yes or no to HPR recommendations 10 and 11.

I'm sure we all have different opinions on what we would like to happen in the long run. But that's not the question being put here. And those going to the first meeting especially must not lose sight of that.

PLG wrote:

Chinaman wrote:

PLG wrote:YOU DO NOT NEED A PHYSICAL TICKET - AS LONG AS YOU HAVE  REGISTERED TO ATTEND YOUR NAME WILL BE ON THE LIST  !

If you say so. No need to shout. As it's full I'm taking a ticket anyway just to be sure.

Apologies, I thought it would be a good idea to contact the Club and ask for the definitive answer on tickets and pass the answer on - sorry if this has offended you, didn’t realise the capitals were on if this is what you are referring to - thought I was being helpful ‍�

No problem, no offence.

Just had email from Surrey both meetings will now be in the Ashes suite.

The latest episode of the ‘Following on’ podcast is worth a listen. G Batty is advocating for more players to be on central contracts.

Would love to know the outcome of todays ridiculously early meeting; I'm sure some people have made their voices heard...

Well-attended: possibly 200 there.

Mood of the meeting, along with the written responses the club had received, was overwhelmingly against the relevant Strauss proposals to reduce the amount of county cricket.

Alec Stewart provided a detailed analysis from his sports science experts which confirmed the link between the amount of cricket and player injury (especially seam bowlers). He made no bones about the fact that it is The Hundred which is the straw that has broken the camel's back. A number of members made the point that as it is The Hundred that has caused the problem of player overload,  it cannot and should not be treated as a sacred cow. The Acting Chair replied that while The Hundred won't be disappearing anytime soon, behind the scenes, Surrey are lobbying the ECB to see whether it can be condensed into a shorter window to free up (a little) space in the calendar.

The Acting Chair confirmed that the deadline for counties to vote was being extended to allow time for consultation with members. He also confirmed that Surrey would vote against the proposals as they currently stand. He hinted that there are ongoing discussions between County Chairs/CEOs and the ECB which are likely to result in revised proposals coming forward. This chimes with what we already suspect. I am fairly sure the ECB will claim to have "listened" and come back with revised proposals to play 12 championship games per season ("boiling the frog by turning the heat up ever so gradually...so that it doesn't realise it's being boiled until it's too late to jump out of the water...").

I spoke to a couple of Committee members who agreed that 12 games would not represent a "compromise" that would be remotely acceptable, given the reduction from 16 games only five years ago, the "lottery" of the weather playing a greater part with fewer matches,  the fact that it would consign virtually all outground cricket to the history books, etc. I said to them that if the General Committee is in any doubt whatsoever about whether Surrey should reject outright such a revised proposal when it magically emerges, they would need to go back to the members again.

Some tweets from the forum here https://mobile.twitter.com/CCMembersGroup/status/1582268309013417987 (this is the new County Cricket Members Group account).

I didn't get to ask my question which was about the relationship between the counties and the ECB. Something like "The ECB has created the scheduling problem with the Hundred, and the Hundred franchises have downgraded Surrey and the counties to second class cricket. There has been a long term desire from the ECB to reduce the number of counties. The franchises will be sold to outside investors eventually - Richard Thompson has said so. This is an existential threat to Surrey and the county game. You have the grounds and players and coaches and brand. You are behaving like you have no agency and no power, and the ECB will decide on everything. How can the counties get power back from the ECB?”

Martin Eadon (1) If the Strauss report were put to a vote on Thursday, then we would vote against (and enough counties would also vote against for it not to go through; (2) He doesn’t think the proposals will be put forward on Thursday (or at later date in the current format); (3) The Surrey management board's vote would be based on how the General Committee directs him to vote.

The meeting was fine, as far as it went, but Surrey wouldn't say what their preferred compromise would be (they were asked directly and wouldn't commit to anything).

Just to add that I spoke to Alec and the acting chair afterwards about the fact that the ECB itself should be independently reviewed to decide whether or not it is fit for purpose as a custodian of the game, which of course it's not. Alec said someone should state this point, so anyone going next Tuesday please do so. It's created the problem with the untouchable 100, bizarrely not included in the HPR. I touched on a breakaway organisation but the acting chair shyed away from that for the time being!

It's probably not a good time to bother DCMS right now...

FWIW it sounds like Gould is going to be CEO at the ECB. One can only hope this is a good thing

I mentioned this earlier.

This update is from the County Cricket Members Group:

"Update from around the counties
This update shares the key points emerging from what campaign members have been told by their counties. Please let us know what you think of the feedback within your county.

It seems the ECB reform proposals will not be put to a vote. Instead, the county chairs are looking at what they do agree on to improve the current schedule/structure. The following questions are being asked.

County championship
Do you agree to play fewer games?
Do you prefer either of the 3 divisions of 6 structure or prefer two divisions either 8 or 10 in the top division?
How many teams should be promoted/relegated?
Which months to schedule matches for?
Views on the points system changes?
Views on poor pitch penalties

One Day Cup
Play it in April or August?
Are fewer games acceptable?
Should it be a pure knock-out?

T20 Blast
Which window to play it in?
Blocks or alongside county championship
Reduce number of games?

Hundred
Want to shorten window?
What to play alongside it? Blast, "first class friendlies", CC or ODC?
Should contracts reflect Blast performances?

Glamorgan went through their responses with their members this week. We have heard snippets from other counties on some of their responses. Both Surrey and Lancashire have told their members they supported shortening the Hundred's window. Somerset remain focused on resolving the whole picture that saw just 4 days play at Taunton out of 43 days in peak summer. They are unwilling to be drawn into giving a view on each component.

The Telegraph reports some form of compromise at 12 county championship games, 12 blast games and a reduced One Day Cup is being mulled over. Compromise for the sake of compromise perhaps, but also to address the PCA demand that too much cricket is expected from their members so more rest breaks are needed and slightly fewer days' cricket overall.

Within the campaign there are 10 active county member groups. We see this stalemate as an opportunity to make the case for a better schedule, keeping much of what we have already.

To keep 14 first class games across two divisions, the county championship simply has to be played in August.

The Hundred should adjust its schedule to allow more players to be released back to play in the county championship. A formal review of the Hundred needs to happen once the review into the ECB's finances is completed later this year.

We cannot stop the tide of global t20 franchise cricket. We must use any revenues we gain from it to invest and grow the first class game. We need to support our counties like never before.

Accordingly, we recommend that county members support playing the county championship in August when giving their feedback to their clubs along with amending the Hundred's scheduling and benching of players.

What do you think?

Next season, there are no test matches in August. The Cricketer https://www.thecricketer.com/Topics/england/england_face_stacked_schedule_future_tours_programme_confirmed_2023-2027.html suggests this could be true in 2024 too.

Are we really going to play no proper cricket in August at all? That surely cannot be allowed to happen."

Whatever happens, it'll be changed again in another couple of years. Our concerns should not just be about quantity; they should be about loss of identity and soul.