Full particulars will have been provided along with Members' postal voting cards.
Candidates in the order presented by the club:
Just a personal spin of what we've been offered.
PJ Ford-Murphy - Businessman, former Leicestershire 2nd XI and local club cricketer, supporter of the annual Notts "handbook" says, "if re-elected I will always continue to represent the views of our members".
PA Huggard - Works in the public sector for a housing association, was co-opted to support the consultation process for proposed constitutional changes and at presentations didn't give any satisfactory reasons to back her comments and failed to impress this member at least. If elected would be a step towards the desired diversity but she does not mention the membership or representing others' views in her personal comments.
JP Moore - self-confessed balding accountant and came across at the consultation evening, referred to previously, as the Chairman's "go-to-guy". His personal comments certainly tick some key boxes; improved accountability, refocus the coaching structure, develop homegrown players, improve facilities and to "ensure members' views are heard, respected and acted upon wherever possible".
BM North - high-flyer with the RAF. In his statement he talks about giving direction and planning and to "improve standards of performance and discipline...". No mention about the memberships' views however.
WS Rathmore - Lawyer. In his statement he positions himself as a British Indian able to "provide additional perspective ...,
... to help the club engage with different sections of our local communities". No mention of current members and their views in his comments alas. Another diversity candidate?
PG Wright - The Gunn and Moore MD. Former Chair of the committee. In his personal comments he talks the talk about "re-establishing first team performance" and developing the ground facilities, "particularly the Pavilion, for the benefit of members and players". He also bullets comments that are out of the ECB handbook and that don't fail to remind us that he was one of the club's representatives that has led us to The (unwanted) Hundred. He is not one that represents this member's views on the way forward nor does he say that he will represent the view of the members in his comments, perhaps he never has done...
Members get to vote for up to four of the six candidates. Good luck.
HBD
I need to advise your readers about the candidates ....in particular no votes for Hubbard (an implant on behalf of Lisa) , Peter Wright proposed by Bicknell and Tennett and Rathore who wants free tickets when India come. Under no circumstances should the members vote yes for governance changes this will further encourage the commitee to put their mates on the board. .....
ReplyDeleteUnder no circumstances should anyone vote for Wright, Hubbard or Rathore. .... but one of those will get in! Wright I am sure will get on as he has friends in high places.
A pretty grim assortment by the look of it. Although I don't know any of them personally tend to agree with the above and reading the brief resumes above it's pretty clear to see which candidates will represent the members and these will certainly get my vote. Also agree regarding the governance situation. We need more committee members like the two currently serving in Diana Peasey and Richard Stevenson who are visible at Trent Bridge and Lady Bay and suspect the new governance will make this far less likely like the comment above
ReplyDeleteI agree, more "ordinary" members on the committee to represent "ordinary" members. Less corporate, business is business types.
ReplyDeleteWe are entitled to vote for those we hope will really represent us, and of course protect our club, ground and Test Match status. Or indeed vote as we wish to. These people give their time for free and it is fair to remember that too
ReplyDeleteWell said. The key point though is they must represent the members views rather than have their own agendas....
DeleteRead the biogs of those standing very carefully. Only two refer to the members. Enough said.
ReplyDeleteYou can vote for whoever you want. I can't see that there's four there that will represent the members.
ReplyDeleteI've just voted for 2 of them only.
And then there are those Nominations who were disallowed - Philip Measures and another much more established and long-term Member but both were aged 70 or over so Age Discrimination appeared to rule both of them out - shame on Notts and I guess that the likes of certain Commitee members seeking re-election voted to keep them out!
ReplyDeleteMy advice - vote ONLY for the Member(s)you wish to definitely get Elected - do NOT use all 4 of your votes - but DO vote for Paul Ford-Murphy. Peter Wright is a Committee 'stooge' and has probably been persuaded to re-stand in order to try to keep others out.
And Penny Huggard of Futures Housing sees having a good wicket keeper as the answer!!!:
ReplyDeleteAbout (herself):
At school I was taught how to use 'box analysis' in English grammar lessons, much like learning how to do basic sums in maths. This technique stuck with me and with a love of writing, teamed with a great sense of fair play and wanting to do my tiny bit to contribute to a better world, my career has predominantly had governance at its core. I work in social housing, enabling executives and Boards to make great decisions underpinned by safe systems.
Another love is the traditional English game of cricket. This comes in different formats requiring many different strategies including an early plan that can constantly flex as the match unfolds. Rising to the challenge of a changing world where any number of yorkers or googlies can be bowled, effective governance ensures our services can adapt whilst keeping an eye on the main game - our social purpose and core values.
