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"
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
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.
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.
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.
It’s an unholy mess and that’s stating the obvious, of which the cricket administrators are to blame, some more than others.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to read a sad ,sobering shocking report on how things can go wrong, and could with county cricket clubs, read page 81 of today’s daily mail. Ian Herberts piece “ no sympathy for parasite club in their adopted city.” It’s about wasps demise in rugby union.
It’s what happens when money men, branding, franchising , no respect for history, traditions and the fans ends up.
If Nottinghamshire CCC end up playing in derby ( as they already have done) as an amateur club, we will be mocked , laughed at , scorned, hated but look on the brighter side it won’t be a five hour round trip to see them. Foxy
Hear hear.
Delete75 NOT OUT
ReplyDeleteWise words Foxy.
Yes , money obsessed bean counters are not generally sports fans . Usually their vision of future developments rarely corresponds with the way true fans see things. Squeeze every available penny out of the supporters and that is mission accomplished. Happens time and time again .
Damn it - i was eagerly awaiting my bacon cob, nibbles and cup of tea(on the House) with Ms.Pursestrings. What planet were Sir Andew and the High Performance Review on if they expected their original offering to get the 12-8 ratification it needed to become a nightmare reality for the majority of true cricket supporters - or perhaps that is the actual problem, they are just so out of touch with your average County Member and his/her priorities?
ReplyDeleteHaven’t heard that about The Cidermen in Trescoland. But doesn’t surprise me, they have always regarded themselves as one of the big boys, when they clearly aren’t and never will be unless they funded a new ground away from Taunton.
“Oh aren’t we good, we have listened, we’ll do you thickos all a favour and only reduce it to 12( then we’ll cut it to ten when you’re not looking)
ReplyDelete“
They continue to take us for idiots.
The ecb need to remember a couple of things
1 that spiv Harrison has now gone.
2 Allen Stanford ( that other crook who you were taken in by) is now eating his body weigh in Quaker Oats every morning.
Started from that as a baseline and the ecb might improve.
Foxy
Yes, agree Foxy Loxy in as much that any agreement to the reduction from 14 to 12, will be a ‘stealth’ win by the ECB because as you righty say, this will then be reduced to their preferred 10 at some stage. Why wouldn’t they ? It’s already been reduced about 5 years ago so a further reduction will be seen by them that they can ultimately do what they want, albeit through the back door at a later date when you’ve nicely accepted the reduction down to 12.
DeleteIt’s just a pity this Government aren’t involved in the fixture recommendations as another, by now customary, U-turn would leave it nicely at 14 games anyway.
75,NOT OUT . I would urge everyone who loves "proper" traditional cricket to read the lengthy but illuminating article on the BBC cricket website all about the new SA20 competition starting in Jan 2023. Old warrior Graeme Smith is the " front " celebrity selling the product to the South African cricket public. Basically Smith is saying that without the new franchise comp , Test cricket would die a death in S.A.because of a lack of quality players willing to play the long form. Some players from English cricket have already got the necessary auction style contract that enables them to play in the new SA 20 over league . The world of cricket is changing fast . The march of franchise cricket around the world is unstoppable apparently .
ReplyDeleteThe silence coming out of Trent Bridge on the subject of the review is deafening.
ReplyDeleteRemember the North America soccer league? ( if you do you are showing your age) franchise football with big names who were still good but past their ( Georgie) best , pele, beckenbaur and a load of never has been from the English 3rd division. Died a death after a bit,hype but the novelty wore off . Just comparing. Foxy.
ReplyDeleteFrom memory, was one of the teams called New York Cosmos Foxy or something like that ?
DeleteAlso think Rodney Marsh(ex QPR not the sadly now departed Aussie wicketkeeper) went out there ? It takes me back though as it was quite a time ago now.
Reggie P.
Yes the New York cosmos, I’d have to look up some of the others.
