What to think of last night?

Unhappy as many of us are about the impact of the 100, it is clearly here to stay. If the club most against it, with former Chair and CEO now at the ECB, have accepted this, then there really is no hope.

For five or more years, I went regularly to the ECB’s Recreational Assembly to hear Tom Harrison use words like “monetisation”, “commercialisation”, “brand” and “offer” about the sport which I love. And here was the Chair of my Club using exactly the same words.

But then he could hardly have nailed his colours to the 14 championship game mast than he did last night. It is going to be quite difficult to row back from that, said in front of a packed Duchy Room. Was quite surprised that he didn't hedge at all. And if you had offered me that undertaking before last night, I probably would have taken it.

With quite a few counties struggling financially it was made clear that the TV money is driving quite a lot of the things many people are unhappy about. Like you I found Slipper using the above terminology extremely disappointing but perhaps not surprised.

VauxhallRey wrote:Unhappy as many of us are about the impact of the 100, it is clearly here to stay. If the club most against it, with former Chair and CEO now at the ECB, have accepted this, then there really is no hope.

For five or more years, I went regularly to the ECB’s Recreational Assembly to hear Tom Harrison use words like “monetisation”, “commercialisation”, “brand” and “offer” about the sport which I love.  And here was the Chair of my Club using exactly the same words.

But then he could hardly have nailed his colours to the 14 championship game mast than he did last night.  It is going to be quite difficult to row back from that, said in front of a packed Duchy Room.  Was quite surprised that he didn't hedge at all.  And if you had offered me that undertaking before last night, I probably would have taken it.

IIRC Kent was the only county which consistently voted consistently (that is, at all three opportunities) against anything Hundredish. I thj8ink Surrey, like Middlesex, were two out of three - but different twos, if you see what I mean. If enough counties had been as steadfast as Kent we could have had a strong Blast rather than the Blasted Hundred! Surrey, of course, were always in a different position as hosts to a franchise. I wonder how they would have voted earlier if the opportunity to own half a franchise had been available from the outset?

Just popping in for a rare winter contribution before I fly off to warmer climes for a couple of weeks.

I booked a place at last night's forum, but I made a late decision to stay in and watch the BBC smash hit "The Traitors" instead of witnessing them in action on the top table in the Duchy Suite.

From the excellent synopsis provided by Vauxhall Rey, it does not appear that there was anything revealed that could not have been anticipated. We are indeed stuck with the Hundred in the "short to medium term" (ie 2028) and giving counties a majority controlling stake is better than allowing the ECB to continue to treat it as their shiny new plaything. I support Surrey's reiteration that they will not allow any external investment in the Hundred team playing at The Oval (and, presumably, to rebrand from "Oval" to "Surrey Invincibles"). We CANNOT be responsible for what other counties do, whether by choice or because they feel they have to accept external investment. What we can do, however, is try to encourage and influence them to make wise choices.

As a "quid pro quo" for swallowing the Hundred for the next 5 years, we need to merge the two domestic white-ball tournaments, (a) to create space in the calendar to play more championship cricket in the summer months and (b) to restore the 50-over competition to a first-team tournament (even if it has to be streamlined to a shorter group stage/more knockout matches). It concerns me that Surrey do not presently seem prepared to lead the charge on this, and the so-called "smaller" counties seem to be under the illusion that there is space for all four tournaments. I get that some of these counties rely extensively on T20 Blast revenue, but they really need to grasp that we are fast reaching saturation point with "hit and giggle", and there simply won't be the paying audience for two white-ball tournaments going forward, especially in a "cost of living" crisis. So they would be wise to push for county-controlled teams to compete in a single, high-quality white-ball competition (with the number of balls of marginal importance).

Right, I need to get back to packing. I'll keep checking in to see if anything emerges from the remaining forums.

VauxhallRey wrote:Unhappy as many of us are about the impact of the 100, it is clearly here to stay. If the club most against it, with former Chair and CEO now at the ECB, have accepted this, then there really is no hope.

For five or more years, I went regularly to the ECB’s Recreational Assembly to hear Tom Harrison use words like “monetisation”, “commercialisation”, “brand” and “offer” about the sport which I love.  And here was the Chair of my Club using exactly the same words.

