Nottinghamshire CCMG: Lancashire Manchinations - Summary

 

18/04

Hi Folks,

Below is Alan Higham’s explanation of what happened at Old Trafford last Thursday. Feel free to circulate, it’s on Facebook and Twitter already. Note resolutions 4,5,6 and 7 were never discussed…

Best wishes,

Nick

24 Enfield St

Beeston

Nottingham

NG9 1DN

Executive Summary

The SGM was adjourned after members raised serious concerns about three rule changes that would significantly increase the Board’s power while making it much harder for ordinary members to hold it to account or propose topics.

Key problems identified:

·       Resolution 1 raises the signature threshold for any resolution at an AGM or SGM to 5% of membership (currently ~400 signatures), a big jump from the existing 25 (AGM) or 100 (SGM). This would make it extremely difficult to get items onto the agenda.

·       Resolution 2 would let the Board suspend any member immediately on a mere allegation of breaching the rules or Code of Conduct, with the suspension able to last indefinitely and with no right of appeal.

·       Resolution 3 would allow the Board to re-appoint directors without creating a vacancy (so no other candidates can stand) and imposes a four-year ban on any former employee standing for the Board after leaving Club employment.

Members argued the proposals were presented as minor “tidying-up” measures, without full explanation of their wider effects. Many proxy voters received incomplete information, and there was no proper member consultation. The Board was asked to withdraw the resolutions, address the concerns and re-present them with clearer information.

Introduction

Many members have asked about the detailed problems with the SGM resolutions that caused the meeting to be adjourned.

This article covers problems with the first three SGM resolutions that were discussed at the meeting. The other four SGM resolutions were only presented but not discussed. The Chair was keen to keep discussions brief, so there may be further issues raised if and when the adjourned SGM resumes.

For brevity, each resolution is explained along with the issues that members raised. Full details of what the Club said on each resolution can be found in the Appendix to this note.

Resolution 1

To amend Rule 11.2.3.1 to say:

To consider any General Meeting (AGM/SGM/EGM) resolution that is signed by no fewer than 5%, or 250 Members’ (whichever is higher) of the voting Membership. Signatures to be submitted via the Club Petition Ratification Process for the purpose of verifying the accuracy and eligibility.

In plain English: This raises the signature threshold needed to place any resolution on the agenda of an AGM, SGM or EGM from the current numbers (25 signatures for an AGM, 100 for an SGM) to roughly 400 members — 5% of the current membership — and requires every signature to be verified through the Club's new (as yet undefined) Member Petition Ratification Process.

Member concerns raised at the meeting

·       Members asked how they would know what 5% of the membership actually meant in practice. Would the figure be based on membership numbers at a fixed date, or at the time the meeting was requested? Would the Club publish the current membership total?

·       The Chair confirmed there are currently around 8,000 members and said the Club could publish a dashboard showing up-to-date membership numbers as they change throughout the year.

·       The change would also apply to AGM resolutions, raising the threshold from the current 25 signatures to around 400. This appears to contradict Rule 11.1.2.6, which only requires 25 signatures for an AGM resolution. It was unclear which rule would take precedence.

·       In effect, the Board is seeking to increase the SGM threshold from 100 to around 400 signatures (not the 250 figure used in the Board’s public explanation). For context, Surrey (with 21,000 members) only requires 250 signatures for an SGM.

·       For AGMs, raising the threshold from 25 to around 400 signatures to place a topic on the agenda of an already-planned meeting was described as far too severe and anti-democratic.

·       Only 427 members voted at the last AGM, making a 400-signature hurdle particularly onerous.

·       The Board’s publicity focused only on the SGM threshold increase from 100 to 250 and did not explain the much broader impact on AGM resolutions. Most proxy voters were therefore unaware of the wider implications.

Resolution 2

To amend Rule 6.5.2 to say:

In the event of a breach of the Club Rules and/or the Club Code of Conduct, depending on the seriousness of the breach, with immediate effect, the Club acting through the Board of Directors, may suspend Members from the Club on a temporary basis as an interim measure and with due process, whilst an investigation is carried out and pending a formal hearing conducted in accordance with the Club’s official Member Disciplinary Process.

