County Cricket Strife: Finger Pointing

 

07/10

It's a pity cricket is run by committee

DAVID HOPPS: County cricket has become so used to bowing to pressure from a bloated ECB that it can rarely think for itself on even the smallest issues

Fifty years have slipped by since I first became disillusioned with cricket committees. It was an immediate eye-opener. The chairman had a marginal interest in proceedings at best, but he was a respected village figure, and being of cultivated stock, he even owned a gavel to call the meeting to order.

When it came to Any Other Business, he fielded concerns about creaking rollers, mole infestations and player shortages with the magisterial phrase: "Something will have to be done." Then, at 10 o'clock sharp, he abruptly brought the meeting to a close, but only after a vote of thanks had been recorded in the minutes. Something had to be done, but very little ever was.

TS Eliot's J Alfred Prufrock measured out his life in coffee spoons, aware that time was drifting by without purpose. Occasionally, I feel as if I've measured mine in county cricket structural reviews, which appear to be ever-present, and compared to coffee much less stimulating.

It is unforgivable that an entire summer has resounded once again to the sound of befuddled old men debating the future of the game. To launch this latest navelgazing in April, following reviews in 2018 and 2022 (the essentially hostile Strauss Review), was crass.

The time for structural reviews is in the winter: done and dusted between October and March.

Even the idiotic three-conferences idea raised its head again: a cynical attempt to reduce the number of Championship games by bribing the counties with the idea that they could all win the Championship, a US-style gimmick that would destroy any pretence at a pyramid system pitting the best against the best.

Forgive the exasperation, but we are talking about England's professional game here. It matters. International cricket might remain the pinnacle, but county clubs provide the building blocks of cricketing life. Yet the county grandees' permanent indecision has undermined its relevance and contributed to its decline.

It would be consoling to imagine that county cricket is entitled to its moment of existential crisis, that a period of introspection is understandable during a time of rapid change, but that would be too forgiving. The game has always resorted to perpetual tinkering instead of a long-term vision.

'Lie Back and Think of England' has been the ECB's exhortation to the counties for decades, demanding that the professional game focuses not on its own potential but on the greater purpose of conceiving an occasional fast bowler or mystery spinner to serve the nation. Nothing has been more unbearable this summer than the Championship experiment with the Kookaburra ball. Much of the cricket has been intolerable, a once-balanced game of bat and ball reduced to drudgery and repetition. Helping England is a natural aim, but the Championship must be intrinsically entertaining or it has no future.

County cricket has become so used to bowing to pressure from a bloated ECB that it can rarely think for itself on even the smallest issues. "Divisions of 10 and eight, or eight and 10? How about the Conference idea: Lord MacLaurin was a fan. Points for a draw? Only four. Or maybe eight. Not enough cricket for the members. Too many games for the players. Expensive outgrounds; tired squares. Seam on the ball: too big, too small. Appointment to view. Friday starts, or did we try that? Shame the Blast is declining. What do Derbyshire think?"

Perhaps we have reached the point where we should abandon the cricket completely and just video the debates. How about devising a cross between Just a Minute and Squid Game where county chairmen must deliver a persuasive vision of the future without hesitation, deviation or repetition and if they fail, which most of them surely will, they face mock execution?

When the county game agonises about the future, too many chairmen, however well-meaning, worry that the future won't look exactly like the past, while too many chief executives are compromised by short-term financial thinking. A curse common not just to cricket, but to UK plc.

Then come the members. Fifteen counties remain members' clubs, but when members' meetings are forced, hardly anyone turns up. In Glamorgan, there were even calls from once prominent figures for a return to three-day cricket. As a consequence, members' views are dismissed as antediluvian and consultation in some counties has been a sham. I'm looking at you, Lancashire.

What a mess this perpetual faffing has caused. It has always been hard to find accommodation between 18 counties and the ECB. Now, a united vision is impossible.

With August sold off to private investors, at least The Hundred, contrived and performative, might now morph into a T20 tournament of status. But its very presence has deepened the insecurities of the smaller counties, and with good reason.

A split between big and small is inevitable. It is just that nobody will admit it until the next time the money runs out. Something will have to be done. But don't ask me what. I've become as bewildered as the rest of them.

23/09

An update from Interim Chair, Dame Sarah Storey

 

Dear Member,

 

We would like to thank all those who participated in the recent Member vote on the proposed changes to the County Championship schedule from 2026 onwards. Your engagement and input are greatly appreciated.

