OSCAR RESS: Chief executive David Mann is disappointed with both the result and the process of discussions around changing the County Championship schedule
Hampshire's chief executive, David Mann, admitted he was "not happy" after the first-class counties rejected changes to the County Championship.
Each team will play 14 red-ball matches again next season after they failed to find a two-thirds majority in favour of moving to a refreshed format with 13 matches per team.
The club have previously argued for an even larger reduction to the schedule.
Mann told The Cricketer: "We definitely wanted a reduction in the amount of cricket there is, it's no good for players, it's no good for the groundstaff and the people around it, and it's no good for spectators, in my honest opinion.
"Cricket matches need to be events, things that people are looking forward to, and the schedule is just relentless at the moment, and I don't think it does anyone any favours."
But more than the "outcome", Hampshire are also unhappy with the "process", which, under the constitution of the competition, required a consensus to be reached among the 18 first-class counties.
"We wanted a reduction, actually more than what was being proposed, and clearly we're not happy with the outcome, but we're not particularly happy with the process either," he added. "And I think it's a shame when we don't get to outcomes that are right for the game.
"I think the trouble is if you keep asking the same people the same question, you're going to keep getting the same answer. You're basically asking a very small group of members, because those are the ones who vote for the chairs in most counties, whether they want less cricket or not.
"They love red-ball cricket, so of course they're going to vote to say they don't want any less, and I think until we deal with that issue, we'll be stuck in the same place."
Hampshire's position is echoed by the players, via the Professional Cricketers' Association, too. They described it as a "concerning decision" and failed to rule out strike action if no changes are made.
"I think you see the players, the players are desperate for a reduction, we supported that, we completely agree with them," Mann said. "There's way too much, it's not fair to demand that of the players."
With the counties split evenly when votes were cast, the issue is showing no sign of going away. Mann's counterpart at Essex, Dan Feist, spoke to The Cricketer last week about "external input" to help resolve the impasse.
"We've always done everything internally, and actually, what we probably need to do, which other sports have done, is to have some input and some support from external people and look at it as well, that can make it all very neutral around there," Essex's CEO said. "Look at all the options around it.
"Maybe the way that the process is run might be slightly (different). They might review how that's being done."
Asked whether he can see the value in the introduction of an independent voice to the process, Mann could not see how change could take place without a vote, meaning the same people will struggle to agree.
"Whatever happens, there'll have to be a vote of counties for, under the constitution, there has to be a vote," Mann explained. "If there's a change, a reduction in the number of games, a competition, there has to be a vote. So until there's a change to the constitution, that is going to be the case.
"So whoever looks at it, the county will have to vote, and at the moment, if you're going to be asking the same people the same question to approve a reduction in cricket, they're not going to do it.
"Whilst we will continue to do our best to lobby for change, I wouldn't be particularly optimistic about that happening."
How county members saw off a reduction of Championship matches
The 14-match competition and eight-match One-Day Cup remain untouched but the appetite for change was apparent and could still rumble on
Will Macpherson
On the eve of the final match of the domestic season, the 18 first-class counties were informed a summer-long review had concluded with a vote that kept the Championship at 14 matches next season rather than reducing it to 13.
At the eleventh hour, clarity was provided for the 2026 summer. The sum total of the changes is the loss of two matches per team in a remodelled Blast, which will be done and dusted before the end of the immovable Hundred.
The 14-match Championship and eight-match One-Day Cup remain untouched.
How the process unfolded
This outcome would have seemed odd before the season as it seemed there was an appetite for change.
With a windfall due from the Hundred sale, insiders talked of a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to improve domestic cricket. The status quo, which had existed since 2021 when the Hundred arrived with no reduction in the volume of county cricket, was widely considered to be untenable.
The England and Wales Cricket Board’s managing director for the professional game, Rob Andrew, neatly captured the mood, saying: “We have 18 counties that agree that it’s not right but 19 different versions of what the answer is.”
Most counties wanted a reduction of some sort and so did the Professional Cricketers’ Association. The players union had been increasingly vocal in their belief that the domestic calendar was not fit for purpose, too.
There were also concerns for groundstaff amid debates over the quality of pitches in England with the volume of cricket rising, especially as women’s teams rightly play more at county HQs. Fans were also not happy about the marginalisation of the competition they held dearest: the Championship.
The last review took place in 2022 when the England and Wales Cricket Board – under a previous regime – had run Andrew Strauss’s High Performance review, which failed for three main reasons: it was too radical, proposing a cut from 14 to 10 games; it had just one lens, the best outcome for the national team after another Ashes debacle down under; and it was too high-handed.
This time, from the outset, the ECB were keen to distance themselves from the review, which was described as “county-led”. One source says: “They did some leg work, like creating slides, but didn’t seem to have an opinion or try to influence people. It didn’t feel there was much leadership from them. It was ‘we couldn’t do it with the Strauss review, so see what you can do’.”
Put in charge were the ECB’s Professional Game Committee, a group of respected county executives under the eye of the Warwickshire chairman Mark McCafferty, the former CEO of Premiership Rugby.
In tricky circumstances, McCafferty is credited by insiders with attempting to be collaborative, almost to a fault. Lots of options were taken on and off the table as the summer wore on. Managing the counties, as one source says, is “like herding cats”. They come in all shapes and sizes – Surrey have more than 20,000 members, Leicestershire fewer than 800 – and have different desires. Pleasing one is likely to peeve another, but each one has a vote of equal weight.
McCafferty and his team quietly consulted in the early months of the summer, including with fans. The Barmy Army, the Cricket Supporters’ Association and Alan Higham of the County Cricket Members Group all attended a meeting at Lord’s.
In July, minor changes to the Blast were agreed. But before that, counties were presented with five options for the County Championship, a number of them featuring 12 matches per team. But as the summer drew on, it became clear that the support for that was not there, so focus turned to a 13-game alternative.
This was devised by a trio of chairmen, Gary Hoffman of Northamptonshire, Philip Collins of Durham and Jon Filby of Sussex.
The idea would see two conferences of six in the top flight. They would play 10 regular season games, before the top three in each went into the “Championship” pool to decide an overall first past the post winner, and the bottom three into the relegation pool, to decide which two went down. Meanwhile, the six-team “Championship 2” would play 13 matches, with the top two promoted.
Finally, this was put to a vote against the 14-team status quo, which opened on Friday and closed on Tuesday.
Why the move for change failed
The vote required a two-thirds majority to pass but it is thought to have ended nine-nine. A number of counties – including Glamorgan, who opted against – only chose their position at the last minute.
The situation was rather summed up by the Gloucestershire chairman Peter Matthews. He eventually voted against the change, but revealed the club would have abstained were they allowed because while they did not like the 13-game option, they did not like the status quo either.
When the PCA conducted an indicative vote of their 18 county representatives, 13 of the 18 voted for a reduction to 12, and then 13 matches. However the Surrey chairman Oli Slipper revealed that his players were in favour of staying at 14 by a margin of 31 to none.
It is little surprise there is such an appetite for the red ball at the Oval: Surrey’s membership has doubled since 2015, and attendance at Championship matches has doubled since 2019.
McCafferty had been given an impossible job, changing the county game for the next season, while the current one was going on. To think it could be wrapped up by midsummer with so many competing interests was fanciful. Self interest was everywhere. “In some places, the chief executives disagreed with the chairs,” said Daryl Mitchell, the chief executive of the PCA.
To this end, the review also fell into the trap of being too secretive and failing to bring the public along for the ride. Narratives quickly became reductively adversarial: players and administrators want any cut, members oppose any cut.
In a communication vacuum, county members played a big role in ensuring the schedule remained at 14 games. Mistrusting, and scarred by previous cuts and reviews, many see any cut as a travesty.
“I don’t think you’d have had the same problems with county members if there had been proper discussion,” says Higham. “It was seen as you couldn’t get 12 through, so trying to get 13 through, but that didn’t do the proposal justice.”
Higham was first made aware of the review in the close season, and in early summer county members began to mobilise. Fifteen of the 18 counties are member-owned (a couple more are thinking about following that path), and have around 70,000 members between them.
Higham wrote a discussion paper and did surveys. Members went round at Championship games seeking signatures for extraordinary or special general meetings. Some counties engaged thoughtfully, while others obfuscated.
