Standing for the General Committee

First, let me introduce myself.  My name is Simon Menneer and I hope to stand this year for the General Committee.   To get on the ballot, I need five nominations from members of more than 2 years' standing.  After that, I need as many votes as possible.

My background/manifesto:

A member for 45 years, I type this looking out of my Vauxhall flat window at my favourite place in the world, my seat in the Pavilion Top.  I have missed one day of the Oval Test since the mid-1980s.  My son played up the age groups from U9 to U15.

I am passionate to the point of obsessive about our club.  To me, the most important (men’s) competition is the Championship.  I am pragmatic enough, however, to recognise that much of our recent red ball success could not have come without the white ball game.  How clubs navigate the balance between the two will be the key challenge for the next four years.  Compromises will have to be made and these will need careful discussion with, and explanation to, you and your fellow members.  We will also need to strengthen our pathway to ensure that we reach all sections of our community and build on our commitment to the women’s game.
 
In the recent past, I was Chief Executive of a National County for 5 years which taught me a vast amount about all cricket from entry level All Stars, through the male and female recreational game, to the workings of an Academy and links with First Class counties. This I was also a member of the ECB’s Recreational Assembly. This gave me the opportunity to see ECB decision-making up close, which was very illuminating.

I am not asking for your nomination and vote so that I can sit in the committee room and hobnob. I promise to roll my sleeves up to help assure the future success of this great club.  I want to be as accountable and accessible as possible, so please don’t hesitate to ask me questions on here or contact me on PavTopK15@gmail.com.

Thank you.

Simon

I think members of all counties probably would like the current fixture overload to be solved by merging the horrid hundred into the Blast, killing the hundred if possible.  I would like to ask you how you think this majority view can be turned into a decisive influence at the ECB?

Somehow all counties need to be forced to consult their members on this issue and then to implement the decision of their members. At present it feels as though members are powerless.

When you say compromises will have to be made I become nervous. The definition of a compromise is a mutual agreement. I for one feel we, as members, have not been consulted properly in recent years ( we were not consulted on the introduction of the Hundred for example) and have already made enough concessions and, quite frankly, have had enough. I don’t think I am alone in this. I welcome your commitment to the Championship but if you are going to “compromise” by reducing the number of games or maintaining the current schedule with hardly any games in June, July and August you should make that clear. We always get this line from the club ( other counties do it as well) that the Championship is the most important competition but it is not treated as such. Also, you do not set out your position on the Hundred and its proposed expansion. Sorry to be sceptical but that’s the way I feel. I look forward to you providing some more detail.

News today that Hampshire, which is not a members club, could be sold to a group from the Indian Premier League (IPL). Is this what we want in our game?.

Simon,

For me, Wokoval has hit the nail on the head accurately and politely. You need to demonstrate some substance to your request for my vote.

At this stage, you come across as trying to be all things to all people. I feel it fair to say that many members have experienced too much of that attitude in recent times and are fed up to the back teeth with it.

A pity btw that your 'passion to the point of obsession about our club' over the many years hasn't resulted in you previously posting on this supporters' forum.

Thank you to Wokoval and Offdrive4 for excellent questions.  As they are similar, I will address both in the same reply.

First, I am going to prove that I am no politician.  

For all of the ECB's flannel, it is important to recognise that there is one clear benefit of the 100 which never seems to get mentioned even by its proponents: access to terrestrial television.  It is absolutely clear, and I have heard BBC bigwigs state it categorically, that the BBC has ZERO intention of televising the Blast.  While the 2005 Sky deal bought a vast amount of money into the game and also meant that we did not have to miss Gooch's triple hundred because coverage suddenly switched to the horse racing, the impact on our game has been pernicious. From having cricket regularly available to everyone with a set, even now less than a quarter of households can watch live cricket beyond the 100.  This led to the sport shrinking as we failed to catch them young, and people who could have been watching cricket spend their time on computer games.  Couple this with the fact that Sky much prefer the 100 to the Blast, this means that there is huge pressure to make the 100 a success.

And you can see that counties without 100 franchises embedded in them, are desperate to set up franchises of their own.  County clubs will go where the money is.  Remember that we are members of the only really robust county club.  18,000+ members is a ridiculous proportion of the total membership across all counties and our off-field revenues are what every other county dreams of.  Most counties have to do whatever they are told – or they would go bust.

So, in answer to OffDrive4’s question, I think that there is ZERO chance of the ECB scrapping the 100.  Even the two Richards, ardent opponents when they were with Surrey (though some of this was I suspect a negotiation position), have agreed that it needs to stay.  Have they both gone over to the dark side?  I don’t think so.  But that doesn’t mean that there is nothing that we can do.  The ECB did relent on cutting the number of Championship matches and this is where I personally want to stand my ground.  This far and no further.  “Compromises” is the wrong phrase, Wokoval, thank you. Much better would be “picking your battles”.  But I disagree with your comment that Surrey say that the championship is the priority and then do something different.  Both Alec Stewart and Gareth Batty have been very forthright in their defence of the Championship.

But something has to give.  The pressure on the players caused by the schedule is starting to cause real mental and physical health issues. I would be much happier to lose some Blast games and scale down the One-Day cup rather than eat into the Championship schedule.  