Having a great wicket keeper with a safe pair of gloves forms the foundation of a great innings for any successful business.
Contact: penny.huggard@futureshg.co.uk
How do you counter the point made that Ms Huggard is Lisa Pursestrings' candidate? She clearly was pushing for the un-democratic constitutional changes to be backed and would be the first of the "new cronies" if she was elected his year. PJ you are clearly an advocate for Huggard and in the additional statement you've shared with us, she still fails to mention that she would represent the views of real members not just drive the CEO's agenda.
DeleteYou mis-read the intentions behind my post - you should NOT vote for Ms. Huggard. At the Consultation Meetings she was extremely ineffective and could not demonstrate how Housing Futures had benefitted from similar Governance - indeed it seems to be a male dominated Organisation with little evidence that its Management Committee is varied in terms of gender or those from 'User' background.
ReplyDeleteAs I am no longer a member of the Club I have no vested interest in who gets Elected - but you can bet that Moore and Wright will because the membership will always vote them in!
I do feel that Members ought to vote for Paul Ford-Murphy though.
Yes, indeed, we are perfectly entitled to vote for up to four, it's every members right. Personally, I've only voted for 2 and I suspect it's the ones that BIG Dave G has also voted for. Good wicket keeper with a safe pair of gloves ? Is Ms Huggard talking about the Notts team or more generally in terms of the running of the business?
ReplyDeleteThe decision about voting may be straightforward. I would be surprised if anyone who saw M/s Huggard in 'action' at a Governance meeting would vote for her. Rathore has his own agenda. I have never seen him at a Notts match. Has anyone?
ReplyDeleteWright has been on the NCCC Committee for a long time and has been a ECB Director. Anyone voting for him must realise that he has contributed significantly to the present situation both on and off the field.
I shall not use all four votes. I urge everyone to vote for Sir Barry North. He attends matches, he has relevant commercial experience and he will not allow the current state of affairs to continue. This includes conduct, which is a major concern. If elected he will make a positive and much needed difference.
And as one of those who Nominations were disaallowed I would also urge members to strongly conisder expressing their serious concerns at just how the Committee have been operating and to seriously seek answers as to why the Committee is more intent on preserving itself than looking seriously at what has gone wrong with Notts over the past 2-3 Seasons especially.
ReplyDeleteThe Club has lost the likes of Brendan Taylor; Brett Hutton; Jake Libby, Luke Wood and Riki Wessells and clearly been unable to attract back Amla.
IF it was a commercial company which relied on cricketing results then it would be bankrupt BUT, as we all know, it is Trent Bridge (the Ground) that 'saves' the Club through Test Matches and other prestigious International games - it remains in many ways a wonderful cricket Ground although both the Paviliion and William Clarke Stand are showing great need for urgent remedial action.
I would have opposed the continuation of the 'Six' restaurant - a vanity project - and sought to investigate how the Pavillion could be improved within and how to increase seating capacity - unless Trent Bridge can increase the capacity for major Matches it may find that it starts to lose out even more.
I also note the amazing value of Leicestershire's £99 County Championship only Membership for 2020 which also includes ALL Derbyshire & Warwickshire County Championship Matches + 3 Notts Matches. It will have huge appeal for many who do not want to include the T20 or Royal London Matches and may 'provoke' Notts to look at its own previously highly competitive pricing structure as I think that Leicestershire have probably out-witted them this Season.
It was with huge sadness that I resigned my Notts membership but the Committee has become far too powerful and lost touch with the membership as a whole. Thank goodness for Diana Peasey, Richard Williamson and Paul Ford-Murphy especially - do NOT vote for Peter Wright under any circumstances.
So, just to avoid the kind of misunderstanding that arose from one of the posts above as can happen on these forums, and without in any way wishing to detract from the principle that anyone is of course free to vote for whoever she or he wants to for whatever reason he or she feels like, am I right that the consensus on here, including from people with some actual knowledge, is that members with the concerns about first team performance especially and other things ventilated on here at length is:
DeleteVotes FOR Messrs Ford-Murphy and North; and
NO VOTES for Messrs/Mdmes Huggard, Moore, Rathore and Wright?
Very many thanks to all contributors. I for one need this guidance.
Vote for Moore, North and Ford-Murphy, they have the members wishes at heart
DeleteAnd just to correct - it is of course Richard STEVENSON who is one of the good guys on the Committee.
ReplyDeleteSo you could do worse than just to vote for Ford-Murphy and Moore. I hear good things about North but know little about him.about
Jeff Moore = next chairman in waiting?
ReplyDeleteYou bet!!!
