Nottinghamshire Members' EGM - Members' Update from the Club

 

03/11 Email 14:04

Dear Member,

Following an Extraordinary General Meeting of Nottinghamshire County Cricket Club on 1 November, we are writing to you today to provide a summary of the business of the meeting.

By way of a reminder, the petition that triggered the AGM was worded as follows.

*******
We the undersigned members of Nottinghamshire County Cricket Club (the club) require an Extraordinary General Meeting to take place at Trent Bridge at a convenient date and time set by the General Committee to maximise attendance of the club’s members. The agenda is set out below:

1. To consider all aspects of the club’s officials’ handling of any discussion held amongst and of the counties and/ or the ECB relating to any matter connected to the High-Performance Review especially any implications to alter the future schedule or structure of county cricket.

2. To discuss the communications to members and the level of involvement of members ahead of the club casting its vote on the future structure/ schedule.

3. To discuss in detail the views of club officials on the merits of the various options considered and receive a detailed explanation of why they voted as they did.

*******

Dave Gunn, the proposer of the resolution, addressed the members present and those watching online, with fellow member Nick Evans seconding the motion.

In response to his comments and following further questions from the floor, Nottinghamshire Chair Jeff Moore and Chief Executive Lisa Pursehouse outlined the timeline of actions and communication from the club relating to the High-Performance Review, and reiterated the commitment to further consultation with members as and when further proposals are circulated.

Those present were reminded that, since convening the EGM, it had been confirmed that there will be no change to the domestic structure in 2023 and that no formal alternative proposals have to date been proposed for 2024 onwards.

The resolution stating that ‘the members have confidence in how club officials managed the process, communications and member involvement’ in relation to the High-Performance Review was supported by a majority of 101, with 140 votes in favour and 39 against.

The second resolution relating to the vote cast by the club either for or against domestic scheduling proposals was removed from the agenda, given that no such vote had taken place.

The meeting was closed by the Chair, who expressed thanks to the proposer and seconder of the EGM for the way they had conducted their involvement in the process, and thanked the members in attendance for their support.

The full minutes of the EGM will appear in the Annual Report and Accounts for 2022, which will be published ahead of the 2023 AGM in due course.

As and when revised proposals are received by the county network for consideration, or upon receiving any other important and definitive news in relation to the High-Performance Review, the club will be in contact with all members accordingly.

Should you wish to contact the club in the meantime, please feel free to do so via questions@nottsccc.co.uk.

02/11 22.00

Nothing to read on Pravda

The first EGM at Trent Bridge in over half a century and what coverage has there been on the club's website? 

Nothing... and the sad thing is, it's exactly how you'd expect "Prada" to behave. No discontent, no bad news and all in future is rosy. Their last three news items have had nothing to do with Notts CCC.

Lisa Pursehouse would have us think a Women's Test Match is equivalent to a Men's Ashes Test, which clearly it isn't, financially, in prestige or rank. Good luck conning the public on that Lisa. I assume the ticket prices won't be on a par with men's either, or has common sense abandoned her as well.

Other Pravda newsworthy items are related to the above but with a Trent Rocket twist. Whose website is it?  As a strong advocate of the Hundred, Ms Pursehouse strangely remained silent when asked to describe how there was any member consultation on the imposition of the Hundred, that excludes Notts CCC from his own home ground for a whole month. 

This was an important question because...

of the he way the Hundred was implanted on English cricket is perhaps the seed of doubt planted in members' minds, where trust in those of responsibility was lost to many. The then chairman and Lisa Pursehouse led the club along the path that could eventually lead to the demise of Notts CCC in its current state, some fear but last night Ms Pursehouse failed to even acknowledge the question.

Remember, Ms Pursehouse and her employees are those that had members in uproar at the beginning of the year with members having to book seats for T20 Blast games, three months into the future. That was almost universally slammed by members and Lisa's team were warned that it wasn't needed, wasn't wanted and that it would stifle attendances. Ms Pursehouse and her team pushed the experiment through and attendances were dramatically down on previous comparable seasons - the members were proved correct. Yet the club have failed to gather views on future structure of cricket from their wise members...

... perhaps someone would point out that the Hundred is problem, not something Ms Pursehouse can allow herself to contemplate maybe and certainly not something that would be communicated to members. 

The club remains poor at communicating with it's own members, apart from on the occasions when the club wants money off those members; again something under the remit of Lisa Pursehouse's team.

NO DISCUSSIONS HAVE BEEN HAD

02/11 10.00

So there you have it; the assurances of both Jeff Moore and Lisa Pursehouse'

"no discussions have been had..."

"... with the ECB"

There have been no discussions between County Chairs or County CEOs, other than JM feeding back to the Warwickshire Chair on the club's standing on the number of championship matches for 2023.

So all the talk in the press and on other county's published forums about counties having discussions between themselves and there being a split of 2:1 against reducing fixtures in 2024 is a fantasy... really?

How does JM and LP know there is a wide diversity of opinion on the structure for the game if there hadn't been talk between counties?

As experienced business people, Moore and Pursehouse have chosen their words very carefully, spoken the truth for sure, but not been totally forthcoming about all intercounty communications on the subject that has riled members.