To answer another question, I am against expansion of the 100 – for any number of reasons.  But mainly because it will crowd the schedule even more and also the ECB needs to recognise that it will reduce the quality of the product.  Yes, I know that for many of us (and to be clear I include myself in this), the quality of the 100 is already highly questionable.  But you only have to look at what the expansion of the Big Bash did for the ratings downunder to see the obvious perils.

guildfordbat wrote:Simon,

For me, Wokoval has hit the nail on the head accurately and politely. You need to demonstrate some substance to your request for my vote.

At this stage, you come across as trying to be all things to all people. I feel it fair to say that many members have experienced too much of that attitude in recent times and are fed up to the back teeth with it.

A pity btw that your 'passion to the point of obsession about our club' over the many years hasn't resulted in you previously posting on this supporters' forum.

Thank you, Guildfordbat.

I don't in any way resent your scepticism, given what has happened in recent times, I don't blame you. We don't know each other. I suspect that my friends would chuckle at me being "all things to all people". They would probably think that "says what he thinks and damn the consequences" would be more appropriate. I will answer any questions which anyone has, meet up with anyone who wants to, and try to convince them that I am the real deal. I spent some time at Millwall FC many years ago and they were downright suspicious of me, but when I left some very nice things were said about me by some very hard men.

As to not being a member of this board before, all I can say with great respect is that the total number of Ovalworld members is less than 1% of our membership. Should membership of a message board be a criterion for how "Rey" someone is? Season ticket holder for 45 years, even through the years when we were truly shit, is I hope a better one.

Simon

Wokoval wrote:News today that Hampshire, which is not a members club, could be sold to a group from the Indian Premier League (IPL). Is this what we want in our game?.

Absolutely not. And I see no danger whatsoever of this happening at Surrey. But other clubs are in dire financial straits and this may be their path to survival.

Simon,

Thank you for your reply.

Whilst I hopefully still have your attention and fully recognising the very serious current issues facing our club and our game, I would be interested in your view on what I regard as an historic injustice. Namely, the failure to award Tim Linley a county cap.

Do you share my concern and, if so, how do you plan to address it if elected?

guildfordbat wrote:Simon,

Thank you for your reply.

Whilst I hopefully still have your attention and fully recognising the very serious current issues facing our club and our game, I would be interested in your view on what I regard as an historic injustice. Namely, the failure to award Tim Linley a county cap.

Do you share my concern and, if so, how do you plan to address it if elected?

As

Now that is an interesting question. Because there have been not a few injustices. One which springs immediately to my mind is Monte Lynch who I think it is no secret to say is "unhappy" with how he was treated when he left the club. No doubt in a few minutes we could compile a list on here which would make quite sorry reading.

Not dodging your question, but I don't think that one injustice should be treated on its own, because there may be similar injustices which it would be a further injustice to ignore while we fixed one. What else is there which where we should have done better and how can we make redress? Most of the time it would cost us nothing.

As luck would have it, I was at The Oval today and the topic of reaching out with much more focus to all our past players came up. Not just because it is the right thing to do, but because the members would love it to. Legends dinner anyone?

Thank you for your reply Simon.
Re the 100 you have ignored the negative aspects of the competition such as its impact on the rest of the schedule. No other country has it so is money and attracting the young the sole criteria?. Does it really make money considering the vast sums setting it up?. Young people need heroes and a successful England side is more likely to provide that anything else in my opinion.
I would also argue that players mental and physical health is more likely to come from all the different franchise competitions they are chasing and the intense nature of them.
I did not criticise Alec Stewart and Gareth Batty it is more the club hierarchy going along with the ECB’s wishes that I was referring to.

Wokoval wrote:Thank you for your reply Simon.
Re the 100 you have ignored the negative aspects of the competition such as its impact on the rest of the schedule. No other country has it so is money and attracting the young the sole criteria?. Does it really make money considering the vast sums setting it up?. Young people need heroes and a successful England side is more likely to provide that anything else in my opinion.
I would also argue that players mental and physical health is more likely to come from all the different franchise competitions they are chasing and the intense nature of them.
I did not criticise Alec Stewart and Gareth Batty it is more the club hierarchy going along with the ECB’s wishes that I was referring to.

Apologies, I just took the negative aspects as read. Here goes:

1. Diversion of time, emotion and vast wodges of money from burning fires in the rest of our game.
2. Causing a huge rift between those who run the sport, the clubs and those who watch it. It will take years for Graves/Harrison era wounds to heal.
3. Rolled out unbelievably incompetently (remember the photo of white blokes at a rock concert next to the blurb about diversity, women and girls?)
4. Creating a two-tier system between the included and excluded clubs.
5. Shoe-horning another competition into an already crowded schedule with no apparent thought as to the implications.

And those are just off the top of my head. No doubt more will come to me and you.

I don't get the impression that the Surrey hierarchy are in favour at all of a shorter Championship. I know that Oli Slipper has come out saying that we wants the Invincibles to be Surrey branded, but that isn't the same thing. Or did I miss something? (Genuine question.)