At some clubs, just 50 signatures are required to force an SGM. There was going to be a vote at Glamorgan, but not enough members attended the SGM they had forced to reach a quorum (thought to be 50 attendees).
In the end three votes took place, with Nottinghamshire members 698 to 246 to retain 14 games, Middlesex members voting 620 to 101 to oppose a reduction, and Lancashire members 56 per cent to 44 to accept a reduction.
“The members made every county feel they were held accountable and had to explain themselves,” says Higham. “The amount of work that’s gone into this is unbelievable, and the number of people involved.
“County members are just one stakeholder. They have shown, look at the Lancashire vote, that we are willing to make changes and compromise. But they have a role in the game because that is how the game’s governance is set up. It’s a question of accountability. Who are the people who run the counties going to be accountable to? If not their members, then who?”
It is no stretch to say that had the members not mobilised and the review left entirely to administrators, this result would have looked very different.
What happens next
In the short term, only the Blast gets its minor tweaks and the overarching problems with the county schedule remain.
The latest draft schedule for 2026 seen by Telegraph Sport sees the Championship start on April 3 and finish on September 27. There are seven rounds completed by May 18, and six after August 20, and just two in the three months between, including none in July. Most small counties are still frustrated they do not host more cricket in the school holidays alongside the Hundred.
The players, in general, still believe there is too much cricket. Mitchell feels that current trends will continue: more players on white-ball only contracts (or taking red-ball pay-as-you-play) and migrating to the bigger counties, where they can play less for more pay.
“Everyone at the start of the process agreed change was needed,” said Mitchell, who admitted it was “back to the drawing board” for the PCA.
While many members rejoice that 14 matches remain in the Championship, the general shape of the summer continues to frustrate. Some will wish away the Hundred, but we are far too far down that road now. Higham regrets the missed opportunity to “unite players, fans and administrators”.
The idea at the start of the review was to set a course for the next six summers, to 2031, and stick with it. But with general dissatisfaction around, it is hard not to see the debate returning – and perhaps with a vengeance.
One insider felt counties lost interest in this review when they realised not much would change. For another, this is absolute proof that the current model is broken with a perception that members hold the power.
At the end of a long summer, this debate might be over, but the next one could just be beginning.
24/09
Top counties reject move to cut Championship matches
Results of vote confirmed on eve of final fixtures of the season which leaves Durham, Hampshire and Yorkshire fretting over relegation
Will Macpherson
The 18 first-class counties have rejected a proposal to cut the Championship from 14 matches per season to 13.
Having spent all summer wrangling over a review into the domestic schedule, the results of a vote were confirmed on the eve of the final round of Championship action, which begins on Wednesday.
The outcome means that a number of teams in the lower reaches of Division One – notably Durham, Hampshire and Yorkshire – will be looking nervously over their shoulders about relegation. Worcestershire are already confirmed to be going down, while Leicestershire and Glamorgan have been promoted.
Next season, they will join a 10-team top flight, and will play 14 matches. There will be eight teams in Division Two.
On the eve of the season, the England Wales Cricket Board announced the counties would be conducting a review into the domestic schedule, which the Professional Cricketers’ Association – and others in the game – believed to be too arduous and poorly constructed.
This resulted in the Vitality Blast being remodelled from next year, with a cut from 14 games to 12 per team.
However the Championship will remain as it has been. This despite proposals to cut it from 14 to 12 and then, after it became clear that that idea did not have enough support, 13.
This would have involved a top flight of two conferences of six, playing 10 matches in the regular season, then being split into two tiers to decide the championship winners, and which two would be relegated. In Division Two, six teams would play 13 matches with the top two promoted. Proponents of the idea felt it would see fewer dead games at the end of the season and increased competitive tension throughout the summer.
With voting open from Friday until Tuesday evening, 12 of the 18 counties needed to opt for the change for it to be passed, but that threshold was not met.
22/09
If they haven't already voted, those 12 General Committee members, now brimming with confidence after their backing of the majority of the 749 voting members from the total membership of around 7000, will be deciding in which camp the Chair will be sitting with the ECB:
- to go with the new 2 x 6 / 6 13 game option
- or to retain the status quo,
whenever the votes have to be cast.
Potentially one less Championship game at Trent Bridge, with definitely one less game over the season to ease the preceived players' conjestion (according to some clubs, but not all).
The great fear with the 12/6 in divisions is that once the "right 12" are in the top division, the ECB will force a vote on stopping relegation and promotion all together, extending the H*ndred franchises to the "right 12" in the process and proving all the H*ndred doubters / opposers from 2019 100% correct.
From a Notts point of view, the Championship season 2025 has seen a rollercoaster of emotions, reflected in just one game last week at the Oval, so why would anyone want less of this format? There ought to be talk about extending the Championship back to 16 games and scheduling everything else around those matches, not the reverse. But money talks and never listens!
You can only hope the 12 GC members two weeks ago recognised what the members of our club actually want and factor that into their discussions this time.
19/09
Counties in dark over fate as Championship restructure vote is delayed
Ballot will now take place at end of the season
Move to 12-team Division One would cut fixture list
The final round of County Championship matches next week will take place with some counties in the dark over what is at stake after a decision on the format for next year was deferred until the end of the season.
The Guardian has learned that a vote on the structure for next season has been delayed on integrity grounds, because of concerns that counties in Division One at risk of relegation could field weakened teams if that threat is suddenly removed.
There is also a feeling among the Professional Game Group, who are running the process, that postponement will give them the best chance of securing the 12 votes required to introduce a new structure next season.
Amid ongoing confusion, online secret ballot forms are to be issued next week but the deadline for voting has not been confirmed and no announcement will be made until the season has concluded.
After a lengthy consultation that began in April, the counties will be asked to vote on whether to maintain the current 10-eight divisional split or move to 12-six next season with the fixture list cut from 14 to 12 or 13 matches
Under the proposed new model advocated by the PGG and the players’ union, the Professional Cricketers’ Association (PCA), the 12-team County Championship Division One would be split into two pools of six next season, with the remaining six clubs in Division Two.
The counties have agreed to cut the Twenty20 Blast from 14 matches to 12 following recommendations from the PCA, but the players’ call to trim the championship has proved more controversial. Surrey, Yorkshire, Middlesex, Essex and Somerset are publicly opposed to any reduction to the 14-game season after consultations with their members, while Derbyshire, Sussex and Kent are thought to be undecided.
Under the current system the bottom two teams in Division One are relegated at the end of the season, with Worcestershire already going down this year if the status quo remains. While a move to 12-six would spare them, the delay in voting means other teams threatened with relegation – including Durham, Hampshire and Yorkshire – will begin their final game of the season next week not knowing where they stand.
18/09
Leicestershire remain in the reduction camp
Derbyshire are for no reduction.
17/09
Relegated today from Division 1, Worcestershire that announced their support for Option 13 or whatever it's called, which would theoretically see them remain in a 12 team first tier.
Worcestershire County Cricket Club is today sharing with members and supporters the letter sent to all First Class county chairs by the Professional Cricketers’ Association (PCA), outlining players’ support for evolving the Domestic Playing Programme, most notably a move to a 13-match County Championship season. The letter, signed by PCA Chief Executive Daryl Mitchell and dated 17 September 2025, highlights player welfare, competition integrity and fixture balance.
What the PCA letter says:
On page 1 of the letter, the PCA sets out the case, based on its 2025 player survey and county-by-county consultation, for a 13-match County Championship to improve standards, safeguard welfare and balance the calendar. Headline findings include:
- 83% of players raised concerns about their physical wellbeing; 67% about mental wellbeing.
- 72% believe the current schedule isn’t conducive to high performance.
- Players have asked for minimum rest/recovery, including a three-day gap between four-day matches.
- After squad consultations, 13 of 18 PCA county representatives voted in favour of a 13-match Championship.
The letter also outlines four reasons a 13-match model would help:
- Protect player welfare and performance via proper preparation/recovery;
- Reduce fatigue and travel pressure around fixture “pinch points”;
- Raise competitive integrity so results are decided by quality, not endurance; and
- Provide a sustainable path forward balancing player feedback with commercial and traditional interests. The PCA notes recent positive steps to improve the Vitality Blast, but argues further change is needed so players can stay healthy and perform in matches “with integrity.”