At the onset of the meeting JM again flew to belittle the petitioners of the EGM, initially questioning the number present in the room perhaps not being enough, when it was obvious to all present that there was at least double the number required for a quorum! Then, with the opening lines of his reply "first I would like to point out some inaccuracies in your question (or however he called it)".

Again, JM showed little respect to those that had signed the petition at Grantham and at Welbeck and pretended not to understand why he was being petitioned at all. 

One point raised and not answered was about the Hundred and the lack of discussion with members before its encumbrance was thrust upon us all, with that being the route cause of the mistrust about future scheduling. JM referred the question to LP who never went near the question in anything that she said.

There was a briefing about plans for a new regional T20 competiton but that idea went down like a lead balloon with members present in 2017. No discussion was had about a 16.4 over competition and counties losing their entire first elevens. I tend to remember a briefing about when consitutional changes were required to conform to Sport England requirements blah blah, but that was sold to us as about more diversity. I'm sure LP's "timeline" could tell us when that happened as well, but she was tight-lipped on all matters Hundred-kerching.

ECB consitutional changes in 2017

County concerns 2017

The result of last night's meeting was that the great majority of those that voted, had confidence in club officials managing the process, communications and member involvement. Many present in the room didn't vote. 

To turn Jeff Moore's own perspectives against him, only a tiny few of the 7000 membership had confidence in his managing the process etc.

JM and LP conceded that communications could have been better.

The full extent of member involvement was the Members' forum of September 5th: the majority of which took place whilst play was taking place at Trent Bridge when many members had left the forum at the start of play after lunch, after JM told everyone that he would vote to retain 16 county championship and that he was standing down from his role as Chair at the AGM; and also after the petition for this EGM was officially made by Dave Gunn. What was said during that time when Notts were busy beating Leicestershire, remains a mystery to most of 7000 Notts members. Again, a total lack of communication. How could anyone wanting to make a contribution know that that was going to be the full extend of the club's dialogue with it's membership on 5th September?

Again the club still haven't sought to gain opinion of members in any meaningful manner.

As Jeff Moore has done a Liz Truss style u-turn and is now said to be looking to extend his term as Chair beyond the February 2023 AGM, how can we trust him on anything else that he says, especially the important stuff?

Rumours were abound last night about potential candidates for election to the committee in 2023, but I'll save that for another time as the one name mentioned is actually ineligible to stand under the present rules.

25/10

Dear Member,

Further to our communication of 21 September, this is a reminder that an EGM of Nottinghamshire County Cricket Club has been called for Tuesday 1 November at 6pm.

The sole object of the EGM, as set out by the proposer and seconder and supported by requisite signatories from among the Club’s membership, is to consider the content of the presented petition as outlined below:

We, the undersigned members of Nottinghamshire County Cricket Club (the club), require an Extraordinary General Meeting to take place at Trent Bridge at a convenient date and time set by the General Committee to maximise attendance of the club’s members. The agenda is set out below:

1. To consider all aspects of the club’s officials’ handling of any discussions held amongst any of the counties and/or the ECB relating to any matter connected to the High-Performance Review, especially any implications to alter the future schedule or structure of county cricket.

2. To discuss the communications to members and the level of involvement of members ahead of the club casting its vote on the future structure/schedule.

3. To discuss in detail the views of club officials on the merits of the various options considered and receive a detailed explanation of why they voted as they did.

The following resolutions will be considered by the meeting:

A. The members have confidence in how club officials managed the process, communications and member involvement.

B. The members have confidence in the actual vote cast by the club’s chair on behalf of the members.

It is important to note that an EGM is very different to an Annual General Meeting (an AGM), which is called by the Club, covers a number of formal topics and is usually held on the last Monday of February every year.

An EGM is called by a member of the Club subject to meeting the terms of the Club’s constitution. The purpose and agenda of such a meeting would be set by the proposer and seconder as part of that proposal.

The only business that can be transacted at such a meeting is correctly limited to the proposed agenda. There can be no variation to the contents of the presented petition and only items that have been notified in advance to the full membership can be discussed at an EGM.

In addition, given that no vote by the county chairs has taken place – nor has a date been set for such a vote in the future – resolution B is currently defined as ineffective under clause 9.4 of the Club’s constitution. Unless this situation changes ahead of the EGM, it cannot, therefore, be put to the meeting for a vote.

The meeting will take place in the Derek Randall Suite at Trent Bridge with car parking available on a first come first basis via the Hound Road and Fox Road entrances.

We will also provide access to the meeting digitally so should you wish to attend via Zoom, please register here and we will provide the joining instructions by email shortly in advance of the meeting.

By way of a further update in relation to the High-Performance Review, having shared the initial proposals from the review panel (led by Sir Andrew Strauss) with you last month, no formal alternative proposals have, as yet, been put forward for the counties to consider.

We will share and consult on any such developments with our members as and when they are received by the Club.

Thank you for your continuing support.

Jeff and Lisa

21/10

Trent Bridge remains silent...

Meanwhile Glamorgan reject and are in opposition to the Strauss proposals

18/10

Update, what update, there has been no update.