ReplyDeleteFor those who do wish to use all 4 Votes then, without seeking to unduly influence you, the following may be helpful:
ReplyDeleteIF you feel that the general direction fo the Club is one that you agree with and wish to support the Governance changes then YOUR 'Gang of 4' should be: Wright; Huggard + 2 others.
IF you feel that change is needed and that, perhaps, 'evolution' rather than 'revolution' is required and you have some doubts about the Constitutional changes then YOUR 'Gang of 4' should be: Ford-Murphy; Moore; North + 1 other.
Helpful?
If there's ANYONE out there who is happy with the direction the club is going in and thinks performances on the field over the last 4 years have been acceptable I would advise they seek specialist psychiatric consultation as you clearly would have someone unstable and potentially dangerous on your hands.
ReplyDeleteCome on Stoney, you know the club's priorities over the last 4 years - The Blast. We've been consistant performers in that format, attracted young exciting talented players at that format to replace players that have left, been more successful than any other county over all in that format and attendances have been on an upward curve year on year. That will be sold as a success story to members. The two problems are: the members might have a different priority...
Deleteand
why jeopodise the "success on and off the field" of Notts Outlaws in the Blast by pushing for a different format, pushing the Blast to a different part of the season, with a different team (Rockets) with a different ethos, looking to attract different spectators (that may or may not exist).
I don't want to be a doomsayer and I would almost certainly not moan about the one day form if the first class were not so awful but I don't agree with the club's insistence that yes the first class performances are very troubling but the white ball side is the envy of the rest of the country. Since we chose to dismantle our fine championship winning side of 2010 we have won three one day trophies in nine years. That is great and every one brought me great joy and wonderful memories. We were undoubtedly in my view the best one day team in the country in 2017 and the results prove it. I don't say that we are not a strong one day side. We are but that is not the full story. To confine ourselves to the 2020 we have been at finals day in each of the last three seasons so I accept it is churlish to carp about that, though I will come back to it. We have won it once in 16 years, at the 15th attempt. I rejoice in that and it is perfectly creditable but that is the same as 9 other counties and below Hampshire and Northants who have won it twice and Leicestershire who have won it 3 times. That does not put us as the top performers - even if we have, as I think is right, won more matches than anyone else through the history of the competition - (and if one considered the apparent strength of our 2020 squads you might think it is the least we could expect). While the exit to Northants in 2016 was pretty limp what gives the lie to the club's championing of the white ball performance is this year's finals day. A good side simply does not lose a 2020 game needing, was it, 12 off 12 balls with, I think, eight wickets in hand. Only a side with problems does that. It is impossible to believe that that mortifying spectacle was just an astonishing and inspired Worcestershire team imposing its will on the match rather than symbolic and symptomatic of the state of our club as reflected in its first class performances. I love the club and the team and this gives me anguish not any pleasure and I fervently and passionately hope that we can turn it all round pronto but I don't accept the club's propaganda on this.
DeleteCorrection Three 2020 finals in the last four seasons. Sorry.
DeleteI have voted just for 3 candidates - I did not vote for Huggard, Wright or Rathmore. It is shame that there was not a fourth candidate what would represent the direction regular members want the club to be heading in.
ReplyDeleteYes, spot on Kenneth(you've hit the frequency as R.E.M. would say)You can't beat a bit of age-discrimination to prevent some other candidates from having a chance and with this as you say, a fourth option.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWkMhCLkVOg
ReplyDeletefor the baffled
ALL MEMBERS:
ReplyDeletePlease use your Votes to seek to elect those who will try to work towards sorting out the mess that currently exists - those who will be brave enough to take some hard decisions at the very top of the Club.
Hear hear but, again, to avoid all ambiguity, that is votes for Messrs Ford-Murphy, North and Moore?
ReplyDeleteYes
DeleteThanks done
ReplyDeleteI voted for Ford-Murphy, Moore, North and Rathmore. A vote for Rathmore is vote against the Lisa's puppet and Tennant's buddy. So what if he's got his own agenda, it's not the same agenda as those hell-bent on wrecking our club.
ReplyDeleteWhat a brilliant summing up posted by Anonymous 30 Jan@12.26. in relation to the club's white ball performance. No one at the club seems to ever mention the drubbings weve had recently at the knockout stages, epitomised by the biggest disaster of them all at Finals day last year. But what a team that 2017 outfit was and what a real shame we couldn't keep the players regularly turning out for us for a couple of years longer. That outfit was almost unbeatable and had all bases covered perfectly so huge credit to the beleaguered management for this success in that year.
ReplyDeleteYes Stoney J, rather than play Devil's Advocate, I think I would agree with the Anonymous summing up too. Perhaps it's Peter Moores...
Delete