Any suspension imposed under this rule shall be for an initial period not exceeding 90 days, or such other period as the Board may determine, and may be extended by further resolution of the Board where the investigation or disciplinary process cannot reasonably be concluded within that period.

The Board shall keep any suspension under review and shall lift or vary the suspension as soon as the circumstances giving rise to it no longer apply.

In plain English: The proposed rule allows interim suspension “in the event of a breach” of the Club Rules or Code of Conduct, yet the Board’s explanation indicates that the power will be used on the basis of a mere allegation of a breach. No minimum standard of evidence is required. The suspension can initially last up to 90 days or more if the Board wishes and then be extended indefinitely by the Board while an investigation continues. There is no right of appeal.

Member concerns raised at the meeting

·       The proposed rule allows interim suspension "in the event of a breach" of the Club Rules or Code of Conduct, yet the Board's explanation indicates that the power can be used on the basis of a mere allegation of a breach. No minimum standard of evidence is required.

·       Despite the Board’s explanation, the suspension could effectively be indefinite. The wording sets an initial 90-day target but expressly allows the Board to set a longer period from the start and to extend it without limit.

·       Members questioned what “and with due process” actually means when a member can be suspended for a lengthy period without any appeal rights and without any information on what allegations they were facing.

·       The Board described the power as being reserved for the most serious cases (e.g., allegations of criminal offences under police investigation) to ensure members' safety. However, the wording as drafted is far broader and could simply be used to exclude members the Board finds inconvenient.

·       Such a power could have a chilling effect on member democracy and the ability to hold the Board to account.

Resolution 3

To amend Rule 18.3.3 to say:

For the avoidance of doubt, where an Elected Board Member completes a three­year term and the Board determines, in accordance with this Rule, that the Member should continue in office, such continuation or re­appointment shall not be deemed to create a vacancy.

This provision shall apply equally to the office of Treasurer. Any Board Member would still need their new term of office formally ratified at the next general meeting.

Upon completion of three consecutive three-year (or equivalent) terms of office a minimum period of four years must elapse before that individual shall again be eligible for election or appointment to the Board. A minimum of four years must elapse from the last date of employment before any ex-employee can be eligible for election or appointment to the Board.

In plain English: This allows the Board (by simple majority) to re-appoint a director who has just completed a three-year term without creating a vacancy, meaning no other member can stand against them. It also imposes a four-year ban on any former Club employee standing for the Board after leaving employment.

Member concerns raised at the meeting

·       Two current Board directors are due for re-election at the May AGM after their initial three-year term. Under the new rule, a simple majority of the Board (currently four out of seven) could simply decide there is no vacancy, preventing any member challenge.

·       Members would be left with only one option: refuse to ratify the re-appointment at the AGM, which could leave the Club without a director (possibly in a key role such as Treasurer or Member Services Director).

·       This removes any meaningful choice for members and could entrench directors for up to ten years without ever facing an alternative candidate.

·       The new four-year ban on former employees standing for the Board was questioned. The Board’s stated aim of protecting independence could instead be achieved through the Nominations Committee’s skills matrix and overall Board needs.

·       A blanket restriction excludes potentially high-quality candidates regardless of the Club’s circumstances and contradicts the Club’s commitment to inclusivity.

Members not given complete information before voting

Many members expressed serious concerns about the lack of fair and full information provided by the Board.

The resolutions were presented as minor “tidying-up” exercises to meet ECB governance requirements and respond to unpublished member feedback.

In reality, the changes are far more significant and would substantially increase the Board’s power while making it much harder for ordinary members to hold directors to account.

Crucially, proxy voters received no warning of the wider effects — particularly the dramatic rise in the AGM signature threshold and the new ability of the Board to re-appoint its own directors without competition. Many members only learned of these implications during the SGM itself.

The Board had not consulted members on the changes and gave only two weeks’ notice of the meeting. Repeated Club communications presented the proposals as strengthening the Club, yet this was the Board’s view, not an established fact supported by informed member debate.