 

A total of 1,240 Members voted, reflecting a strong level of interest and commitment from our Membership. The results are as follows:

 

• Members who voted ‘YES’ – 685 (55.2%)

• Members who voted ‘NO’ – 528 (42.6%)

• Members who abstained – 27 (2.2%)

 

To confirm, the vote was based off the below:

 

• Yes, I support the proposed reduction to 13 matches, with Championship of 12 Counties (split into 2 pools of 6) and Championship Two of 6 Counties.

 

• No, I do not support the proposed reduction to 13 matches, with Championship of 12 Counties (split into 2 pools of 6) and Championship Two of 6 Counties.

 

As promised, this outcome - in favour of the 13-game proposal for the County Championship - will therefore be Lancashire’s formal vote to the ECB. The Club’s vote must be submitted by 5pm today (Tuesday 23 September).

 

The result - supported by both the Board and the Executive Team - concludes a comprehensive consultation and engagement process across all areas of the Club, including Members, players, and coaches. Throughout this process, we as a Board have supported the players and coaches, having listened to their concerns around the schedule, and we are appreciative of the wider Membership’s support for the final outcome.

 

Lancashire Cricket is one of the few counties to provide Members a binding vote. The Club now has a result in which all key stakeholder groups are aligned, with a Member-majority vote supporting the Board, players and coaches. We believe this outcome will help raise the standard of cricket, enabling players to perform consistently at the highest level and bring greater excitement to the County Championship in the years ahead.

 

We anticipate a final decision will be confirmed within the next two weeks, following the conclusion of this season’s County Championship. Once we have clarity from the Professional Game Committee and ECB, we will communicate the outcome to Members without delay.

 

On behalf of everyone at the Club, thank you once again for your engagement in this process and for your continued support throughout the summer. Following on from our women’s success last weekend, we look forward to our final game of the summer, starting tomorrow (Wednesday 24 September) as Lancashire take on Glamorgan in the County Championship, and we are all hoping to finish the season with a good performance.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dame Sarah Storey

Lancashire Cricket, Interim Chair

12/09

Nottinghamshire members reject County Championship proposal

GEORGE DOBELL: While the vote is not binding, it further underlines the resistance that many traditional county members have for any cut in the Championship programme

The prospects of a change to the County Championship structure would appear to be hanging by a thread after a clear rejection of the plans by Nottinghamshire members.

Those members voted by a margin of 698 to 246 to retain the 14-game structure at an Extraordinary General Meeting at Trent Bridge last night (September 11).

While the vote is not binding, it further underlines the resistance that many traditional county members have for any cut in the Championship programme.

Somerset, Essex, Yorkshire, Middlesex and Surrey have previously declared that they will not support any cut from the 14-match schedule. Gloucestershire, meanwhile, have stated they would support a cut in fixtures but will not support a structure with what they see as a rump of six teams in the bottom division. With any change to the structure requiring a two-thirds majority (meaning a minimum of 12 of the 18 first-class clubs would have to back it), Notts have become something of a 'swing state'; the Pennsylvania of the moment.

Notts may still back plans for a 13-game season. They have resolved to discuss the outcome of their members' vote at committee level and will publish a statement confirming their intentions once they have come to a decision. They also make the point that, as things stand, the Professional Game Committee (PGC), who are behind the plans for reform, have yet to clarify all the details of the proposed changes.

The club's hierarchy have never made any secret of their desire to cut the number of games and previously announced their backing for a 12-match season. The relationship with members is generally strong, however, and those leading the club are keen to react respectfully to the views outlined at the EGM.

As a result, there is increasing pressure on the PGC to defer any change until the start of the 2027 season. At present, sides are going into the final two rounds of Championship action not knowing if there will be any relegation or the structure of next season. There is, therefore, a growing feeling that discussions over potential changes should continue with a view to confirming them ahead of the 2026 season with a view to them being implemented in 2027.

Those against the cut to the programme point out that this is a case of those proposing the changes organising as many votes as is required until they reach the outcome they want.

As The Cricketer revealed, voting papers are due to be sent to the counties in the "week commencing September 15", though no deadline has been set on when those votes must be taken.

It is also understood that, at the time of writing, the PGC are "tinkering" with plans for the bottom division, having recognised that the 13-game schedule would result in sides playing one of their opponents three times in the season.

If the vote for a 13-match season is won, it would, in theory, commit the county game to that structure until the end of 2031 with "a formal review after the 2029 season". Those behind the proposals, notably the leadership at Durham, insist the changes are not as much about cutting the schedule as improving it to promote jeopardy and increase the amount of cricket played by the best teams against one another.

There were also votes of confidence in each of the Notts committee at last night's EGM. Every one of those votes was won by the incumbent.

