.JPG)
Dear Member
As the onset of the season draws ever closer, so too does our Annual General Meeting for 2023.
As you may be aware, this year's meeting will take place in the Derek Randall Suite at Trent Bridge on Monday 27 February from 7pm, with members once again provided with the option to either attend in person or online via Zoom.
You can register to attend the AGM virtually here…
We will send full joining information to those that register nearer the time. Those who are attending in person need not register in advance.
The AGM will provide an opportunity for members to hear the latest updates from the club, on recreational cricket throughout our county and from the wider game.
Our Chairman Jeff Moore, Chief Executive Lisa Pursehouse, Director of Cricket Mick Newell and Treasurer Paul Ellis will deliver reports reflecting upon 2022 and on the club’s plans for the coming year and beyond.
General Committee Election
As per the club's governance, there are four vacancies on the General Committee this year; three will be elected by the membership and one will be appointed upon the recommendation of the Nominations Panel.
Voting forms and details of the candidates standing for election have been circulated by post to members in adult categories who are eligible to vote.
If you haven't received the postal mailing but you are eligible and wish to vote, please contact the club by email to questions@trentbridge.co.uk or by telephone on 0115 899 0300. Lines are open between the hours of 9.30am and 4.3opm, Monday to Friday.
The results of the election, together with the identity of the individual appointed by the Nominations Panel, will be announced at the AGM.
Changes to the Constitution
As per the terms of the constitution, following proposals put forward by Mr John Evans and the General Committee, the club is also providing all members with an opportunity to vote in relation to seven proposed changes to the club rules; three of which the General Committee supports and four of which it does not.
Voting will come to an end at 5pm on Wednesday 22 February, so please register your vote before then.
Please note that our independent auditors will only accept one voting form per member.
See your own Email on how to vote.
05/02
As mentioned in the letter from Alan Higham, there are five candidates for the three votes (maximum) each member has.
Topping the bill, as it were, is former player and cricket celebrity Graeme Swann. In the supporting cast there is another former player in Usman Afzaal. The rest are "ordinary folk" - Dave Gunn, as mentioned in Alan's update, Penny Huggard, an existing committee member, so members may have formed an opinion on her over the last three years and Stephen Lehane, the nominee of Jeff Moore, and a member of the Nominations Panel.
As a member, I look for the committee to hopefully represent me and perhaps reflect some of what I hope the direction of the club and cricket will be in the future. Of the famous, and less famous five in their "comments" [to members] as part of the Particulars of Candidates issued with the voting forms, only two actually mention members: D A Gunn and S Lahane.
At last years' AGM, rule changes were massaged in to enable former capped players to stand for the committee, to improve the cricket knowledge on the board and cricket sub committee, so perhaps those driving those changes will feel vindicated that two former Notts and England players have stepped-up to be elected.
In another vote(s), to amend the club's constitution proposed by John Evans, one amendment seeks to stop the practice of hedging bets of getting on to the committee by taking the democratic route or taking the Nomination Panel path, by doing both in the same year. One of the above candidates is doing this.
In defence of this the General Committee says: In essence, the dual route which is open to existing and newly proposed candidates for election, ensures that the Nominations Panel always retains the widest possible pool of talent from which to recruit giving the breadth of choice to support their role in finding the best possible candidates for the General Committee. Having both routes available also provides the flexibility of encouraging previously nominated members to stand for election by the membership, whilst at the same time ensuring that they are not precluded from being considered by the Nominations Panel. The panel may still deem a candidate’s skillset as essential to complement the General Committee once the outcome of elections is known.
75 NOTOUT
ReplyDeleteSeems a tad complex .
So who do we vote for ?
Or better still - who DONT we vote for?
Some knowledgable opinion would be appreciated!
Penny Huggard is using both the Members and Nominations Panel route!!!
DeleteThe penny has dropped!
DeleteYou should vote for Swann, Gunn and Lehane. The committee badly needs input from another former player, Gunn did a good job stirring the members into action against Strauss' proposals. Lehane has excellent business experience and has crucially has the backing of Richard Stevenson and has Harry says he mentions members in his manifesto
ReplyDeleteWho is it thats also taking the Nom Pan route?
DeleteThe dual route of election or nomination for an existing committee member is as John Evans rightly says is an abuse of what was intended. It is not in the spirit of things and should be dismissed as an attempt to remain on the committee at all costs.