Letter in Full: PCA to First Class County Chairs (17 September 2025)
Worcestershire CEO Ashley Giles said: “We’ve tried consistently to look at this debate through several lenses, listening to our members, supporters, partners and, critically, the players. We also have to consider our own staff whose workloads continue to rise with the welcome growth of women’s cricket. On and off the field, we are stretched.”
“We would support a reduction, done in the right way. For the Vitality Blast, a shift to a regional structure alongside fewer matches should create a better competition for players and supporters (who should be able to travel to most games) and make more sense to the club commercially.”
“We also support a small reduction in County Championship cricket, paired with a change to the current structure to deliver better, more exciting red-ball cricket across the season, and unlock room to improve the August schedule. Meanwhile, 50-over cricket continues to be a brilliant part of our summer: great value for families, a platform for young players, and a leveller for counties who lose fewer to The Hundred. Selfishly, we’d love another home game in this competition to give members and fans more to enjoy in August.”
16/09
Last week Notts members were told that any decision on any proposal/non-proposal by the GC or the Chair/CEO put forward by the ECB, would be relayed to the membership.
I got the impression that any decision would be relayed to members before the ECB were formally informed by Notts CCC.
The latest deadline for "votes" on the latest proposal/"not really a proposal" on the 12/6 13 match season was by the end of this week.
Tomorrow is Wednesday and members have been told nothing so far beyond what was said last Thursday. We all know how morally Notts CCC should "vote", as they ought not to be any doubt of how the membership feels but so far I've heard nothing that rebuilds any of the trust that the Chair and CEO have ruined with members!
12/09
11/09
Chair Oli Slipper says Surrey's preference for a 8/10 two divisions split gained little traction but at least 6 other counties are in strong favour of 14 matches (status quo).
But as Dave Griffin points out, he goes on to say: "Who knows what's going on in the background?"
DG:
So although there are clearly enough counties supporting no change, there appear to be forces at work to counter that...
What a shambles.
12/08
The much-publicised review of the domestic playing structure continues to progress, with changes to the Vitality Blast due to come into effect in 2026, and a vote on the County Championship expected in the coming weeks.
The Club’s Board have taken time, since the review began, to form a view based on the interests of all stakeholders involved, from players and coaches, through to commercial partners and crucially, having consulted our Members and supporters.
In short, as suggested at recent Members’ Forums, Derbyshire County Cricket Club does not wish to see a reduction in the number of matches played by the Club across all formats.
The Board has always been concerned that reducing the amount of cricket played could, over time, severely impact attendance and overall interest in the sport.
We have seen outstanding support so far this season, with Vitality Blast attendances up by 20 per cent, while Rothesay County Championship crowds have grown by 17 per cent. It has been extremely positive to see an increase in new spectators purchasing tickets or Memberships for the first time, alongside our ardent support.
The Board strongly believes that the fine balance between player welfare, the commercial impact of the domestic structure, as well as the needs of spectators, could be addressed by making adjustments to the schedule, as opposed to reducing the number of days of cricket.
While we are clear in our position, the game has chosen to reduce the number of T20 Blast matches, and we await further details on the final options for the County Championship. Whatever the outcome, the Board and the Club’s Executive Team will continue to work collaboratively with the game to maximise the potential and growth of domestic cricket across all formats.
Derbyshire County Cricket Club Board of Directors
06/08
Essex told members at a forum this evening that they are "minded" to oppose a reduction from 14 County Championship matches, but will continue to consult.
The scorecard now has Surrey, Somerset, Middlesex Kent, Essex, Derbyshire & Yorkshire all against the reduction.
If that is the case and no one switches camps, then the reduction plans are left in the long grass, thankfully.
A great pity and quite frankly quite sad that 10 of the Notts GC decided to ignore the Membership's clear preference. Hopefully a SGM can clear the air and build some trust back.
05/08
Warwickshire to Members:
Domestic schedule review reaching a conclusion
I know this has been a concern for many, and I appreciate your emails and letters, as well as the contribution of the Member’s Committee and those attending the Member’s Forum in helping us shape the Club’s view. The Vitality Blast vote is done and I’m hoping we will get the change that most support – three groups playing twelve games with the Quarter Finals and Finals Day before The Hundred.
The County Championship is more complex. Nobody wants to see the competition devalued and the Member’s Committee have been very strong on this, but some of the arguments for change have led to different views on how best to move forward with three clear camps:
- those who don’t recognise the need for change (Option A: two divisions (8/10) and 14 games).
- those who recognise the need for change but want to hold on to a two-division structure (Option B: two divisions (10/8) and 12 games).
- those wanting more radical change (Option C/D: two levels (12/6) playing 12 games with a ‘13th round’ winner takes all final or playoffs).
The ECB are gathering individual county stances and I’m sure you will soon read about the outcome.
29/07
Alan Higham posterd this on Facebook.
26/07
WCCC:
Worcestershire Members are warmly invited to attend a Members’ Forum on Tuesday, 29 July, ahead of Day One of the Rothesay County Championship fixture against Hampshire.
Gates open: 9:45am
Time: 10:15am – 11:00am
Venue: Tom Graveney Lounge, Graeme Hick Pavilion
This informative session will provide members with the opportunity to hear the latest club updates and plans directly from key figures within the organisation:
- Ashley Giles, Chief Executive Officer
- Joe Tromans, Commercial Director
Following the updates, members are encouraged to take part in a Q&A session, with the chance to raise questions, offer feedback, and engage in open discussion about the club’s current direction and operational matters.
We look forward to welcoming you and hearing your thoughts as we prepare for another exciting day of County Championship cricket at Visit Worcestershire New Road.
According to the timetable share with Notts members, 29th is the day of the final round of voting and for communicating the results to the ECB.
25/07
Would a reduction in the County Championship squeeze out the Cheltenham Festival?
19/07
Article in Wisden from 2023, Never Knowingly Underbowled
17/07
Durham Back Conference option, as they're not a members own club we don't know what their supporters feel about that.
It's odd that Ms Pursehouse told Notts members only yesterday that the conference option was no longer an option. 5 becoming 4. Smoke, mirrors and blantant misinformation
 |
Middlesex have joined Somerset and Surrey in retaining 14 matches / 2 divisions model side of the debate.
MIDDLESEX CRICKET PUBLIC STATEMENT ON THE ECB’S DOMESTIC SCHEDULE REVIEW
Following an extensive period of consultation with the Club’s members and other stakeholder groups, Middlesex Cricket today wishes to publicly declare its position in relation to the current review of the Men’s domestic playing schedule from 2026 onwards, being conducted by the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) in consultation with all Professional County Clubs.
The Club's own consultation process has involved in-depth surveys with members and stakeholder groups, ongoing correspondence with members, a members’ forum and a Special General Meeting, at which members shared their views on the ECB’s plans to revise the playing schedule.
The view of the Club’s Board, which is aligned to those of the members and other stakeholder groups, is to retain the current structure of the Rothesay County Championship and to maintain the current volume of four-day cricket played at fourteen matches, whilst recognising the need to reform the Vitality Blast to improve player welfare across the schedule.
16/07
Hi Everyone,
What a lot of weasel words in the latest missive from TB. As we all feared the ‘consultation’ has been a sham (again). Do they think we’re stupid?
I have sent in the SGM request that reached 100 signatures as a first shot across the bows. Waiting for acknowledgement.
So, I suggest a petition for another SGM (held on the same day) to focus on holding the committee responsible for this abdication of their duties to us.
I suggest we have a vote of (no) confidence in each committee member individually so they are forced to defend/explain themselves (if they want to). Obviously, some committee members (DG etc.) are “on our side” and personally I do have confidence in some. However, in my opinion it’s time for the rest of them to stop hiding behind effective anonymity.
I also suggest a vote of (no) confidence in the CEO and DOC. I know the CEO is going, but that’s not the point.
Please comment and make other suggestions.
I’d like to collect signatures electronically and at the T20 on Friday night. Can I have some volunteers to help with this on the night please?
Best wishes,
Nick Evans
24 Enfield St
Beeston
Nottingham
NG9 1DN
14/07
Hi Folks,
Apologies for the silence recently (or maybe you welcomed it?), but I’ve been at the Women’s Euros in Switzerland.