09/09

Lancashire chief survives confidence vote but future shrouded in uncertainty

GEORGE DOBELL: Daniel Gidney, one of the longest-serving CEOs in county cricket, saw off a vote of confidence, but it remains to be seen what it means for his long-term future at Old Trafford

Lancashire's chief executive, Dan Gidney, has survived a vote of no confidence from the club's membership.

Gidney, who has been in position since the end of 2012, faced the vote at a Special General Meeting (SGM) last night (September 8) after it was suggested he "misled” members over the ongoing domestic review. This, the resolution alleged, "amount[ed] to misconduct".

Specifically, it was alleged that Gidney informed Lancashire members, who had previously been told they would be given a binding vote on the club's position in the negotiations, that the ECB had given the counties three options for the future schedule of the County Championship. All options outlined by the club featured 12 games a season.

The group of members insist this was a misrepresentation of the position at the time. They point to a leaked email, sent from Warwickshire chair Mark McCafferty (who is also chair of the Professional Game Committee), which suggests options for a 14-match season were also being discussed by counties.

As it was, 554 members voted in favour of the resolution and 1,246 against it; Lancashire have almost 6,000 voting members. The resolution was non-binding, so even if it had been passed, the club would not have been obliged to take any action.

But where it leaves Gidney and the club is debatable. Not many would argue it fatally undermines his position - fewer than 10 per cent of the club's membership voted in favour of the resolution, after all - but equally, to see 31.75 per cent of those who voted support the resolution feels uncomfortably high. It certainly doesn't feel as if it can be dismissed as a few troublemakers, as some at the club have consistently tried to suggest.

Those who were at the SGM - and it should be acknowledged, The Cricketer did not have anyone there, having had requests to watch online declined by the club - suggest that some of those who voted against the resolution still urged the board to take the discontent seriously and made real attempts to reconcile with the disgruntled members. It was the second SGM within a few days, with the club also winning a vote at the previous one - which related to discontent in the nominations committee - as well.

Maybe the club can learn from the experience. Maybe it can be the basis of a reset in relationships. Lancashire currently have an interim chair (Dame Sarah Storey) and surely wouldn't relish further instability.

Realistically, though, the key issue may be whether Gidney is prepared to keep working in what appears to be a somewhat toxic environment. While he appears robust and focused, the eroding effect of such criticism shouldn't be understated. Only Lisa Pursehouse, at Nottinghamshire, has been in place as CEO for longer at the first-class counties, and she is stepping down (she is expected to become CEO of the Trent Bridge Hundred side instead) at the end of the season. Gidney may simply decide he's had enough. You suspect he wouldn't struggle for other opportunities.

From one perspective, the dissatisfaction in Gidney is hard to understand. He has rejuvenated Lancashire as a business, taking it from the brink of insolvency to build one of the most successful business models in the game. Revenue has grown to around £35m a year (from around £10m when he started), with the hotel and hospitality side of the business the envy of most rivals. At the same time, Lancashire have built an impressive second home, at Farington, and recently qualified for Finals Day in the Men's T20 Blast. A lot of counties would be happy with that.

On the other hand, the club have struggled in the County Championship - they went into this round of games sixth in Division Two - with some members complaining that the focus on financial sustainability has taken attention away from cricket. There are also reports of somewhat heavy-handed treatment of the club's critics - which includes legal threats to those behind the calls for SGMs - and a diminished match-day experience for spectators.


The other unknown factor in all this is the reaction of Lancashire's new partners in India. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some involved in the RPSG Group - who also run Lucknow Super Giants and recently bought a 70 per cent stake in the team currently known as Manchester Originals - are surprised by the unrest. If they express concerns, Gidney's position may well become untenable. Gidney declined to comment when contacted by The Cricketer.

There is a wider perspective. The SGMs at Lancashire are part of a wider pattern of similar meetings around several of the first-class counties. While different resolutions may have been called, the underlying theme is discontent from members with decisions made to cut the county schedule.

Perhaps that is the lesson from all this. For a long time, the gap between county executives and county members has grown; at several clubs, anyway. And, in recent years, some of the decisions made by executives have not been to the liking of those memberships. Going forward, clubs are either going to have to do a better job of communicating with their membership or consider the prospect of demutualisation.

Either way, it's clear that, at Lancashire at least, a significant portion of the membership are now happy. And it does remain, for now, a members' club.

County cricket’s restructure: what is being proposed and how will it work?

The County Championship could be transformed with a 12-team top division split into two pools of six

Matt Hughes 30/08

It feels symptomatic of English cricket’s dysfunctional nature that, having started the summer with five different options for a restructured County Championship, the 18 first-class chairs will conclude a tortuous process next week with a sixth on the table. International peace treaties have been negotiated quicker than talks over whether, and how, to cut a handful of playing days from a domestic calendar that, with four different competitions and formats to accommodate, is bursting at the seams.