But then he could hardly have nailed his colours to the 14 championship game mast than he did last night.  It is going to be quite difficult to row back from that, said in front of a packed Duchy Room.  Was quite surprised that he didn't hedge at all.  And if you had offered me that undertaking before last night, I probably would have taken it.

Like VauxhallRey, I found the Chair repeatedly using such words bitterly disappointing.

As regards the 14 Championship game undertaking, that was pleasing although he was unlikely to say anything else given the mood of the room. We will be able to better judge when we see how meaningfully the Club fights to retain 14 games when others push for a reduction as is still likely to happen.

A few other things. Here I comment not on what was said but what was not said or even mentioned.

Although speaking about the search for a new Outground, the Chair made no mention of the Guildford ground where Surrey have played since the 1930s. I acknowledge many here don't like the ground and even I accept it no longer has the appeal it once did despite substantial recent investment from our Club and the Council Tax payers of Guildford. Maybe then bin it for men's first team cricket as seems will happen. However, have the guts to say so. Saying nothing is weak and cowardly.

Without directly mentioning Pitch International, the Chair alluded to his day job which didn't seem to go down that well with the audience. I felt we needed to hear from the Chief Executive at that stage as to what safeguards are in place should a potential conflict of interest arise. My arm was raised but ignored and Elworthy said nothing here.

No mention was made of the men's second eleven. Hardly surprising as admittance for such games is free and this was a financially focused meeting. However, it would have been nice to know when the fixtures for these games will be issued. I do actually know some from looking at the websites of other counties. However, it's disappointing that my Club can't be bothered to tell me.


To be fair, Stewie spoke well as usual referring to the importance of the Championship being ''shown respect'' by the powers that be together with the difficulties and realities of so much franchise cricket being played all over the world.

I too like to think I recognise that our Club has to be financially responsible. However, that should not prevent it's biggest priority being upholding the game itself. I left the meeting feeling the Club was overly concerned with profits and worried that it had sold its soul.

I fear that the possible new stadium some where in Surrey is trojan horse to side line the county game to some back water,
Slipper seemed to sanguine over the possibility of the IPL franchises ending up owning county cricket clubs.
The ECB proposal of giving 51% share of a hundred franchise the hosting counties now explains why Bromsgrove in negotiation with an IPL franchise.

I too fear where Surrey may end up with the Oval being used for International and franchise matches. Much as I love Guildford, especially the festival that we once had, it is not the ground it was since they reduced the capacity. This coming season we only get one 50 over game there and I suspect it will be phased out all together. Stewie said they had not identified a new ground yet and it would at least 5 years before happening.

No mention was made of the men's second eleven. Hardly surprising as admittance for such games is free and this was a financially focused meeting. However, it would have been nice to know when the fixtures for these games will be issued. I do actually know some from looking at the websites of other counties. However, it's disappointing that my Club can't be bothered to tell me.

Same here............found these today,i expect you have the others.

Surrey v Middlesex - Tuesday 4th-7th July (LSE New Malden) - 11am


Middx v Surrey - Monday 22nd May (Richmond Cricket Club) - 1pm


Surrey v Middlesex - Monday 5th June (LSE New Malden) - 1pm

Badges wrote:No mention was made of the men's second eleven. Hardly surprising as admittance for such games is free and this was a financially focused meeting. However, it would have been nice to know when the fixtures for these games will be issued. I do actually know some from looking at the websites of other counties. However, it's disappointing that my Club can't be bothered to tell me.

Same here............found these  today,i expect you have the others.

Surrey v Middlesex - Tuesday 4th-7th July (LSE New Malden) - 11am


Middx v Surrey - Monday 22nd May (Richmond Cricket Club) - 1pm


Surrey v Middlesex - Monday 5th June (LSE New Malden) - 1pm

Thanks, Badges.

According to the Sussex and Kent CCC official websites, four day second eleven Championship matches respectively start on Monday 22nd April and Tuesday 7th May against Surrey, both at Guildford.

Yes,that's what i have.