Members argued that proxy votes cast on incomplete information could not be considered fully valid.

The Board was asked to withdraw these resolutions, address the issues raised, and re-present them with proper explanation and adequate notice.

After a ten-minute adjournment, the Chair adjourned the SGM to a future date so the Board could take further legal advice (its legal advisers were not present).

Appendix - Board explanation and rationale

Resolution 1

Further to ECB consultation, to deepen democracy and ensure all resolutions have broad and demonstrable Member support. The proposed amendment strengthens the rule by deepening the democracy of General Meeting procedures ensuring that only resolutions with broad and demonstrable Member support reach a General Meeting, while also improving fairness, transparency, and long-term governance stability. Increasing the minimum number of required signatures from 100 to 5% of the voting membership raises the threshold so that proposals better reflect significant Member interest rather than the views of a small minority and adding a 5% of voting membership requirement makes the rule scalable and future-proof as membership numbers change over time. Requiring signatures to be submitted through a formal Petition Ratification Process enhances integrity and accountability by verifying eligibility and preventing errors or duplication, thereby reducing disputes and administrative risk. This amendment aligns with the ECB’s desire of achieving a 5% minimum threshold across First Class Counties for calling General Meetings. Overall, the amendment aims to balance Member participation with practical governance, encouraging well-supported, transparent, and meaningful resolutions while reducing procedural burden and repetitive conflict.

Resolution 2

To clarify and strengthen the rule relating to Disciplinary processes. The current Rules as drafted specifically refer to Suspension as a potential outcome of a disciplinary process. The proposed amendment does not seek to change that. The proposed amendment shifts the rule from a purely notice-and-hearing model to one that also clarifies and codifies the current best practice HR and Employment processes where the Board imposes a temporary interim suspension where there is an alleged breach of the Club Rules or Code of Conduct, with the primary reasoning being to protect the Club, its Members, and its reputation while a proper investigation is undertaken. This change confirms flexibility and risk management by enabling immediate action in serious situations rather than requiring the Club to wait until a full disciplinary hearing can be arranged, which can be important where safety, legal exposure, or ongoing disruption is a concern. At the same time, the amendment retains an emphasis on due process by linking any suspension to a formal investigation and disciplinary procedure, setting a defined initial time limit (such as 90 days) to prevent indefinite or arbitrary exclusion, and requiring the Board to keep the suspension under review and lift or vary it once the underlying circumstances no longer apply. Overall, the amendment aims to balance fairness to the individual Member with the Club’s duty of care and governance responsibilities, creating a clearer, more structured framework for handling misconduct while reducing the risk of inaction, prolonged uncertainty, or inconsistent disciplinary decisions.

Resolution 3

To ensure high quality Board Members have the opportunity to extend their term of office in the event of unanimous support of the Board and NomCo.

The proposed amendment clarifies and strengthens rules on Board tenure to improve governance transparency, encourage board renewal, and reduce the risk of long-term entrenchment.

Re-appointment beyond standard consecutive terms would be clearly defined as an exceptional measure, requiring unanimous agreement from both the Board and the Nominations Committee and used only where an individual’s skills are materially necessary to the Club or in exceptional organisational circumstances. Any such extension would be limited to a single one-year term, followed by a mandatory four-year break before eligibility to return, supporting succession planning, broader Member participation, and leadership diversity.

The amendment also confirms that continuation or re-appointment does not create a vacancy and applies equally to the Treasurer, removing procedural ambiguity while allowing the Board and NomCo to retain an exceptional candidate who fulfils a clearly differentiated role within the Board’s skills matrix.

The four-year exclusion period after employment ends helps protect the independence and objectivity of the Board. It creates a clear separation between management and governance.

11/04

More from Lancs CMG X feed:

SGM adjourned after members challenge Board resolutions

The first of two Special General Meetings of Lancashire County Cricket Club was adjourned last night after sustained concerns from members about flaws in the Board’s resolutions.