The tongue-in-cheek words of the England and Wales Cricket Board’s managing director of the professional game, Rob Andrew, when announcing the review in April have proved prophetic. “We have 18 counties that agree it’s not right, but 19 different versions of what the answer is,” he said.

Unlike the previous attempt to remodel the English summer three years ago that was commissioned by the ECB and led by Andrew Strauss, the current review has been undertaken by the counties themselves under the aegis of the Professional Game Committee [PGC], chaired by Warwickshire’s Mark McCafferty. Consequently, the emphasis has been on a widespread consultation that has resulted in seemingly ever-changing plans. The Strauss Review had a clear, single recommendation for the Championship: to be split into three divisions of six with a reduction from 14 to 10 matches in each. This, however, was comprehensively rejected by the counties.

What is the plan?

After a long summer, the most radical proposals have been dismissed, including three conferences of six, a single 18-team league with a Champions-League Swiss model fixture list, a mid-season split similar to that of the Scottish Premier League and several different variants of the current 10/8 divisional makeup. It has left two options on the table. At a meeting at Lord’s next Tuesday the 18 county chairs will be asked to choose between keeping the status quo – 10 teams in Division One and eight in Division Two each playing 14 matches – or adopting a new structure that involves a 12-team County Championship being split into two pools of six, with the remaining six clubs in a second tier beneath this.

A vote will follow the meeting later next week if the PGC judge there is a realistic prospect of it being passed, which is not guaranteed.

With 12 votes required to alter the structure, Surrey, Yorkshire, Middlesex, Essex and Somerset have already stated they will oppose any reduction to the current 14-game season, with the voting intentions of Derbyshire, Sussex and Kent in the balance. The 10 other counties – an unlikely alliance of Test match grounds and Division Two sides such as Leicestershire and Northamptonshire – are broadly in favour but need two other clubs to come on side.

“A small number of chairs have worked very hard to deliver the best solution for the game,” one advocate of the new structure told the Guardian. “It would be a real shame if this opportunity is missed.”

How would it work in practice?

The selling point of the final compromise is the fact 14 of the 18 teams would play 13 matches each summer due to a series of September playoffs, on top of a 12-game regular season. The Championship would consist of each team playing 10 games home and away against the five opponents in their pool, plus two additional matches against sides in the other pool determined by seeding. At the end of the season, all the Championship teams would play a 13th game against the corresponding side in the other pool – first v first, second v second etc. While these matches were initially billed as playoffs for the title and wooden spoon, it is now envisaged that they would each be worth the standard 24 points and added to those in the regular season to determine final league positions.

As a result, it is theoretically possible that the top-of-the-table clash could prove meaningless, if one of the sides has 24 points more than their opponent after 12 matches. Although this feels unsatisfactory to some and would remove the spectacle of a grand final at Lord’s, the proposed new structure would guarantee jeopardy at the wrong end of the top tier, with the bottom sides in each pool relegated.

The winners of the second tier – Championship 2, consisting of 10 home-and-away games plus two additional loop fixtures – would be promoted automatically, with second facing third in a playoff for the right to join them in the top flight.

Key stumbling block

The refuseniks are chiefly acting out the wishes of their vocal but relatively small memberships. Totalling about 70,000, of which Surrey contribute by far the most at just over 20,000, they vociferously oppose any reduction in championship matches. The influence of this lobby group is a huge source of frustration to the Professional Cricketers’ Association, whose members want a cut in cricket on the grounds of player welfare and quality.

In a last-minute attempt to win over floating voters the PGC is understood to have offered to add an extra fixture in the 50-over One Day Cup from next season to appease members and provide additional gate receipts, a proposal which will form part of the Championship vote.

County cricket’s overhaul plan as clubs to vote on cutting season by one match

Exclusive: Championship could adopt 13-game structure after resistance from members forced 12-match proposal to be scrapped

Will Macpherson

County chiefs are set to vote on a 13-game structure for the Championship from next summer after plans to cut the schedule to 12 matches were shelved.

The County Championship, the 135-year-old first-class competition, has been played over 14 rounds in a two-divisional structure since 2017.

On the eve of this season, which concludes next month, the England and Wales Cricket Board’s Rob Andrew announced there would be a “county-led” review into the entire domestic calendar following pressure from players and some administrators over the condensed schedules. This follows the doomed “Strauss Review”, which proposed radical changes to the county schedule following an Ashes debacle Down Under.