Anyway, a couple of things. If you go to Companies House and look at Trent Rockets (https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11988532) you will find that the CEOs of Derbyshire CCC and Leicestershire CCC have had their appointments as directors terminated (May 2025). Andy Hunt, Notts Chair, has been appointed a director (May 2025) in addition to Notts CEO, Lisa Pursehouse. There has also been a sub-division of shares, although it will be a few days before any further information is available. Has this been communicated to members, if so, I missed it. Perhaps this is why - they (Chair and CEO) - are too busy to respond to emails from members (it’s not just me now). I would have thought that an automatic reply saying email received wouldn’t be too difficult, but I assume it’s intentional rudeness.
On the subject of missing things, has anyone been asked to be part of one of the Focus Groups we were promised as part of the consultation process for the ECB’s schedule review? If I was a betting man, I’d say the offer was just to fob off the members, with no intent to implement it at any stage.
Yorkshire have sent out to members a survey which is here: (https://yorkshireccc.com/news/yorkshire-ccc-seeks-the-views-of-members-on-the-domestic-structure-review/?utm_campaign=15084811_MEM%20-%20Domestic%20structure%20review%20and%20members%20survey%20-%2010.07.25&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Yorkshire%20CCC&dm_i=1AFM,8ZBIJ,7503EY,11HNW5,1)
Lancashire have also sent one out which is a bare-faced lie suggesting there are only 3 options (all of which are reductions in the CC to 12 games per season). They really do think that County members are stupid. (https://cricket.lancashirecricket.co.uk/news/2025-news/have-your-say-vote-on-the-men-s-domestic-schedule/?utm_source=INFORMATION_DIRECTLY&utm_medium=EMAIL&utm_campaign=domestic%2Bschedule%2Bvoting%2B-%2B2025%2Bmembers).
When will Notts actually consult us, instead of insulting us, as at the last ‘forum’?
Best wishes,
Nick Evans
24 Enfield St
Beeston
Nottingham
NG9 1DN
13/07
Lancashire members have been asked to rank three of the Options, that the PCG have honed from the 5 widely speculated options.
How the PCG came to this final three is not known. The too much cricket myth has prevailed.
Where Surrey and Somerset stand is not known,
As a Notts member, I know nothing, as my CEO and Chair have put themselves on mute!
11/07
Lancashire have announced a "Schedule" Forum between matches of their double header on Sunday, to discuss the latest on the Schedule review.
Meanwhile at Trent Bridge they continue to fail to honour what they said they'd do...
Lancashire Cricket is pleased to announce that a Members’ Forum will be held at Emirates Old Trafford on Sunday afternoon to discuss the domestic schedule review.
The Forum will take place in The Edge at 2pm, during the interval between the Vitality Blast T20 doubleheader matches featuring Lancashire Thunder and Lancashire Lightning.
Club officials will provide an update on the review process, outlining the proposed next steps and expected timelines.
Following on the Forum, the Club will share an update with all Members, via email. At that time, Members will be invited to vote electronically – on the options provided by the ECB - and share their preferences to help shape a schedule that best serves everyone involved.
07/07
Lancashire County Cricket Members Group have published this summary:
Surrey Somerset Middlesex Derbyshire Lancashire and Yorkshire members all appear to want to keep 14 CC games. So it will need all 12 of the remaining counties to insist on a reduction for that to happen.
Fans Desire Summer Focus and Fairer Fixtures for County Cricket
04/07
As many of you know, there is a review underway on the schedule for the 2026 domestic season. We wanted to write to all Surrey Members and Supporters to outline the Club’s position on the proposed options.
The purpose of this review is for the counties to consider how we can make English domestic cricket’s competitions the very best in the world. We want the competitions to continue to produce international cricketers and to prepare players to take the next step in their professional journey.
County Championship:
Firstly, it is no secret at Surrey of our commitment and support for the best possible red-ball cricket competition. This is for the betterment of the entire game, as red-ball cricket develops the technical and mental skillsets of cricketers in a unique way. It is the foundation of the sport at a technical level and commercially, Test Match cricket is the backbone of the lucrative deal between the ECB and Sky Sports that provides a vital income source for all the counties.
We believe that the Rothesay County Championship is the best domestic red-ball competition in the world in terms of the quality of cricket, quality of players and the support from cricket fans across the country. To maintain this position, we are backing the proposal of maintaining 14 County Championship fixtures each year, with a shift in the divisional structure to see eight teams in Division 1 playing each other home and away, with a ten team Division 2.
An eight-team top division ensures that the best teams and the best players are playing each other more regularly, in varied conditions. It will continue to prepare players to take the next step in their developmental journey, whether that be at international level or playing in some of the high-quality white ball franchise cricket competitions. It also gives the competition integrity with all teams playing each other home and away, crucial in retaining supporters’ engagement and the proposition to broadcast and commercial partners.
There is so much potential for the competition to grow its fan base. We have seen crowds double in just five years here at the Kia Oval and huge numbers of younger fans come through the gates and learn to love the format. The red-ball game needs all the counties to get behind it, to prioritise it and to promote it. It is a unique and historic sporting competition, and we should embrace it for the benefit of the whole game.
We do however acknowledge and understand the impact of the current schedule on players’ workloads and agree that there is scope for a reduction in the playing calendar.
Vitality Blast:
We would see this reduction happening in the Vitality Blast competition. The current schedule sees too many fixtures where teams are playing up to three times in a week, often in three different locations. Incorporating travel and training into this schedule and the mental and physical challenges that come with this is unsustainable and impacts the wellbeing of the players and quality of the competition.
From a commercial viewpoint, it is incredibly challenging to sell several fixtures in a short period of time, encouraging fans to return say three times in 10 days is a tough sell for those with a Membership, let alone those who want to come to multiple fixtures through General Admission.
The Vitality Blast is a high-quality competition where fans can see their homegrown heroes and international superstars play but it needs to be re-energised to reinvigorate fans and arrest the decline in attendances which no county has been immune from.
We believe that there is space for the Vitality Blast to not only survive but to thrive; creating a distinctly different offer to the Hundred that speaks to the history and tradition of the county game whilst emphasising the dynamic and exciting nature of the format. Crucial to this is bringing Finals Day back much closer to the conclusion of the group stages to maintain the momentum and interest in the competition.
One Day Cup:
We are comfortable with the current scheduling of the One Day Cup. Whilst it means that we are missing many of our players due to The Hundred, it provides valuable development opportunities for our cricketers to step up into the first team squad in white ball competitions.
Ultimately, whilst there are challenges around the schedule there are also significant opportunities to improve the game for players and supporters. We believe that a healthy and thriving domestic game will not only create great cricketers for England but also continue to build a passionate fan base that will get behind the game.
Oli Slipper, Chair, and Steve Elworthy, CEO at Surrey CCC
Alec Stewart, High Performance Cricket Advisor at Surrey CCC, said “The County Championship is a high quality competition and it’s vital that any changes we make will maintain that. There’s a worry that if we undermine the integrity of the competition then it could impact the quality of players that we can produce for England.
“Giving the best players the opportunity to play with and against each other more often is the most sensible way to help young cricketers to develop their technical and mental skillsets in a range of conditions throughout the year.”
Rory Burns, Captain at Surrey CCC, said "It’s important to maintain the volume of cricket that plays such a crucial role in a player’s development. County Cricket prepares you for international cricket, you have time on task and you build the resilience you need at the highest level.
“I’d like to see a division structure where you are playing all teams home and away to win the County Championship title. The four-day game is about testing yourselves against the best opposition in different conditions and over the long season, the team who comes out top will have had to earn it throughout the year.”
02/07
Following on from the below forum, Jamie Cox, Somerset CEO has written to members
Domestic Playing Programme – Message from our CEO and Chair
Dear valued Somerset Member,
At the outset, we would like to thank you all for the incredible support that you have provided for our Somerset men’s and women’s teams in 2025. Your on-going support is an incredible asset of the Club and greatly appreciated. Our Vitality Blast crowds have remained strong while our Rothesay County Championship crowds are up 20 percent so far this season, which is testament to the passion Somerset crowds have for red-ball cricket. To have also had 2000 people attend a stand-alone Somerset Women’s Vitality Blast match recently was a stamp of approval for the exciting growth of women’s cricket in the region.