DeleteMy wife and I were lucky enough to strike up a conversation with rod marsh in the Lincolnshire poacher one evening during the 2005 ashes test . Sad loss , top bloke, great cricketer. Foxy
Yes, Foxy he was a massive supporter of Chris Read and i have previously heard him say he would have opted for him instead of the Jones Boy(Gerraint Jones) but he was one of Duncan Fletcher’s golden boys so Ready never really had much of a chance with him but it was certainly good news for Notts he was bye and large overlooked down the years.
DeleteDuncan Fletcher didn’t like Graeme Swann either. He only got a look in after fletcher left.foxy .
DeleteNothing has changed since end of season so seems pointless meeting to me
ReplyDeleteSo where does the man who is going to cast your vote stand on the issues that matter to the club's members? What are the views of the club's members? Have the club / chair tried to find out the club's members' views? Nothing has changed because they're running down the clock. Eventually they will need to release fixtures for 2023 and do that they need an agreement on the structure for 2024 and beyond.
Delete75 NOT OUT .
ReplyDeleteWhy are the powers that be at Notts being so quuet on such long term matters that could greatly affect the long term cricket enjoyment in the short and long term ?? Are Lisa and Co so closely alighned to the will of the ECB that they are afraid to take a different view.? Is it possible the ECB could be using the granting of future lucrative fixtures as a secret weapon to stifle discontent? Its important that faithful Notts Members views are properly heard and their views reflected in future votings if different proposals that affect the basic structure of the domestic season . Its vital that the November meeting at the Randall Suite is well attended - or by ZOOM of course.
It’s no confidence to both motions as far as I’m concerned.lets get people in we can trust because that’s what it boils down to as far as I can see .foxy
ReplyDeleteIam certainly not renewing my membership until we know how many games are to be played and how many are at TB. We gifted our memberships to TB during the pandemic and this is the thanks we get. Not forgetting our trip out of the county for a supposedly home game. Where members who don’t drive or have health issues were offered no help or transport to get there.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think the committee deserve having members.
LORD MELBURY
ReplyDeleteReading all the various comments on here and elsewhere I see virtually no evidence of support for the Strauss proposals. Its become blindingly obvious that the introduction of the 100 Ball Comp has complicated the cricket season to almost an impossible degree. Knowing what we all know now I just wonder if the 18 County CEOs would today vote in the same way regarding the 100 ?
BASIL FAWLTY
ReplyDeleteThey probably still would as they just looked the £1.3M a year “sweetener” on offer as incentive for the new Hundred competition. But yes, now Strauss and his HPR have become obsessed with the fact they’re all playing too much cricket(which as pointed out with the various Members Forumns with the Counties is plainly not the case as the players, especially the pace bowlers, would surely enjoy all their rest days and not play extra games for their respective league sides for a bit of extra cash) then the introduction of the the 4th( and clearly unwanted amongst majority of the cricket supporters) competition has clearly made the situation even more difficult than making a Waldorf Salad when you’ve let you’re chef go home early.
Send for Bernard cribbins. Foxy
DeleteLORD MELBURY
ReplyDeleteThe big problem at Faulty Towers was the hang em anf flog em very Right Wing Major.
But he was a cracking cricketer in his day . Scored 150 before lunch in Bangalore playing for the Bengall Tigers.
Evidently his Membership of M.C.C was cancelled after a distressing incident in the Lords Long Room involving a waitress.
He Umpired in Charity Matches around Torquay until well into his eighties.
Thanks for that,I didn’t know his cricket pedigree in real life but can think of a few cricket references in the program from him ; major “ dolivera got a 50” fawlty “ did he really, good old dolly”
DeleteThere was another reference to him taking “a young lady to India ..... at the oval” “never saw her again , she’s still got my wallet “
Think in one scene where he was obvious to all sorts of mayhem going on around him where the major said “ boycott scored a century “
Foxy
Oblivious
DeleteLORD MELBURY
ReplyDelete( reporting from E wing Wormwood Scrubs)
Yes Foxy and others . The Major had a long cricketing career . Before joining the Army he had a trial with Surrey and played in their Second Eleven a number of times, with a top score of 79 not out. Cricket was a big thing for chaps in the Army and their private education made them ideal team Captains. The Majors sporting stats show 8,456 runs scored at an average of 44.86. His bowling figures ( mainly bowled Donkey Drops) were less impressive . 546 overs bowled and only 8 wickets.