“We have 18 counties that agree that it’s not right, but 19 different versions of what the answer is,” Andrew said when announcing the latest review, which has been led by Mark McCafferty, the Warwickshire chairman, who was once chief executive of Premiership Rugby.
Any change requires a vote with two-thirds (i.e. 12 out of 18 counties) in favour. Counties announced earlier this month they had agreed to cut the Vitality Blast schedule from 14 group matches to 12, with the knockouts and Finals Day following straight after, before the Hundred.

On the County Championship, a number of options were mooted, with a strong push to cut the schedule to 12 games. However, it became clear earlier this month that, after resistance from their members, enough counties would oppose the proposals. Counties who told their members they would not support a reduction were: Middlesex, Surrey, Somerset, Kent, Essex, Derbyshire and Yorkshire.

That left a 12-game structure dead in the water, but McCafferty wrote to counties in the last week inviting their chairs to a meeting in London on September 2 to discuss a tweaked 13-game structure, with a view to having a formal vote by September 8. Changes would kick in next season with the aim of keeping the same structure in place until 2031.

In an email seen by Telegraph Sport, McCafferty wrote: “Based on the feedback received from the 18 PCCs [Professional County Clubs], it’s clear that there continues to be mixed views on the volume of matches to be played in the County Championship, but the majority of PCCs support some reduction from the current 14 matches. Given this, and alongside the clear position of the majority of players and the PCA, the proposal to PCCs for vote will likely be based on a 13-match schedule, as an appropriate balance.”

Exactly how a 13-game structure would operate is still being worked through, but it seems highly likely to include a top flight of 12 teams split across two pools of six, above a lower tier “Championship 2”, consisting of six teams. The top 12 for 2026 would be made up of the 10 Division One teams for this year, plus the two teams promoted from Division Two. The two pools would be seeded based on ranking from the previous season.

One option is thought to include a 12-match regular season then a “13th round” against teams in the equivalent position in the other pool to decide final standings. Another is a 10-match regular season (home and away against the other five in that team’s pool), plus a three-match series against a team in a similar position in the table to determine final placings and prize money.

It appears highly likely the system would remain “first past the post”, rather than involving knockout finals (like Australia has in the Sheffield Shield, for instance). There would also be high turnover of teams, with two promoted and two relegated each season.

McCafferty believes there is “significant support for a version of the 12-6 format”, with one major positive thought to include that 12 teams begin the season with a chance of winning the Championship title, rather than the current 10.

Unlike an earlier discussed option, which would have had some counties playing a 13th match (tantamount to a final), this proposal would include all 18 teams playing 13 games. Inevitably, some teams would play seven home matches and others play six. Effectively, counties would earn a seventh home match at the sharp end of the season through their performances through the summer.

Change unlikely for 2026 as counties hit championship impasse

Lizzy Ammon 12/08

Eighteen first-class clubs fail to find way forward despite general agreement change must happen, but T20 quarter-finals and finals day will be brought forward to July

The 18 first-class counties still cannot agree on a new structure for the County Championship and it is looking increasingly likely they will have to settle for the status quo remaining in place for 2026.

At the start of this season an official review began into how to restructure the domestic game, with every county and the players’ union agreeing that the existing format was not working.

Numerous alternative arrangements have been proposed and rejected since, with only two now remaining on the table, both of which would involve a reduction in first-class fixtures from the present 14. However, at least seven counties, including Somerset, Surrey and Middlesex, have already stated publicly they will not accept a reduction. Any restructuring requires a minimum of 12 of the 18 counties to vote in favour — hence the impasse.

All 18 first-class counties have been asked to indicate their preference on the two remaining options by this Friday. A decision on changes — or no changes — ideally needs to be made by the end of the month so counties know before the start of the final block of Championship matches in September what they are playing for in terms of promotion and relegation.



Of the two remaining options, the first is the most radical. It involves creating a 12-team Division One divided into two pools, with a six-team Division Two underneath. Teams in Division One would play ten games, home and away, against their five pool rivals, plus two additional fixtures against teams from the other pool. The teams who finish top of each pool would then take part in a play-off final in September for the County Championship title. The bottom team in each pool would either be relegated or play off against the top two teams in Division Two. This model would at least allow for an additional two one-day cup matches in August, giving county members another home match to watch as well as six home red-ball matches and potentially a play-off fixture.

It is believed that Gee Cee met on Wednesday (again on the day of a Nottinghamshire away game) - the result from which we hope to hear favourable news. The Options C and D from the original options table shared with members (the 2 remaining options on the ECB's table) were universally dismissed as unsuitable, in the first rounds of "consultation".