‘Luddite members will kill county cricket unless they allow change’, says Durham chief executive

Article in The Telegraph. I have printed it to a file in case it disappears behind a paywall, but someone would have to tell me how to attach it.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2024/03/25/luddite-members-killing-county-cricket-durham-ceo/

I can understand the bloke might be frustrated, but to talk about paying members in these terms seems outrageous.  And we ain't going to get anywhere with name-calling.

What an arse hole. County Cricket can do without these people.Go and watch the 100 and stop insulting proper cricket fans. Hope this book pans. Remind me not to watch Durham.

What a ponce he needs a good slap when Durham visit the Oval.

If Durham are a privately owned club, how successfull have they been if they have been run by cricket people rather than being stunted by being under the control of backward members, making their team "average". I don't see any major honors at all in the last 10 years in either white or red ball cricket. I suppose winning Division Two can be classed as a success for a small club.

For most of the last ten years Durham have been hit by the sanctions imposed for breaching the salary cap and so on. OK, that's arguably their own fault, but the result was having to lose players like Stoneman, Borthwick, Onions and so on. It's hardly surprising that they have struggled since and they have probably done well to rebuild so well in the last two or three years, to the extent that they can probably hold their own in CC1 this season.

So I don't think their lack of trophies on the field during this period tells us anything at all about the way the club is conbtrolled.

adelaide wrote:For most of the last ten years Durham have been hit by the sanctions imposed for breaching the salary cap and so on. OK, that's arguably  their own fault, but the result was having to lose players like Stoneman, Borthwick, Onions and so on. It's hardly surprising that they have struggled since and they have probably done well to rebuild so well in the last two or three years, to the extent that they can probably hold their own in CC1 this season.

So I don't think their lack of trophies on the field during this period tells us anything at all about the way the club is conbtrolled.

I think my point being the CEO of Durham saying members run clubs become mediocre and produce average teams is a little rich, when all the successfull clubs are run by members, eg Surrey, Essex, Lancs, Warwicks etc etc ...

They were also sold down the river by the ECB who encouraged them to go for test status. This incurred a lot of expense which tests in Durham were never going to recoup.

Steve wrote:What a ponce he needs a good slap when Durham visit the Oval.

Are you, perchance, a fellow Millwall?

We have to recognize that some counties teeter on the financial edge and the managements see private investment as their salvation (with nice salary increases to boot). I do not think it would be a help, business decisions would be taken by managers only interested in the bottom line and all control would be lost. The championship, a loss maker, would be the first to go in order to greatly expand the horrid hundred. There is a financial way forward involving having no hundred, but a blast properly publicised and supported with an effort to also bring in more spectators for one day games and the championship. Making cricket available for state school kids is also important.

The Durham Chief Executive has insulted cricket fans and his policy would end the cricket we love.

Nah not Millwall squire. He needs to be told to f**k off and go to another sport.

Peter.M.Gardens wrote:

adelaide wrote:For most of the last ten years Durham have been hit by the sanctions imposed for breaching the salary cap and so on. OK, that's arguably  their own fault, but the result was having to lose players like Stoneman, Borthwick, Onions and so on. It's hardly surprising that they have struggled since and they have probably done well to rebuild so well in the last two or three years, to the extent that they can probably hold their own in CC1 this season.

So I don't think their lack of trophies on the field during this period tells us anything at all about the way the club is conbtrolled.

I think my point being the CEO of Durham saying members run clubs become mediocre and produce average teams is a little rich, when all the successfull clubs are run by members, eg Surrey, Essex, Lancs, Warwicks etc etc ...

Agreed, Peter, though three of those do have the benefit of being Test grounds. I'm not sure that any county can truly be described as member-run as most of the counties voted for the Hundred despite (I am assuming) their members wishing otherwise. Have Yorkshire members felt in control over the last few years? On their White Rose forum, it is also pointed out that only a small minority of members actually vote when given the opportunity, the presumption being that membership is seen as a season ticket rather than something they wish to influence, also that some are members to give them greater priority for England tickets.

I think we must be careful not to "hate on Durham" because of their obnoxious Chief Executive. There are, I am sure, many genuine cricket lovers in the county, and I would love to know if they feel in any way "deprived" of a Hundred franchise. I suspect many more of them feel deprived of a say in how their county, and cricket in general, is run.

Any true cricket-lover would have felt a genuine sense of outrage at the way the ECB hung Durham out to dry in 2016 by punishing them with relegation in return for a bailout. The reason why they needed the bailout was that, as George Dobell noted at the time, they had - at the ECB's behest - built a ground in an out-of-town location more than 20 years earlier, to enable them to host international games against second-rate opposition in May. Talk about setting them up to fail.

I don't know whether Durham ever was member-owned, but I assume that it wasn't. Would a members' club have countenanced the choices that led Durham to the position they ended up in, giving the ECB the chance to make an example of them? I doubt it. And certainly Durham's history of poor choices does not augur well for trusting that the Chief Executive's latest blueprint for private investment provides the county side with any basis for confidence in it's future.

“Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns!” he said.
Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred."

I am very much looking forward to seeing Durham back up this season, despite their misguided management.