He was an only son and was left without any living relatives and retired to Basils place for a bit of Company and stress free life . Lived to the grand old age of 97 . Sad to report that only Basil and Manuel attended his funeral .
Thanks your grace.
DeleteBy the way the valuables in your brief case , which Sybil opened and found a brick, was that a metaphor for the 100? Foxy
LORD MELBURY
DeleteBASIL was like putty in my hands during my stay at Faulty Towers . Sybil was the main problem . Far too suspicious of my intentions. What is not generally known is that I managed to obtain a small
“loan “ of £100 from the Major and the same amount from the two sweet old lady residents . All three were potty as fruit cakes and easy game from a smoothie such as myself .
The chair of the Notts committee is a voluntary position as are those sitting on the committee. As members we need a strong committee that can steer an independent course if necessary, to take control of the club when its employees make errors of judgement etc. We as members don't want a committee that will kowtow to the whims of the ECB or cave-in to player power. As members we deserve a strong committee. In spite of last night's poor performance, I believe Jeff Moore is the best man for the job at present. I can only hope that we have some suitable new candidates as you mention Harry. Who ever thought building that Restaurant Six was good idea needs their head testing, I just hope that they aren't in a position where decisions have to be made anymore, but I fear it might have been LP. Is gross incompetence not a sackable offence anymore?
ReplyDelete75 NOTOUT
ReplyDeleteI think the EGM was a good thing to happen . It's made the Notts CCC top table realise the current crop of Members are not a " pushover" when it comes to changes to the domestic cricket schedule . The speed of implementation of the 100 Baller Comp and the lack of proper consultation has been a ball changer for many in the game. County Members across the Country are now very wary of the true intentions of the ECB who apparently regard the 4 day game as an inconvenience to their newly proposed seasons structure .
EGMs are pretty rare and notice has to be taken by all concerned . Well done to Dave Gunn and friends who put the effort in to bring about the meeting .
Extremely well done and thanks to Dave Gunn and all who instigated the EGM. The fact remains that a quarter of the members have no confidence in the high command at the club. I’m not a member anymore, 300 quid for a husband and wife membership is not good value for reduced county championship, no cricket at Trent Bridge in July and August, and all 50 games away from home. I’ll still go and pay on the day in the winter for championship matches. You have to pay on the gate anyway at away games what’s the difference? .foxy
ReplyDeleteNow that Jeff Moore has finished covering his own backside, perhaps he should try to keep his jumped-up CEO on a tighter rein. All blunders made by the club have been made on her watch and perhaps are the obvious result of her poor direction. Pursehouse supporters please explain the most recent: The Six, The Hundred and lastly members having to reserve their seats ahead of the season. The direct consquences of just those three managerial blunders have driven a wedge of mistrust between the Club and its members and in the long term will cost the club more money than the ECB bribe for the Hundred. Would you rather watch cricket at Trent Bridge or Grantham?
ReplyDeleteYes, Notts were just one eighteenth of the vote, but someone needed to push back (not just Surrey) against the Harrison/Graves ECB but it's difficult to push back with one hand,when you're holding out your begging bowl with the other!
"Pursehouse supporters" There aren't any.
DeleteIt will be interesting to read if the unanswered question (the one about full consultation before the Hundred) appears in the minutes of the EGM when published in the annual report with accounts ahead of the AGM next year.
ReplyDelete75NOT OUT .
ReplyDeleteI believe proper and exhaustive market research was carried out before the Counties were saddled with the 100 comp . I have it on good authority that 4 good men ,plus a dog , plus a blind beggar we're asked to complete detailed questionnaires.