You will undoubtedly be aware that the ECB is currently undertaking a much-publicised review of the men’s fixtures in time for the 2026 season. This process has gained some understandable commentary across social and mainstream media channels of late and, given its relevance to all who love the game, we thought it worthwhile to ensure that the facts of the situation, as well as our consolidated Club views on the review, are presented clearly to our Members and supporters. These messages were shared directly with Members at an in-person forum on Monday night at the Cooper Associates County Ground.
Our Club’s stated purpose is to ‘Inspire the South West through cricket’. The key to that is putting on inspiring cricket matches, which can be enjoyed by players and spectators alike, at our magical home ground. We have consistently communicated to the cricket authorities that we do not favour any reduction of playing content (i.e. less cricket) as an outcome of the review and nothing has changed our minds, as the debate has matured and options put forward. We do, however, remain supportive of reducing congestion within the schedule and have provided some practical suggestions as to how this can be achieved. These suggestions include playing four-day cricket during August when The Hundred is on and ‘unblocking’ the Blast. So far, these suggestions have not been seriously considered.
You may have noticed one of the key motivations for a possible reduction in content is to ease player workload. We know that we have multi-format players at Somerset who need to have their workloads managed, both to mitigate injury and to enable them to perform at their best when listed to play. You will witness this frequently, particularly when fixtures fall close together. Whilst we know it is a topic of regular debate amongst fans, we would like to think that most trust and understand the reasoning even if they don’t agree with every decision. In short, we see workload management as a critical function of our Club, through our Sports Science & Medicine experts, in consultation with the players themselves and our coaches. It is not the job of the fixture schedule!
The workload of our dedicated staff is also a concern. That has become more of a challenge with the exciting development of women’s cricket in Somerset which has meant, for example, more pitches to prepare and more matches to steward. We are working to ensure that we are set up correctly for the 2026 season.
Regardless of these pressures, we are a Club united in our love of playing and hosting cricket.
England possesses one of the great cricket nurseries in the world, and this is largely due to its playing culture and the variety of playing opportunities available domestically. We believe this to be a really important point. Cricket is a game that you learn most of all by playing rather than training, and as we head into this new landscape of private investment, we must be very careful to not break irretrievably, the characteristics that have served the game so well for so long.
For completeness, the options currently under discussion can be summarised as follows:
Vitality Blast Proposal
There is currently only one, which is a tournament from mid-May through to July, finishing before the commencement of The Hundred.
This will consist of:
• Three regionalised groups of six, aiming to maintain rivalries (although perhaps our largest current rivalry against Surrey would be a victim of this new format).
• 12 matches per team (10 within-group, home and away, 2 inter-group).
• Quarter-Finals and Finals Day as per the existing model.
We have not been immune to a nationwide trend in declining Blast ticket sales across the past few seasons, but it remains a much-loved product at Taunton and critical to our business success. A suggested improvement has been ensuring that matches are scheduled at times that fans want to watch, as all venues have their preferred timeslots. The future success of T20 cricket demands this, above all else. However, a concession from ECB that a reduction in content does not actually guarantee better timeslots has reinforced our view that 14 Blast fixtures is an imperative for us.
In summary, we do not support this current proposal or, in fact, any reduction in Vitality Blast content, nor do we support a change from the current North/South format, which we believe has served the game so well. In our mind, the proposed model represents change for changes sake and risks further decline in what we know is a critical product. T20 cricket brings the Cooper Associates County Ground alive and is a key to us inspiring the South West through cricket and generating an annual business surplus.
Rothesay County Championship Proposals
Option 1
Maintain the current two-division system and 14 games, with a return to an eight-team 1st Division and ten-team 2nd Division, to raise the standard and add home and away symmetry to Division 1.
There are some complications in transition, and it is likely to be unpopular with any counties concerned about there being less opportunities in Division 1, but we support this as the model which provides the best competition and is, we believe, the fairest of the alternatives.
Option 2
Same as the current structure… but with less cricket! i.e. 10-team Division 1 and eight-team Division 2, but with a reduction to 12 games. We argue that, if preferred, this model can also be played across 14 games, as it is now! It is not a model we support however, as we believe any home and away symmetry belongs in Division 1.
Option 3
Two-tier conferences of six plus Finals Series (13 games). The top 12 teams are divided into two groups of six, each playing ten matches. The top three from each group then enter a brief September league to determine the champion. The remaining teams compete for promotion or relegation. Whilst this has supporters, the jury is out on whether this approach could actually be scheduled, due to the need to reset after 10 rounds, let alone being easy to follow for Members and supporters. As a consequence, we do not support this concept.
Option 4
Conference model with two groups of six in an upper division and a bottom group of six. Similar to Option 3, but the main difference is that it concludes with a single, winner-takes-all, match between the winner of conference A and conference B. It is easier to schedule and to follow than Option 3. One of the two most consistent teams in the country throughout the year will win the County Championship. Additionally, teams have a two in six chance of moving out of the bottom league. We have argued that this model can easily scale up to 13 or 14 matches, which then just leaves the choice between preferring to play a final or having a league table. We do not support this as a 12-match option.
Option 5
Three groups of six teams with playoffs and 12 matches in total. There would be no promotion or relegation as all teams start the season with a chance to win the Championship. It resembles the model used during Covid, which was played regionally and also involved 14 matches. We like the fact that any of the First Class Counties can win at the start of the season but we do not support a reduction in matches.
As expressed, Option 1 is the only model which has support from Somerset CCC, and you may have read that there is at least one other quite powerful ally in this conversation.
Our position across both competitions is not a popular one but we feel it is important for us to stand strong behind something which supports our Club and region, particularly at a time of incredible change and uncertainty in the game.
Jamie Cox
SCCC CEO
Sir Michael Barber
SCCC CHAIR
01/07
WHERE DOES IT ALL GO FROM HERE?
28/06
Hi Everyone,
Apologies if I get the tone of this email wrong, but I’m not at all happy.
- It’s now seven days since the members forum, where I felt we were patronised, and we have not seen the slides yet. I’ve switched my view from cock-up to conspiracy on this one now (don’t bother saying ‘I told you so’!). I think information is being deliberately withheld from us unnecessarily and foolishly as resentment seems to be building at least amongst the members I talk to.
- You will be aware that I sent the results of ‘our’ survey to the club more than a week ago. I have not had the courtesy of an acknowledgement from either the Chair or the CEO. That’s just plain rude. They don’t have to read it f course, or take any notice, but common politeness would be good. Incidentally, I do have the email addresses of some of the committee and did get a fast and polite response from Frazer M, Dave G and Di P. The others were not contacted directly because I have no way of doing so, despite them being our elected representatives.
So – what are our options. I can think of three as of now (please suggest others):
- Use the 100 signatures to call an EGM to discuss the motion circulated with the request for signatures.
- Seek another 100 signatures to call a meeting to debate a vote of no confidence in the Chair/committee.
- Seek another 100 signatures to call a meeting to debate a motion ‘reprimanding the committee for its behaviour over the ECB’s schedule review’.
I would very much welcome feedback (positive or negative) on these issues.
Best wishes,
Nick Evans
24 Enfield St
Beeston
Nottingham
NG9 1DN
26/06
EVENING FORUM AT DERBY
Derbyshire’s next Members’ Forum will take place on Wednesday 9 July (6.30pm start) in the Members’ Lounge at The Central Co-op County Ground.
The meeting will focus on the ECB Domestic Schedule Review and give Members the opportunity to discuss the latest updates with the Club’s Board.
There are currently no confirmed proposals put forward by the ECB, however it is expected that there will be more information to discuss with Members by the date of this Forum.
Timings
Members’ Forum: 6.30pm – 8.00pm
Members subscribed to receive email communication have been sent details of how to pre-register for the Forum.
Counties to vote on radical shake-up to cut matches from domestic cricket
Latest attempt to trim fixture list expected to go ahead
Both Championship and Twenty20 Blast would change
The 18 first-class counties will this week finalise plans to cut the County Championship and Twenty20 Blast to 12 matches in each competition next season in a significant restructure of the domestic game.
The most recent attempt by the England and Wales Cricket Board to cut the fixture list was thwarted three years ago, when a review led by Sir Andrew Strauss calling for a 10-match Championship season was rejected by the counties, but after three months of talks there is now widespread agreement on reducing the volume of cricket despite complaints from county members.