ReplyDeleteI would add that the candidates I would support are Swanny, David Gunn and Stephen Lehane.
DeleteLehane is the Chair's man. Huggard is the CEO's woman. Is Gunn the members' man? Might former players be the Club's men?
ReplyDeleteThe only real members' candidate is Dave Gunn (as he has demonstrated by actions not just words). If you want a members' candidate to be elected that is Dave Gunn and to maximise the chances of him getting on you need to vote for him AND NO-ONE ELSE.
ReplyDelete(I do apologise for teaching grandmother to suck eggs but just an example. Let's say two members - say, just for example, Mr Gunn himself and his proposer - are desperate for him to be elected and so vote for him but vote also for candidates A and B. As it happens A and B tie on the same number of votes, say 100, and are joint second/ third and are elected. Mr Gunn is fourth with one vote less, in this example 99, and so not elected. He and his proposer would have prevented his election, which was their only priority, BY THEIR OWN VOTES.)
I can see your logic about Gunn and he is the members choice. However all members need to see the bigger picture which is the following: who on the present committee could perform the role as chair in the future? It's not an easy position and needs someone with considerable business experience in business and public speaking hence why Mr Lehane is being backed by Messrs Moore and Stevenson
DeleteThe way to maximise your first choice of candidate's chances, is to ONLY vote for that candidate, correct J&E. I am assuming Lehane will make it on to the committee via the Nomination Panel if unsuccessful, hence the general committee's objection to Mr Evan's amendment limiting Chairs to only elected members [of that committee]. Would we really want a Chair that has been parachuted-in Yorkshire-style, or a babminton player, rather than have someone we have voted for? NCCC remains a members club after all is said and done, not a PLC.
DeletePlease be aware that the committee view on the ballot paper actually represents a split committee.
DeleteAs someone that appears to be in the know Vexatious, could you enlighten us members that aren't please 1/ Which candidate is also taking the Nominations Panel route to the committee? 2/ Who has been "forced out" from the committee (stabbed in the back) and who also has "quit", but more importantly why? I guess with both questions, most members will already have 50/50 answers. You say the committee is split. What has split the committee?
DeleteSo who is going to fill the shoes of those who have left? Jeff Moore, Peter Wright and Paul Ford-Murphy. Unacceptable shenanigans going on in the committee.
ReplyDeleteOne stabbed in the back, one retiring, and the other left in disgust. How many more are going to walk away?
Please elaborate.
DeleteLet's be frank ere, Swanny will get elected, cos he's Swanny. The voting bloc of membership that backs the committee regardless will maintain the staus quo bringing in Lehane and keeping Huggard. Gunn and Afzaal will be edged out. The direction of cricket (as forged in the media will dictate that Storey is the next chair. There's at least 3 poor moves there, so I hope I'm wrong.
ReplyDeleteMR LEHANE was chairman of the clubs nomination committee panel' for the last three years' he has not chosen that pathway to seek election, but as chosen to go though the membership process only in what one would say, that he was in agreement with the MR JOHN EVANS amendment & wanting to show transparency going forward as having "Integrity" and not some one chasing a life style for perks and perpetually chasing selfish status acknowledgement
DeleteSubstance is the bottom line not some gravy train perks chaser, that rides on the back of others that are still working on the frontline - Where it matters !
Good to know
DeleteI am very much not on the inside of anything so I will engage in wild uninformed assumption in the hope that someone who does know at least some of the facts (or even the club in the interests of transparency) will confirm or correct it and end fruitless speculation on here. It seems that Mr Lehane does not seek a committee post through the nomination route. You can bet your bottom dollar that Mr Gunn will not be nominated and I also doubt that the former players will be on that path. If it is right that a candidate is seeking a nomination as well as election that leaves Ms Huggard therefore. I personally disapprove of the idea both because of the lack of transparency and because such a candidate takes votes off other candidates for election when they don't need them if they are going to be appointed anyway.
DeleteTactically I think anyone that signed for the egm and then voted no confidence should vote for mr Gunn and him only.
ReplyDeleteI liked uzzy a lot and swanney is a legend of club and country, they’ll get on the committee anyway on popularity alone. Yes we need experts who have played at the top table, we also need someone to speak for the members or we will be forever viewed as the insignificant little people. Foxy
75 NOTOUT
ReplyDeleteThanks for the input .