Speaker after speaker questioned the clarity and construction of the first three resolutions. A central theme emerged: members who had already voted by proxy had not had the benefit of hearing the arguments being made in the room.

Members called on the Board to withdraw the resolutions. Following a short adjournment, the four Board members present agreed instead to adjourn the meeting entirely. The SGM will now reconvene at a later date.

SMG 2: The VP resolution

The Vice Presidents’ resolution—to increase the permitted number of former employees on the Board from two to four—secured 63% support, just short of the two-thirds majority required. The limit on ex-employees remains at two.

However, among those present in the room, support was significantly higher—close to 90% by indication.

That contrast has sharpened concerns about the current proxy process, where members vote in advance without access to information on both sides of the debate.

“Members didn’t hear both sides”

A recurring criticism from the floor was that proxy voters had not been given the opportunity to hear both sides of the argument before casting their votes. The Board had refused to circulate the explanation provided by the petitioning members and instead had sent detailed reasons to reject the motions.

One member described the approach as:

“more fitting for a third-rate banana republic than a members’ cricket club.”

Another member, responding to exchanges with the Chair, said she felt the Board’s approach to members at general meetings was:

“condescending.”

These comments reflect a wider frustration about how member views are heard—and acted upon.

The Board's argument was that the rules require them only to circulate the resolution to be voted on.

Members may like to know that 59 members submitted the following rule change, for a vote at the May AGM, to apply to member motions at SGMs:

The Club shall not amend nor edit the resolutions tabled to a Special General Meeting under 11.2.3.1 without the consent of the Members proposing the resolutions. If the resolutions contain material that the Board considers could reasonably cause damage to the Club if circulated to all Members then the Secretary shall meet with the proposer of the member motions to agree appropriate amendments. Any communication issued by the Club to the Members in relation to the Special General Meeting called under Rule 11.2.3.1 in addition to the items in 12.3 must be fair and balanced, allowing both the petitioning members' position and the Club's views to be set out in even terms such as if the Club wishes to send all members for example a video message and/or a written explanation, then the Club must allow the petitioning members the same opportunity to explain the rationale for the resolutions.

A similar amendment to the rule for AGMs was also proposed.

What happens next

The meeting has been adjourned, not closed. Under the Club’s Rules:

The same meeting will reconvene. It can only consider the same seven resolutions. Those resolutions cannot be amended or replaced.

The Board must now decide how it responds to the criticisms raised. Clarification or further information before the meeting resumes alone will not correct the numerous flaws in the rule changes themselves.

If the Board wishes to bring forward revised wording, that would require a new meeting with proper notice.

Given the Club told the Times SGMs cost the Club £30,000 each then perhaps these matters are best left to the AGM in May when the alternative member proposals can be considered at the same time.

Proxy votes — an important point

All existing proxy votes remain valid for the adjourned meeting.

Because voting was conducted online, members cannot submit a new proxy unless the Club reopens voting.

However: members can revoke their proxy, and attend and vote in person instead.

To do so, revocation must be received by the Club at least 48 hours before the reconvened meeting. The Board can reconvene the meeting when it wants without notice.

Quorum

The reconvened meeting must still meet quorum requirements:

100 members in total, including at least 40 present in person.

Proxy votes count toward the balance of the 100.

A moment for members

The adjournment creates a pause.

Members now have an opportunity to reflect on the arguments heard and consider whether they are content for their existing proxy vote to stand.

Unless the Club reopens voting, revoking a proxy as soon as possible may be the only way to revisit that decision.

Further details on the reconvened meeting are awaited.

06/04

From the Lancashire CMG X feed:

HUNDR*D SAVIOUR, OR NOT

We are told that the Hundred has saved county cricket. Or rather the £500m raised from selling a month of the summer to billionaires could be a lifeline for counties.

Counties face an uncertain future. They cannot host big games in peak summer with over 100 players missing. Moved to May, June and July the Blast audiences have dwindled. Crowds of 15,000 that used to watch Lancashire play Leicestershire now go to watch the Manchester team after huge marketing spend and cheap tickets aimed at attracting different people.