The counties are understood to have agreed to cut the T20 Blast from 14 group-stage fixtures to 12, allowing finals day to be brought forward to the end of July before the start of the Hundred, with this week’s meetings to focus on a restructure of the County Championship. A consultation process led by the ECB’s professional game committee (PGC) gave the counties five different options for next season, with two to be put forward after the meetings of the counties before a final decision in July.
It is understood that both proposed options to be taken forward will involve cutting the Championship fixture list to 12 matches. The most radical proposal involves creating a 12-team Division One, split across two pools of six, with a six-team Division Two underneath.
Each team in the two Division One pools would play 10 games against each other home and away, plus two additional fixtures against sides from the other pool. The winners of both pools after 12 matches would then play off in September for the County Championship title, with the bottom county in each pool being relegated.
The six Division Two teams would also play 12 matches, with some playing each other three times in a lopsided fixture list, and the winners of the league being promoted automatically. The second- and third‑placed teams would also play off at the end of the season for the right to be promoted.
The alternative option to be put forward would maintain the existing 10-team Division One and eight‑team Division Two format, but with a cut to 12 games. There would be no playoff title decider, but the second- and third-placed teams in Division Two would face each other for the second promotion place.
Other options proposed by the PGC, including three conferences of six followed by playoffs, a midseason split similar to that used by the Scottish Premier League and keeping the current 14-game, two-division structure, are set to be rejected. Sources involved in the discussions said that the 12/6 split is regarded as the favoured format to be adopted, with the final decision to be made next month.
A two-thirds majority of counties is required if the matter is put to a vote, although if a consensus emerges that may not be necessary. Removing two rounds of Championship fixtures would also enable the One-Day Cup to be split, with five rounds taking place in April and another five in August during the Hundred, giving more players the opportunity to play 50-over cricket.
The County Championship schedule was last cut from 16 to 14 matches before the 2017 season, but with the volume of global franchise cricket having increased significantly since, and the Hundred now taking up all of August, there is a growing acceptance that a further reduction is required. The players are strongly in favour of less cricket, with 83% of respondents to a Professional Cricketers’ Association survey published in May citing physical concerns over their workload, and 67% believing the schedule is detrimental to their mental health.
21/06
As we are to soon enter a point of switching formats, it appears this is one area that those pulling the strings believe can be used to highlight a need to reduce the volume of cricket - see below
Our CEO and the chair must have had similar meetings with committees etc, so why have they not shared these A - E Options (below) and the [some might see flawed] arguments for change/cuts?
They will do very well to present all these in a clear, fair, unbiased and effective manner in the 30 minutes a lunch break generally permits and that's before there's any discussion or feedback on Sunday.
"When does the consultation start?", I hear a call from the back asking.
20/06
Dear member
As promised in last week’s newsletter, I want to update you on the ongoing discussions around the future shape of the domestic cricket season. Over the weekend, the game-wide Steering Group shared a set of proposals, which we reviewed during an in-depth Members' Committee meeting on Monday evening.
The session lasted nearly four hours and highlighted the importance - and complexity - of the issues at hand. Ahead of the wider Member consultation during the Members Forum planned for the lunch interval on Monday, I’ve tried to summarise the options and discussions. In the pursuit of brevity, I’ve had to leave out some detail but I will fill in the gaps when we meet. However, this hopefully gives you a feel for the options and how the Members' Committee viewed them.
The Case For Change
The structure of the domestic cricket season has been a long-standing topic of debate. However, the sense now is that it’s time for decisive action - to create sustainable formats and a workable schedule that can serve the game well into the future. Key challenges include:
- Player Welfare:
The current calendar - running from early April to late September with frequent format changes and back-to-back fixtures - is impacting performance, player development and wellbeing. Fewer matches are likely to reduce injury rates.
- Member and Fan Engagement:
Audiences are declining. Rothesay County Championship struggles to attract new supporters, with concerns about a lack of jeopardy and elite-level quality. Vitality Blast attendances have also dropped sharply over the past two years, with scheduling and format cited as key issues.
- Logistical Pressures:
International fixtures, the growth of the women’s game, and the fixed window for The Hundred mean that it’s impossible to schedule the current volume of games in a way that addresses issues. This means that the wickets are being exhausted and Ground Staff are under unsustainable pressure to maintain pitch quality.
Members' Committee unanimously agreed that the status quo is not sustainable.
Guiding Principles
Members' Committee heard that the game-wide Steering Group evaluated proposals against three criteria:
- Player welfare and performance:
Promoting 'best v best' to elevate quality and support England player development.
- Audience growth (attendances and broadcast):
Through more competitive, engaging fixtures with stronger narratives and 'best v best' cricket.
- Stakeholder alignment:
Ensuring Members’ interests and your passion for the Rothesay County Championship is central to any changes.
Once agreed, changes to the Rothesay County Championship and Vitality Blast will remain in place until at least 2031 to provide long-term clarity. Due to a number of counties wanting to review what cricket is played under The Hundred, and also the long-term future of 50-over cricket, the Metro Bank One Day Cup will stay unchanged for three years and be reviewed thereafter.
Vitality Blast: Rebuilding Momentum
The proposed reforms aim to restore the competition’s relevance and appeal:
- A continuous tournament from mid-May to July - finishing before The Hundred starts.
- Three groups of six, preserving local derbies (e.g. Bears v Pears).
- 12 matches per team: 10 within the group, 2 against teams from other groups with rotation of groups up for discussion.
- Even distribution of fixtures, focused on weekends for better attendance.
- Greater attention to travel and player recovery - aiming for 24 hour gaps between games.
- Quarter Finals and Finals Day held in July, ensuring maximum player availability.
Members' Committee broadly supported these proposals but stressed the need for serious marketing investment to reverse declining interest.
Rothesay County Championship: Five Structural Options
The Steering Group proposals reflected a majority (but not unanimous) view from the game that player welfare is an issue that needs to be addressed by a slight reduction in games, but there were different ways of doing this – and a 14 game option was included for comparison:
- Option A: 8/10 Divisions (14 Games)
Division 1 teams play each other (home and away) but it was felt that this is really 'status quo' and doesn’t address fixture congestion, player welfare or audience engagement.
- Option B: 10/8 Divisions (12 Games)
The reduction improves player welfare, but two games felt a bridge too far and did little to enhance competitiveness or narrative. Again, tinkering and more of the same really.
- Option C: Two-Tier Conference + Finals Series (13 Games)
Top 12 teams split into two 'top tier' groups of 6, while bottom 6 in a 'lower tier'. Each team plays 10 group games and then the groups split: top 3 in each of the top tiers merge and play 3 games in a September 'finals series' to decide on the County Championship winner. Bottom 3 and those in lower tier involved in relegation/promotion play-offs. Creates 'high jeopardy' games throughout, especially in September. This was positively received - a strong balance of competition, welfare, and tradition. However, scheduling challenges around the final rounds in September would need to be resolved.
- Option D: Two-Tier Conference + One-Off Final (12 Games plus '13th game' Final)
Similar to Option C, but replaces the finals series with a one-match final. Each team plays ten games in their group and two from the other conference. The top teams in the top two groups then play each other in a 'winner takes all' Final. This emulates models from other sports and global red-ball leagues. However, the weather/impact of the toss and the jeopardy of a 'winner takes all' game after a long season were concerns. It also means that the majority of counties will only play 12 games.
- Option E: 3 Groups of 6 + Playoffs (12 Games)
All teams can win the Championship but lacks promotion/relegation and could lead to more 'dead rubbers.' There was a concern that quality players would be spread too thinly, weakening overall standards. It also removed the jeopardy of promotion/relegation and teams' desire to strive for higher standards.
Members' Committee felt that there’s no perfect solution, but consensus leaned toward Option C. It strikes a balance between innovation and tradition, encourages competitive cricket, and reduces player load modestly. If logistics prove unworkable, Option D was the preferred fallback.
Crucially, the Committee felt that this is a pivotal moment. Bold but considered changes now could secure a healthier future for the domestic game, delivering better cricket for Members and safeguarding the development of elite players.
Next Steps
I’ll walk through these proposals in greater detail at the Members Forum during the Somerset game on Monday 23 June, and have some graphics to help explain each format. It’s difficult to get everything across easily in the confines of a newsletter. I will then ask those present for their views and thoughts.