Makes things clearer
Having heard DAVE GUNN speak at the mid week Forum and the EGM it's obvious that he SHOULD get our votes . An intelligent and reasonable guy with NOTTS ccc and Members views at the heart of his thinking . The Committee needs a shake up and fresh injection of views . And of course the freshly elected Committee Members MUST be keen fans of 4 day County Cricket !?
Of the five candidates, only Gunn's views are known on the crucial topic of future structure.
DeleteDave Gunn has certainly got my vote. Where would we all be without the likes of him together with an un-biased Forumn like Nottsview that gives you the truth of the matter - probably looking forward(or not) to the season after next being the awful, nightmarish vision so keen to be implemented by Sir. Andrew and his cronies of the HPR
ReplyDeleteI understand Foxy’s logic also but shall probably vote for either Swanny or Afzaal also.
With all this, diversity, inclusion, constitution, governance and all the other seemingly endless red tape non cricketing issues it’s easy to forget nothing follows without the actual sport being played itself. i.e. the Nottinghamshire Mens cricket team actually playing the game of cricket on the Trent Bridge cricket ground. Everything else stems down from this let’s not forget.
I’m sorry if that offends anyone but is a reason why I believe we must also have more committee members from a first class cricket background like Ussie and Swanny, for example.
75 NOT OUT
ReplyDeleteThe direction of cricket itself is all important in the next two/ three years . It's vitally important NOTTS ccc has the right balance of Committee Members . So many decisions will have to be taken that will affect the Members future enjoyment of the game. Lisa P stated recently that cricket in general is changing at a faster pace now than ever before in its entire history .
A question on another topic.
I seem to remember that at the last Cricket Lovers meeting it was stated that the cost of operating the floodlights at TB amounted to circa £300 an hour ( and this only produced 10% of ordinary daytime sunshine ) . We all know energy costs have doubled or even tripled for some businesses. So presumably the hourly cost will now be £500/£600+ per hour . If it's a darkish cloudy day then how on earth can the floodlights be afforded to be switched on all day for a four day County match ? !
Will it mean " bad light stops play" in order to save prohibitive lighting costs . Notts will struggle to budget for the extra costs but what about clubs like Derby and Leics , who's finances are already on a knife edge?
Yes the floodlights is and interesting one . The gobbledegook that they give out on the tannoy I’ve always found to be that “ if however the floodlights replaces the natural light then its likely the umpires will suspend play” actually I’ve written it more clearly than they say it ! I’m never convinced the announcers actually believe it when they say it , they seem as unconvinced as I am . It begs the question what is the point of them being on in none night games.foxy.
ReplyDeleteUsing the light metering on my camera I have observed that light deemed "bad", is often an arbitrary state.
DeletePosted my votes this morning - Gunn and Lehane
ReplyDeletePlease vote for all the law change amendments, this will help get rid of all the cronyism that exists on the committee it will be for the good of the club, we have two votes in this household and they will go to Dave Gunn only.
ReplyDeleteCheck all amendments approved
Delete3 voters in this house. 3 x Dave Gunn 3x Stephen Lehane 2x Graeme Swann 1x left uncast
ReplyDeleteRed Dog voted4 Gunn only
ReplyDeleteThere is history that members vote for former players because they have heard and have a good opinion of them. IMHO most former players have contributed very little to the Committee (Bolus and Basher are exceptions) and there is no reason that the two who have applied now will be different. In the case of Swann he has media and other commitments and from his statement on the Particulars of Candidates sheet I doubt he has given much thought to what is involved. I shall vote for Gunn and Lehane only.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is important to vote for the Resolutions proposed by John Evans.
Your points are entirely valid, that is why I also only voted for the two candidates Gunn and Lehane
DeleteFair point. Ex players will always get on if they want to stand. Depends what they are expected to “do”. From an ambassadorial, raising the profile and kudos of the club who wouldn’t want to meet Swanny or in years past the one and only derek . But there needs to be a blend of expertise, none of which I have I hasten to add . Foxy
DeleteIt is important to make your vote count! Vote for Lehane and Gunn and all of John Evan's amendments.
ReplyDeleteWho is the likely next chair? Will the new committee/chair honour Jeff Moore's pledge to fight to keep a minimum of 14 Championship games per season? Do we need another EGM if promises are ignored? Has anyone been contacted by the club to canvass their views on future structure?