Counties hosting the Hundred have been asked to play as few games as possible at their home ground during the Hundred. Surrey use 2000 capacity Guildford, Nottinghamshire play three games at Welbeck Colliery and Chesterfield, in Derbyshire, Warwickshire play three games at Rugby school.

One suspects that some host county boards prefer their franchise stake to developing their county brand. Surrey stands out, making a big effort to encourage people to watch county cricket.

Non-host counties have very few days of home cricket to showcase in peak summer. Somerset had sell-out games in the One Day Cup last summer, but only four home games were scheduled.

Even more significantly, TV rights money is being allocated to the Hundred teams without any transparency. Money going to the owners of the Hundred will not be available to the counties. Counties can expect lower ECB distributions in future. But until we see the next TV rights deal, we won't know just how hard the counties are going to be hit.

For this reason the allocation of c £25m of the sale proceeds for each non-host county is being carefully managed by the ECB. Counties have to apply to use the money. Allowable purposes include reducing existing structured debt - but not paying off debts run up by recent operational losses (Sussex).

Investment in revenue generating facilities such as a hotel or hospitality facilities are allowable. Investment in cricket facilities such as indoor nets, upgrades to the ground and possibly even a second ground are potentially possible - but funding operational losses to hire management to formulate plans are not (Middlesex).

Reports suggest the ECB is holding the money in cash and will pay over some interest earned on it to the counties each year, but again details are sparse.

For counties like Middlesex with few revenue generating opportunities open to them (as MCC rather than Middlesex own Lords) and a management/governance crisis on its hands, what can it do with the sale proceeds? £25m is not enough to fund a new ground. Its board wants to explore demutualisation to bring in extra investment. But where are the profits from county cricket going to come from to support a new home away from Lords and the probable loss of membership that will follow? Is it just to chase the dream of another Hundred team?

If counties can only spend the interest on their £25m then focus goes on where the money is actually invested on their behalf.

Stuck in cash paying around £1m a year then this income will reduce year by year in real terms. Around £0.5m a year could be paid to keep pace with inflation each year if invested in government inflation-linked bonds. Another approach is a county cricket wealth fund investing more broadly in the global economy. An income of £1m or more per county could be achievable in real terms if well run at a national level on low costs. However, if the global economy suffers a shock from war, pandemics or AI revolution then this income may need to be scaled back or even paused. Who has the expertise to manage these sums and what would be the governance rules?

Counties like Somerset, Gloucestershire, Durham, Kent and Essex have all shown some ambition to part-own a Hundred team. But they need to expand their grounds/develop a new ground before they could be considered, even if the current Hundred owners agree to an expansion.

Somerset CEO Jamie Cox speaking to Mike Atherton said:

It doesn't feel like a lot has changed. It's a great, fortunate position that we are in, but there is jeopardy in getting it right. Twenty million quid, it sounds a lot doesn't it, but it's not necessarily transformational. I could spend that very easily in infrastructure that needs updating around here.

We don't want our focus on the here and now to be distracted but we will try to put ourselves at the top of the pile if and when that opportunity comes along. the great thing about the Hundred expansion criteria is that we tick most boxes, but we don't have enough seating capacity, so there has to be some capital work to increase that.

It's hard. We have access to all this money but the business model hasn't changed. So there is pressure to get these decisions right. There is a feeling that there is a lot more money coming into the game than is actually real. The financial challenges feel just the same.

If anything Cox is understating the challenge. Counties can expect lower ECB payments in future that the interest on their allocation may well not cover. There is a risk in spending money on private investments that may not pay dividends. Chasing the franchise dreams involves even bigger risks. Still Somerset can only host very few days of county cricket in the peak summer holidays.

In order to access funds then counties need to become private developers and expand their business models if the market opportunity exists. Balancing that challenge whilst remembering that they are still a members' cricket club at heart underlies why Lancashire's board have faced membership complaints for over 10 years.