Following that, we’ll take the feedback from the forum and Members' Committee session to the Club Board. This will form the basis of our response to the ECB ahead of their July decision.
Take care.
Stuart Cain
Chief Executive
14/06
Hi Everyone,
See below for an example of a club communicating about building projects (when did we last hear anything at all about the pavilion?), consultations and the Franchise agreements (when was the last update from Notts about this?).
Best wishes,
Nick Evans
24 Enfield St
Beeston
Nottingham
NG9 1DN
Well Nick, we were told the roof would be coming off, carefully, at the last members' forum and that the Franchise partners would be finalising the partnership with ??? very soon, at the same meeting.
Since then, everyone can see the roof has almost all gone now and that building work can start upwards. They need to crack -on!
Hi ,
Apologies, it’s been a while since my last note, but the season is now well underway and as ever, there is lots going on.
2026 Domestic Schedule Review:
Speculation is rife about what might, or might not, be happening from 2026, but the genuine answer is that we haven’t received final proposals yet from the ECB steering group set up to discuss the matter. We should get these by the weekend and have set up a Member’s Committee meeting to discuss on Monday 16 June. From there, we would like to have a wider Member’s discussion during lunch at the Somerset County Championship game on Monday 23 June. We’ve chosen that date/time as we know that the County Championship is probably the most contentious part of the discussions and Members have fed back before that they prefer to speak during a game. Regardless, I will try to keep you informed as things develop.
A reasonable start to the men's cricket:
It’s still early days, but we’ve had a better start to the County Championship this year with new recruits Ethan Bamber, Tom Latham and Beau Webster really making their mark, supported well by a host of players with bat and ball – it was particularly pleasing to see Chris Woakes and Chris Rushworth in action at Worcestershire. Whilst we were beaten by the weather at New Road, you could argue it got us out of jail against Nottinghamshire so perhaps things do even themselves out over the season. Ian Westwood has settled well, brilliantly supported by Matt Walker. It’s a great combination – Westy dreams about the Bears in his sleep and knows what it takes to win, and Matt has the ‘battle scars’ to support him having been Head Coach at Kent. The new Performance Director, James Thomas, started in early June and has hit the ground running with 2026 recruitment his key short-term focus and conversations are well underway with targets that will improve the squad. On the flipside, it was disappointing to see Isaac Ali move to New Road. We spoke to his representatives and said we would sign him on a Rookie contract at the end of the season if he continued to progress as expected, but Worcestershire offered him the kind of speculative deal rarely seen in county cricket – so, we wish him well.
And the same with the Bears Women:
After some good work from Ali Maiden, Head Coach, pre-season, It’s great to see the women’s professional team take shape, with strong performances in the County Cup and early Vitality Blast games. Whilst the whole team has done well, there have been stand-out games from a range of players including Laura Harris, Nat Wraith, Davina Perrin, Charis Pavely and Sterre Kalis. The One Day Cup was tougher, but it really helped give some of the team’s younger members much needed experience that means they will be able to go in to 2026 much better equipped to compete. As with the men, we’re looking at recruitment but options are more limited in the women’s game as the pool of players is smaller and many of those who moved professional last year signed two year deals, but we do hope to bring some fresh faces in for 2026. It was also good to see Emily Arlott in an England shirt for the first time, and Issy Wong get a well-deserved recall.
Be kind:
One thing we’ve noticed this season is an increase in aggressive behavior towards staff from small pockets of the Membership, whether it be in the Tom Dollery or the Premium Member areas. At this stage, it’s not a big deal, but please just remember that we’re all part of the Bear’s family and should be pulling together. Nobody comes to work trying to upset Members, and I’m really proud of how hard everyone works to try and give you a great day out. If we get it wrong, we have to accept that, but what we shouldn’t have to accept is abuse or derogatory behavior. Hopefully this will sort itself out, but if it doesn’t we will take action that may include exclusion for really poor behaviour.
Re-development update:
Plans are going well for the re-development of the Raglan and Priory stands, we hope to appoint contractors shortly and begin work in September. The plan is that the existing stands are demolished by Christmas, and the new frame structure is built in time for the 2026 season, but that does mean that there won’t be any seating in that area of the ground next year. The plan is still to have the new stand and hotel open in time for the Ashes in 2027. Further details and a flythrough will be added to the website over coming months.
The Hundred and Birmingham Phoenix:
We are getting closer to sorting out the legals and signing the deal – it’s taken a lot longer than anticipated, but I think that’s beneficial as it means all of the investors have had the time to talk things through with the ECB so we all understand how things will work once the deal is done. Knighthead are proving to be excellent partners, adding value where it matters but leaving us to manage the cricket as part of the wider Bears stable. Due to the delays, the ECB will continue to run the competition, as they have done historically, but we plan to invest additional funds in marketing and commercial so that we can build up a head of steam before taking over properly in 2026.
I will leave it there for now, but with the India Test Match approaching, as well as the World Championship of Legends, alongside the stand re-development, 2026 schedule review and completion of the Hundred deal there is plenty to keep us occupied on and off the field.
As ever, get in touch if there is anything specific you would like to discuss and I hope to see some of you at the Member’s Forum during the Somerset game on Monday 23 June.
Take care.
Stuart Cain
Chief Executive
Hi Folks,
These are the results from the Middlesex members’ survey. Note how much better it is than the feeble (deliberately) effort at a survey Notts have done. Note Derbyshire have done a similar one as they seem to actually be interested in their members’ views.
MEMBERS’ SURVEY | TOPLINE FINDINGS AND RESULTS
Our thanks go to the 1,100+ members who took time to provide us with their feedback in our latest Members’ survey, which focussed on the ECB’s current review of the domestic playing schedule for 2026 onwards.
A more detailed analysis of the survey will be presented and discussed at the forthcoming Members’ Forum and SGM on 26th June 2025, however, please see below a summarised top-line view on the feedback provided by members.
The survey focussed on five main areas, as follows:
1. Which, of the three main cricketing formats, do our members prefer?
(Members were asked to specify how much they value each format of the game by providing a score between 0 and 10, with 0 being least valued and 10 being most valued)
County Championship
Vote of 0-5 - 1%
Vote of 6 to 8 - 7%
Vote of 9 to 10 - 92%
T20 Blast
Vote of 0-5 - 38%
Vote of 6 to 8 - 43%
Vote of 9 to 10 - 19%
One-Day Cup
Vote of 0-5 - 19%
Vote of 6 to 8 - 51%
Vote of 9 to 10 - 31%
Question Two – is the current volume of Cricket (78 days out of the 178 days in the season) too much/little/about right?
Far too little cricket being played - 7%
Too Little cricket being played - 25%
Volume of cricket is about right - 55%
Too much cricket being played - 13%
Question Three – within the existing 78 playing days – how should that – ideally – be split by format?
Nearly all Members want either the same number of Championship games (45%) or 1-2 more games (44%). Almost all the remainder (7%) want even more Championship games than that. To find the extra match days Members were much more likely to sacrifice T20 games than One Day Cup.
We also asked respondents to do the same exercise on two hypothetically reduced formats – first with 74 days and then just 70 days cricket across the whole season. In both scenarios, the overwhelming desire for red ball cricket remained, whatever happened.
Question Four – what format do Members believe should be played alongside the Hundred?
66% of Middlesex Members would favour playing Championship cricket in August compared to 54% favouring the current arrangement of One Day Cup.
At 32% the lowest number favoured T20 alongside the Hundred.
Looking at the other end of the scale – just a quarter of Members would be against playing red ball at the same time vs 19% against the current arrangement.
Question Five – how would changes in the number of Games played by format impact membership renewal?
To answer this question, we asked Members how likely they were to renew on a scale of 0 to 10 (0 being “would certainly not renew” and 10 being “would certainly renew”).
If schedule remained the same: Average score of 7.5
If schedule included more Championship cricket: Average score of 7.7
If schedule included less Championship cricket: Average score of 4
Best wishes,
Nick Evans
24 Enfield St
Beeston
Nottingham
NG9 1DN
Really confused, Notts are playing Yorkshite, 2nd Day, on Monday 23rd June, not Somerset.There is no match at TB on Monday 16th June. Is the meeting referred to when there is no match ?