ReplyDeleteThe notts committees lead on governance as well as sitting on the clubs nominations panel you just couldn't make this up' now that the PENNY as dropped that she's the candidate allowed two rolls of the dice to take her place at the clubs round table' in my opinion this is an appalling governance process' so I will be backing
ReplyDeleteThe John Evens amendments + Gunn
& Lehane only. By the way a very interesting evening at the cricket lovers
Last night
I quote: "Having both routes available also provides the flexibility of encouraging previously nominated members to stand for election by the membership, whilst at the same time ensuring that they are not precluded from being considered by the Nominations Panel. The panel may still deem a candidate’s skillset as essential to complement the General Committee once the outcome of elections is known." Perhaps the lady has an essential skillset. Perhaps the lady is popular within some groups of the membership. We'll now have an opportunity to find out. See, Nottsview can do balance.
ReplyDelete75 NOT OUT
ReplyDeleteAs has been discovered , the double chance route to being elected to the NOTTS committee is being taken by Penny Huggard . This is clearly not in the spirit of the current election process . I hope she pays the penalty and gets " voted off" but the Nominations Panel may well just rubber stamp her application . No doubt questions about this double bite at the cherry will be asked at the AGM later this month . Is it a loophole that will be closed pretty quickly ?. From a distance , and reading between the lines it appears there are different factions and alliances at work in the NOTTS committee room . With the rocky road ahead for major cricket decisions we really do need a strong united Committee to present the NOTTS ccc views at future ECB meetings.
Will this be the case in 2023 ?
All sounds fishy to me . Foxy
ReplyDeleteIt is curious. In 2021, the first year of the Nominations Panel, Andy Hunt was one of two people they selected for the Committee despite him having the fewest votes of anyone via the members ballot. Last year the papers sent to members stated that no-one could apply through both Nominations and Members, it had to be one or the other. Why has this changed again this year? PH says she has focused on effective governance so perhaps she can tell us at the AGM.
ReplyDeleteI'll quote again: "Having both routes available also provides the flexibility of encouraging previously nominated members to stand for election by the membership, whilst at the same time ensuring that they are not precluded from being considered by the Nominations Panel. The panel may still deem a candidate’s skillset as essential to complement the General Committee once the outcome of elections is known." Perhaps the Penny has an essential skillset that those on the Nominations Panel feel that the GC needs.
ReplyDeleteMs Penny Hubbard is already on the committee and is standing for that as well as the Nominations route. The skill set you refer to would be available by whichever route she decided to go down. Sadly, the moral high ground has been eroded by this tactic and prevents others in getting elected.
DeleteSo why did that flexibility not apply last year?
ReplyDeleteWho knows!!!
ReplyDeleteExisting members of the committee will know. Earlier in this thread we've been informed that the committee is split. Perhaps a majority of the committee believed that Penny needed an insurance policy as all the new candidates might prove to be more popular than her.
DeleteAfter taking note of what sir andrew said
ReplyDeleteI personally see the the committee
Being abolished the
Paid senior management team make
All the decisions and see the committee
As a inconvenience specially the few
Who ask the difficult questions not the
Majority who's strings are pulled by the puppet master & don't represent the members only themselves be careful
What you wish for as dark clouds are gathering & in a few years time the club
May have totally lost its identity to the
Franchised bandwagon
Wouldn't drastic constitutional changes, as predicted by Anonymous above, require the turkeys (the membership) to vote for Christmas. My advice to all members would be, use your vote/s if you haven't already and not to waste them on anyone taking the dual route, even if you want female representation, let the Nominations Panel take care of any diversity shortfall. Vote for candidates that represent the members' interests and not the puppet masters' portfolio building. We're all Notts aren't we - and not KP Skip Rockets!
DeleteTimothy Lumsden.
ReplyDeleteAnyone notice Pravda and their latest recruitment drive now advertising for a Cricket Operations Manager ?
The lucky successful applicant is directly reportable to none other than Teflon Mick himself.
Question, who currently fulfills this now deemed essential role ? And if it’s a new vacancy, why is it suddenly needed ? Is everyone’s workload so over demanding that this new position be implemented bearing in mind that there’s 5 months of the year when no cricket is actually being played on the ground ?
Let’s face Wayne noon chucking his dog ball launcher about has never really been replaced.foxy
ReplyDeleteKing of the Cones, was our Wayne.
Delete