It is fraught with risk and upfront costs too. Household finances are extremely strained and there is strong competition for leisure spend. Sussex found its business development plans for extra income hard to deliver in the current climate, despite being in a relatively wealthy area. The costs it sustained trying to grow the business model to support cricket investment has seen the ECB step in with funding alongside reprimands and penalties.

Outgoing Hampshire Chair and investor, Rod Bransgrove is clear that counties will have to demutualise to get the investment and expertise needed to transform their grounds and business models. Any club not doing that faces financial disadvantages and irrelevance. Colin Graves still wants Yorkshire to become a private business even though all its debts are paid. What is the private money going to do for county cricket and what does it want in return?

Northants is already privately owned. Arguably they have saved the club and stabilised its business but what can the Hundred money do to help the club when the draw of Jimmy Anderson fails to bring even 500 people to the ground on Easter Saturday? Counties like Derbyshire who have cut their cloth according to their means for decades will no doubt carry on in the same vein. They are looking to upgrade their floodlights with an ECB grant and use some of the Hundred money to upgrade their hospitality marquee. Leicestershire has ambitions and a big site at Grace Road with development potential. The new CEO has paused the plans previously developed.

These counties have some of the lowest membership and fan base despite improving on the field in recent seasons and investing in coaching excellence.

The ECB has some big decisions to make after the next TV rights deal is done. The host counties advantage from hosting international cricket has been boosted by the Hundred sale. Will the ECB give the non-hosts a greater slice of the pie in future? What will the ECB demand in return? The ECB is ultimately answerable to the counties.

These big questions will probably see not only the amount of county cricket being discussed again very soon but whether there is a majority support for 18 counties playing three forms of professional cricket and in what structure.

Members should think very carefully before agreeing to reduce their own ability to hold their Board to account and giving their Board even greater powers to decide who can go onto the Board.

30/03

Dear all 

I had a fruitful meeting with Richard Kenyon, the Notts CEO, and the Club's Marketing Manager regarding the marketing of Notts cricket and cricket in general as the nation's premier summer sport, in particular the Domestic formats - Not the Hundred which I consider to be a stand alone Franchise tournament.  As highlighted by the CEO's comments at the Listening events, the CEO appears to be committed to supporting the Domestic tournaments and grow the membership.  I was pleased to hear about the amount of marketing activity that is going on however I was able to point out a number of issues that the Club needs to take on board, such as the promotion of the County Championship nationwide and within the locality of potential Notts supporters especially before the season starts. also encouraging Hundred attendees to try out Notts' other Cricketing offers.

Regards 

Kevin Lennox 

[Kevin, as learnt from the Club last year, most H*ndred attendees ARE NOT LOCAL, counties need to coordinate and market the Championship competition collectively nationwide- Dave]

25/02

Hi Everyone 

You probably know by now that I wasn't elected onto the Notts General Committee.  Even so I would like to thank the 224 members that voted for me.  I appreciate it.  The three people that were elected are not a surprise as they all have previous recent experience on the GC.  However no one with an obvious Marketing background which is what I offered. 

 Interesting.  No sour grapes on my part.  

Anyway the new CEO appears to be very keen to engage with members.  His proposal to hold Member listening events is welcome.  His support of the Red Ball game is also welcome however he couldn't really say otherwise with Notts being the current County Champions. 

Dr Nick Evans is getting his head round the requirements for a Notts Supporters Group that will have access to the GC.  This is certainly a positive move forward so watch this space around the end of March.

Thanks very much for your comments. They have been very helpful.  I'll be in touch when any future issue of interest arises.

Regards 

Kevin Lennox 

16/02

A bit of context:

Amendment 2

Rule 2.2.2. currently reads as follows and gives the Club powers to: raise or borrow money from members or others for the objects of or in connection with the activities of the Club or any of them as the General Committee thinks fit, provided that the total amount outstanding at any one time does not exceed £20,000,000. Any sum above £20,000,000 would require the agreement of two thirds or more of the members present and entitled to vote at a General Meeting called by the General Committee, or cast by members submitting valid votes in the event that a postal ballot is called by the General Committee under Rule 9.11. Sums raised or borrowed may be secured by any means, including by way of mortgage or charge over all or any of the undertaking, property and assets, present or future, of the Club, and whether or not including any floating charge of all or any of the undertaking, property and assets of the Club. This Rule was introduced in 2013, but inflation has eroded its usefulness to the club, with £20m in the present day only providing the same purchasing power as £14.1m in 2013. The General Committee believes it would be sensible both to introduce a new limit which reflects inflation over the last decade, and to allow for periodic uplifts. On that basis, it is proposed that Rule 2.2.2 be reworded as follows: to raise or borrow money from members or others for the objects of or in connection with the activities of the Club or any of them as the General Committee thinks fit, provided that the total amount outstanding at any one time does not exceed £25,000,000. Any sum above £25,000,000 would require the agreement of two thirds or more of the members present and entitled to vote at a General Meeting called by the General Committee, or cast by members submitting valid votes in the event that a postal ballot is called by the General Committee under Rule 9.11. The sum of £25,000,000 will be increased each year on 1 March (commencing on 1 March 2027) by the same percentage as the increase (if any) in the Retail Prices Index (or any official index replacing it) published by the Office for National Statistics (or any successor body) over the preceding 12-month period, subject to a maximum increase of 1.5% per annum. Sums raised or borrowed may all be secured by any means, including by way of a mortgage or charge over all or any of the undertaking, property and assets, present or future, of the Club, and whether or not including any floating charge of all or any of the undertaking, property and assets of the Club.

Amendment 3

General Committee has proposed a new 2.2.13 which introduces a new power 2.2.13: to subscribe for, or otherwise acquire, hold, sell, deal with and dispose of shares or securities of any type in a franchise cricket team. To exercise any powers held under the governing document of a franchise team, including to appoint and remove directors representing the Club on the decision-making body that governs the operation of a franchise team. The current Rules already state (at 2.2.4) that the Club has the power "to accept and grant sponsorship, franchises and other arrangements as the General Committee shall think fit". It was under these powers that the Club took on its majority ownership of Trent Rockets. The General Committee believes that, with the change in the operating model of The Hundred having provided the opportunity for the Club to take on part-ownership of another team, it is sensible to make the Club’s powers in this regard more explicit. Any exercise of 2.2.13 will need to fulfil one or other or both of the following objectives: a financial investment that provides or is expected to provide a return, and/or investment that furthers the objects of the Club.

15/02

Hi 

Some members have suggested that it is pointless voting for the Notts CCC financial amendments regardless of the Club's deadline until there is a proper explanation at the AGM.  

For this reason, I have voted against them.  [the amendment - as I have done myself]

Regards 

Kevin Lennox 

13/02

Hi 

I received a reply from Andy Hunt regarding the Club's Financial Amendments. 

It appears he intends to clarify the situation at the AGM so please raise your concerns then.

Regards 

Kevin Lennox 

09/02

Hi

I have had a reply from Andy Hunt regarding Financial Amendment 3 which I am not happy with.  

At this stage, I cannot give you his response as I do not wish to be accused of passing over Private & Confidential information.  

The Communication with members issue will need to be addressed if I am elected.  Suffice to say, my second response to Andy will give you an indication of the issue that needs to be addressed.

I would be grateful if someone rather than just me raised it at the AGM in order to show there is a strength of feeling about how and why the Club is looking to borrow such a significant amount.  Otherwise it could be viewed as a one person issue.

Regards 

Kevin Lennox 

Dear Andy

Thank you for your reply. 

I feel you have misunderstood my question.  I have no issue with EDI.  In fact, I positively endorse this policy as Ethnic Minority groups in particular appear to be under-represented.

 

The financial Amendments are those that are causing concern for a number of members.  Why does the Club want to increase the amount it can borrow without recourse to its members when it is about to receive a significant cash amount from the ECB from the sale of the Hundred?  In a worst-case scenario, over-borrowing could risk asset forfeiture if repayments falter, altering the Club's long-term stability or ownership structure without prior member input.