ReplyDelete"Menbers Committee", is that an accurate description anymore. Do they mean the club Committee ? As for 23rd, I thought the counties were meeting at Lord's before that. Is that too delayed ?
ReplyDeleteThat was me, Rich, again !
ReplyDeleteSorry, is from Warwichshire ! But still confused re consultations at any county, as to when when big meeting at tord's to take sce.
ReplyDeleteDiscussions are happening this week and next week between small groups of Chairs and CEO types with a view to forming a consensus before any formal proposal is made. The word consultation, I feel, has been redefined. It now means that one party will tell another something that they won't like. It will be a case of lump it...
Delete82 NOT OUT
ReplyDeleteThanks for all the hard work you are putting in Nick . The changes that are apparently coming are certainly thought provoking . The different scenarios will have a knock on effect - some of which may surprise us in the long run . Falling attendances have to be addressed . Cricket is selling a good product - but mistakes have obviously been made . The cricket season of old had a balanced feeling about it . Nowadays no one seems to have any idea what matches are being played , where and when . It just seems like balls have been thrown in the air and landed in no particular order . That’s the current “ all over the place” cricket season .
Carry on the good work Nick !
Like !
DeleteSo 14 matches to be rejected, I will continue to Geoffrey (cricket pun there, he looked well the other day,at Test, glad to say) County Cricket. My new cricket home, West Park, just one Blaze's match and about half an hour Notts Seconds at Nottz Sports Ground, this season.
ReplyDeleteNOT OUT 82
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing worse than being ignored. You have done your best Nick to get Notts Members a clearer picture of what is actually going on at Notts HQ . As one of the eight franchisecground holders it’s pretty obvious that Motts top team are terrified of rocking the boat and upsetting the ECB . Notts are basically there to rubber stamp ECB “ proposals”. But to let us non entities think that they are fighting an independent pathway - THE PATHWAY THAT THE GREAT MAJORITY OF MEMBERS WANT !?
Huge effort by Nick, and also by Lancashire members to protect our precious and unique sport. But fear the 12 counties who have not had any form of members' vote, including so sadly our county, are hooked in by the terrible ECB. Also, could those counties who have had a vote, ignore their members ? Think some of the 18 are no longer members" clubs at all.
ReplyDeleteDurham, Northants and Hampshire aren't member owned.
DeleteThanks
DeleteA good friend of mine thinks the reduction in CC matches from 14 will be defeated. Hope so, but I feel less optimistic. Hope he is right and I am wrong.
ReplyDeleteThanks Nick
ReplyDeleteMy concern over the PCA’s stance over workload is that it will be seen, justifiably or not, as an excuse to shake free from the low-paying counties who developed them in favour of franchise dollars.
ReplyDeleteMy concern for counties is that they will forever lose the trust of their membership, should they vote to contract the schedule in the face of clear signals to resist.
My concern for county cricket is that while everyone squabbles over how to reshape it, modernise it and use it, no one takes the time to love it.
Because, in the end, that is why we watch.
I'm a member at Durham. The article said that it had discussed this with members. Has the article been amended ? No member I know has been consulted in any way, shape or form. Members of Counties generally have the long term health of the game at heart whereas those proposing change seem to simply have their noses in the trough seeking to hoover up as much 'The Hundred' cash as humanly possible.
ReplyDeleteSuperb graph, just shows how big a lie the "too much cricket" thing is. Sadly they just keep repeating it, without any debate or questioning of it, at least within the new/worst ever, cricketing establishment.
ReplyDeleteIs that right from Alan Higham ? A reduction to 12 County Championship matches means none In June, July, nor August, banished from Summer. He lists 10 counties if favour, with Gloucestershire a highly probable, and Essex wavering. Then there is the slimy "consesus/no vote" ECB idea.
ReplyDelete82 NOT OUT
ReplyDeleteIt’s obvious the ECB want 12 four day games . I fear some arm twisting and perhaps “ gentle” threats by them to get the required two thirds vote . Money talks - and the ECB have most of it !
Warwickshire misrepresent the views of those of us who want to keep County Championship to 14 games as; "those who don’t recognise the need for change." Think many of us do want to see change, for instance in how The Blast is rammed into a short timeframe, and maybe 2 Championship matches in August, during the franchise thing, just not a reduction in CC matches.
ReplyDeleteThis is speculation; but with Essex "minded to" vote against reducing the number of County Championship matches, and 6 other counties public position being against as well :at this time there's not the support of the 12 counties required to carry the change in a vote. The speculation being, that the vote is being delayed while ECB put pressure on those counties, till at least one "cracks" and they can get the 12 they need supporting the change. In my opinion, that pressure likely to be private and not entirely ethical.
ReplyDeleteThose from Essex have said that they feared duplicitous words from their county representatives following the forum... time will tell if those fears are warranted or not.
DeleteWill Notts members walk away if the club votes against their wishes regarding reduced county championship games? I'm playing Devil's advocate I know.
ReplyDeleteA side issue but Derbyshire Ccc have increased home championship attendance by 17% and surprisingly T20 Blast by 20%.
As there are 1700 Notts members that don't even attend one day of domestic cricket in a season, the club will feel that they can ride this storm and the next one too. Some will walk away, as some did ten years ago when we went down from 16 Championship games. Some will be fed up of the ones leading the club, but that is going to change before next season. Watch this space.
DeleteJust hoping County cricket gets back it's dignity and pride of place one Day.
ReplyDeleteI think we are all the last ones to get county memberships - and I include all counties - cannot ever see the youth doing it. Good luck in stopping Surrey this season.
Leicestershire triumph is about a lot of hard work, by many people.
ReplyDeleteSo agree with latest artcle above on the deadline etc. Would be surprised, pleased, but surprised if the management of the club acted honourably. A sad time for the club and the whole sport. Hope we win The Championship, but like so many want a meaningful Championship for the future.
ReplyDeleteRe Worcestershire etc, their players want a 3 or 4 day gap between 4 day matches. Thought they had that ? Certainly they have one 6 week gap, and one 6 month gap. So nearly 8 months where they do not play it. The frequent references by cricketers to mental illness is frankly
ReplyDeleteInsultung to many who do have that.
Derbyshire confirmed as "no", so unless another county gets taken tound, 13 matches will be defeated Quite likely vote will not happen and they, you know "them",
ReplyDeletewill try again next year ?
Above
ReplyDelete.....another county talked round.
For once was right, vote delayed as above.
ReplyDeleteRich D
82 NOT OUT
ReplyDeletePROPER CRICKET SURVIVES !
ECB and some players will not be happy .
Really good news !
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know how long these arrangements last for or are we going to go through the same trauma next summer?
ReplyDeleteDid the ECB remove the motion before the vote or after. In other words did The committee actually vote for or against.
ReplyDeleteGus
ECB rushed the vote ahead of their own schedule (if you can forgive the pun). Fear was that some counties might have a conflict of interest depending on what happens in this round of matches, so the vote had to be before play today.
DeleteDoes anyone have a list of how the county’s voted and mor specifically how did Notts vote? Did they listen to the membership or were we ignored again.
ReplyDeletePeter
Check the CCGM post for Nick's thoughts
DeleteNotts voted for the reduction so it doesn't
ReplyDeleteMatter what the powers that be voted for now
They should have stated to the members
Well before the vote it's all smoke & mirrors & more than likely this issue will
Raise its head again. Next season
And you know this anonymous? Lisa did promise to inform members of the Notts vote ahead of any ECB announcement of a result, at the EGM. Something she failed to do, just like the publication of attendance figures for each day of the season of the championship, which she previously promised to do at the forum but only managed to do once all season.
DeleteNotts would have been uncomfortable with the three random fixtures in September, which was part of Option 13 - Trent Bridge has other ECB priority games, usually scheduled in the last month of the season and we know that every blade of grass is already spoken for; perhaps 8 more days would have been too difficult especially if the Blaze had a semi final to play as well.
She as previous for misleading members
ReplyDeleteShe leaves her post tomorrow anyway she will not be divulging any numbers as she can leave this to the stringless chairman' members got what we wanted no reduction to the championship thank god
Not even Notts could back the yellow shed option, anonymous.
DeleteBig thanks to all counties who voted not to reduce County Championship matches, in the face of huge pressure, including Notts voting to retain 14.
ReplyDelete