Discussions have been had at County chair and CEO levels. According to the Surrey Forum this morning, there is a diverse spread of opinions within the CEOs re: The Hundred, the schedule, the amount of cricket etc. There's another discussion happening again to this afternoon about reducing the Hundred tournament to 21 days. None of this, matters that have members up and down the country spitting feathers, has been told to (Notts) members. There's just been silence. The scheduled vote on proposals made, or is that the second lot of watered down proposals(?), for this Thursday, isn't now happening ( according to the Surrey forum).

I'm not sure if Surrey's top table were in alignment with their membership  on some of the major issue: amount of cricket. Alec Stewart doesn't appear to be understanding how a season long league would work, where it wouldn't always be possible to play your best team every week, where he would have to manage his players and their workloads to best effect. A statement from the floor rang true, especially when you remember that Surrey have gathered and built a squad of current and future stars, " the fewer the games of cricket in the schedule, the more opportunities arise for players to play franchise cricket elsewhere in the world".

As most (?) counties would want to reduce the Hundred, in last week's Forum from Taunton, it appeared that they wanted to be part of the problem, to expand the Hundred with a new west franchise, based in Bristol and Taunton. Hopefully that was just cider talking, as it's out of touch with what most cricket supporters would like to see.

At an evening forum today at Glamorgan, after consultation with coaches, players, members and other counties; consensus was reached with a structure that sounds pretty much as we already have, except that the Hundred is compacted into fewer days and the Blast is played in a single block.

So to summarise this update in reference to Resolution A (see below): there has been no communication or consultation / involvement with or to members since we were informed about the EGM which is scheduled in 14 days.

13/10

Following the Lancashire SGM and assurances made to members there, I thought a short recap on where I think we (Notts) are in this process (apart from being in the dark). It was clear last night members continued to support their county (Lancashire), many have reservations about those in positions of leadership at that club and the top table did acknowledge the need to rebuild trust with their membership, but you could feel that those in the room (behind the camera) were there but were conflicted, not wanting to act against their own county (which the Lancashire chair manipulated everytime he was cross-examined on a point), but members could see an unwanted direction of travel of the county game.

Much like an SGM, an EGM is not the best process to consult and decide on important matters, but with the lack of forums offered by NCCC to its members, as an alternative and the restrictive timings of the two forums that we were graciously allowed in 2022, little choice remains. Why haven't we had consultation evenings?

The Nottinghamshire CCC Members' EGM agenda:

1. To consider all aspects of the club’s officials’ handling of any discussions held amongst any of the counties and/or the ECB relating to any matter connected to the High-Performance Review especially any implications to alter the future schedule or structure of county cricket.

All we know is that no vote, no proposal for a formal vote or options on what there might be to vote on at an undefined time, has/have been made.

2. To discuss the communications to members and the level of involvement of members ahead of the club casting its vote on the future structure/schedule.

The club have made the High Performance Review available to all. The club presented the Review at the lunchtime Members' Forum in September also. Since then, we now know discussions have been had with the ECB (mentioned in the Lancashire SGM). Notts members haven't been informed about the contents of those discussions and no actual consultation of members has taken place either on the original HPR proposals or the watered down proposals.

3. To discuss in detail the views of club officials on the merits of the various options considered and receive a detailed explanation of why they voted as they did.

Chair Moore will perhaps state that no vote has taken place, so let's move on to the next item. 

But!

At the aforementioned forum, Chair Moore stated that he would not vote for a reduction from 14 County Championship matches and that Coach Moores (backed by the nodding DoC) was not of the opinion that there was too much cricket played currently. What we don't know is, is the club's stance on the reduction of Blast games and playing of the one day cup as a knock-out competition in April. No discussion or consultation with members has been had. 

It appears that Lancashire are happy to reduce the Blast by a couple of matches (but that wasn't up for discussion last night, (because of the restrictive nature of the SGM structure) and alternatively we also know that Leicestershire would prefer an expansion of the Blast. What are the Notts members views? No one knows, because no one has asked them!

The following resolutions will be considered by the meeting:


A. The members have confidence in how club officials managed the process, communications and member involvement.

We don't know what "process" has occurred as there hasn't been any communication or member involvement as yet. With just over two weeks to go until the EGM, time is running out for any kind of canvassing of views.

B. The members have confidence in the actual vote cast by the club’s chair on behalf of the members.

As the chair doesn't know what the membership wants (but I'm sure he has a vague idea, which he may agree or disagree with), how can he cast their vote?

Much like the Lancashire Chair, Jeff Moore doesn't instil trust. It's perhaps not entirely his fault as his predecessor and the current CEO are the ones to blame about the lies / misinformation and the running roughshod over members with the introduction of the Hundred. However, at the last Forum he did exhibit very similar behaviours to the Lancashire Chair last night - not a good look!

An assurance from last night's LCCC SGM

1/ LCCC members still get a binding vote on any proposals

and most telling

2/ If the counties cannot agree to a new structure, then the current 14 Championship and 14 Blast + 8 One Day Cup matches, remains in 2024 as well as 2023.