Surely such a significant financial issue should be discussed with members in terms of the full extent of the Amendment as the borrowing increase appears to be index linked therefore making permanent this level of borrowing capacity in real terms regardless of what happens with the Club's finances.

Does the Club plan to invest money into the franchise team alongside the 49% shareholder?  Does the Club have other investment plans at this time? 

Some clarification at the AGM would be welcome.

Regards  Kevin Lennox 

01/02

Dear all

Having received comment from members who are far wiser than I on this issue, I have decided not to support Rule changes - Amendments 2 & 3 for the following reasons.  

Has the Club discussed what it wants to do with the rule change to add an additional object to the Club or talked about this change with the members?  Anything that seeks to amend the objects of the Club is a significant change.
In essence, this additional object could subtly pivot the Club from a primarily sporting entity to one with stronger social mandates, potentially at the expense of competitive priorities if budgets are constrained.
Why does the Club want to increase the amount it can borrow without recourse to the members when it is about to receive a significant cash amount from the ECB from the sale of the Hundred? The rule allows securing loans against Club assets, including floating charges. In a worst-case scenario, over-borrowing could risk asset forfeiture if repayments falter, altering the Club's long-term stability or ownership structure without prior member input.

Does the Club plan to invest money into the franchise team alongside the 49% shareholder?
Both of these rule changes are significant and are being put to an online vote in winter without having been previously aired with the members.
When making rule changes, Notts has previously consulted very openly with members and listened to feedback before bringing forward proposals for member approval. Why not this time?

What are your thoughts?

Regards 

Kevin Lennox 

 

PS. Judging by last year's election, I'm probably going to need 400 votes to gain a place on the committee.  So, I appreciate every vote I can get.

24/01

Following Nick Evans' departure from the role of Representative for Nottinghamshire with the County Cricket Members Group, Kevin Lennox has take over with the reins.

Hi everyone

My name is Kevin Lennox.  I have inherited the database of members’ email addresses from Nick Evans whom I have had many conversations with and have supported him in his efforts to protect the Domestic game, in particular the four day County Championship. 

 

I would like to inform you that that I am a candidate for the Notts General Committee.  I decided to run after fruitful conversations with a number of members and David Gunn.  If elected by you, I can use this database to update you on key issues.  You can also communicate with me on issues you feel strongly about.  Alternatively I can shut the database down depending on what members wish me to do.

 

I also applied through the Nomination route and was interviewed in December by a panel of five.  I doubt I have been nominated however I have not been informed one way or the other.  I used the opportunity to promote my marketing skills and knowledge as I believe that the Domestic Game has a significant Marketing problem.  The promotion of Domestic Cricket must improve!

 

I certainly wish to protect the Red Ball game.  The Ashes debacle has highlighted the fact that a strong County Championship is essential for the development of potential England players.  I agree with the CEO of Surrey that the competition enables players to enhance their skills and develop the mentality needed to perform at the highest level.  Even in One Day cricket teams needs a more sophisticated strategy than “see ball, hit ball”.  Last season Notts got the playing strategy right which is why we are the Champion County.

 

I am not a fan of ECB.  The organisation has made a number of poor decisions over the years.  Limited promotion of the domestic game, restricting England players’ involvement and selling the sport exclusively to Sky in 2006 are key reasons why Domestic Cricket has difficulties attracting interest.  Football and Rugby have a terrestrial TV presence.  I believe it’s time the Counties were more proactive in running Domestic Cricket by forming an organisation similar to the Premier League.  They have the facilities and the players.  They also provide the extremely valuable streaming service.   

 

As regards my support of Notts, like you, I want all of our teams to challenge for honours.  I want to see international cricket being played at Trent Bridge for many years to come.  I would certainly encourage youth participation and development as they are the stars of the future, such as: Farhan Ahmed and Freddie McCann.

 

Communication with and involvement of members is paramount as you offer a myriad of ideas and expertise.  I will lobby for Committee meeting minutes to be posted on-line and the Agenda to be posted in advance so that members can contribute ideas.

 

I hope you will vote for me and, if elected, I will do my best to represent you and support the continued success of Notts CCC.