As to whether a successful England team or eyeballs on TVs is more important, I can only speak from experience as an administrator of the recreational game. The average age of every side increases year-on-year. Sides cutting teams - both youth and adult. Sides failing to fulfill fixtures. Standards of play, even in Premier leagues sides, sliding. Our game is dying at the recreational level. The only ray of sunshine is in the female game. The last time that the success of the England men's side had a demonstrable effect on grass roots participation was in 2005 - the last year it was televised terestrially.

Thanks again Simon.
Many would argue that your list of 100 negatives is enough to justify its demise.
I will leave this for now to give others the opportunity to comment. If you are feeling slightly battered I think you deserve praise for coming on this forum. I wish other prospective committee members would do the same. It can be difficult to vote for individuals given the short narrative we are given unless you know the person personally.

Wokoval wrote:Thanks again Simon.
Many would argue that your list of 100 negatives is enough to justify its demise.
I will leave this for now to give others the opportunity to comment. If you are feeling slightly battered I think you deserve praise for coming on this forum. I wish other prospective committee members would do the same. It can be difficult to vote for individuals given the short narrative we are given  unless you know the person personally.

Thank you.

The 100 did deserve to be stillborn. But given where we are now, just scrapping it isn't going to happen.

As to battered, I promise that OvalWorld has given me the red carpet, bouquet of flowers and champagne reception compared to my first interaction with its Millwall equivalent. I will be staying on here, answering any questions, maybe asking a few. This will continue whether I am elected or not.

Simon

Nobody likes us, we don’t care!

Wokoval. Good luck I hope you make it onto the committee. The one day cup or mickey mouse cup as I like to call it has been devalued by the Hundred. We struggled to put out a team at times last season due to the number of players we had playing in the Hundred.

The ECB dont care about the CC or the Blast. Scheduling one day games against the Aussies in Sept which clash with T20 finals day and the last few CC games. This means teams like us will be missing players for finals day and CC games. These one day games should be played another time.

Also tell the 2 Richards they are traitors supporting the Hundred now they are at the ECB.

Thanks squire.

Thanks Steve but I won’t be standing and don’t feel qualified to do so. I am just an ordinary supporter with one voice who hopes that others will follow. We are not keyboard warriors but cricket enthusiasts who are extremely worried about where the game is heading. I just think the ECB either think we will die off ( we all do of course) or just be ground into submission. There were some action groups around the counties formed to fight the Strauss review proposals and I think and hope they still exist.

I am giving this a bump.  Not so much for the nominations as it has turned out that there are quite a few Surrey members on the most scurrilous of the Millwall messageboards.  More to start up a dialogue and, yes, to try to get your vote when the election itself starts.

More than happy to hear others' views on the dreaded 100 and the Championship, but what else is on people's minds?

All the best with it Vauxhall. Can you please ask the club to explain why there is yet again no CC game at Guildford. The club have never said why. Other counties use out grounds for CC matches.
Thanks squire.

If I am fortunate enough to get on, I most certainly will. I don't suppose you are a member with 2+ years standing? At the moment, all my nominations have a very Millwall ring to them.

I was tempted, very tempted, to look for getting nominated this year, but unfortunately this year is just too busy with work. I work for a London MP so with two elections this year it is not something I will have the time to commit to. But I am just putting the batsignal out there for 2025.

Are Millwall not Kent?

RB wrote:I was tempted, very tempted, to look for getting nominated this year, but unfortunately this year is just too busy with work. I work for a London MP so with two elections this year it is not something I will have the time to commit to. But I am just putting the batsignal out there for 2025.

RB - guess you'll be standing on ''a minimum of 3 Surrey spinners each game'' ticket.
Good luck next year.

VicNorth wrote:Are Millwall not Kent?

And there you have a constantly recurring debate on the Millwall version of this site.  If anyone mentions either of the two clubs, the debate reignites "Real Wall support Kent/Surrey/Middlesex."   Middlesex?  Middlesex??

VauxhallRey wrote:

VicNorth wrote:Are Millwall not Kent?

And there you have a constantly recurring debate on the Millwall version of this site.  If anyone mentions either of the two clubs, the debate reignites "Real Wall support Kent/Surrey/Middlesex."   Middlesex?  Middlesex??

Millwall did a Woolwich in reverse. They originally played on the Isle of Dogs, which was historically part of Middlesex. One of the DLR stations was apparently going to be called Millwall or something like that, after Millwall Dock but they were worried that loads of supporters would turn up there for matches by mistake (like tourists turn up at Abbey Road DLR looking for the zebra crossing) so the station got the charming name Mudchute instead.

Another curiosity of the riverside is that North Woolwich was in Kent, not Essex. Oh, and Kansas City Chiefs play in Kansas City, Missouri. Apparently there are two Kansas Cities, or, if you like, one city bridging two states.

One of the first football matches I went to on my own was a Spurs-Millwall cup replay. Harry Cripps, Barry Kitchener... I was so new to it that I had no idea there was this magnificent side-on terrace (the Shelf) above the small packed terrace I was being buffeted around on. Gilzean scored the winner! Jeez, that was 56 years ago and I can remember that detail.