I Luv It!!

By Seaxe Man
December 16 2008

Those of you who want to read an extensive summary of and commentary on the consultation meeting need wait no longer. Not many would put in this much effort on this sort of subject. So many many thanks to Seaxe Man for this excellent review of the Members' Consultation on Rules and Committee Structures. Venue: Nursery Pavilion Date 15th Dec 2008 Kick off 1830hrs..
 
Background: a consultation meeting to give the membership a flavour of what is proposed to take Middlesex forward: better equipped than in the past: to meet the challenges ahead.  Ian Lovett/Vinny were at top table. The turnout on a cold December evening was pretty reasonable: tea and/or coffee and biscuits were available. Ian Lovett said there was to be no cut-ooff timewise and that he expected a natural conclusion to be reached.
 
Ian Lovett opened the meeting by telling everyone that a message had been sent to Andrew Strauss from ALL at the club, congratulating him on a considerable personal feat in the Madras (Chenhai) Test. Only the 10th Englishman to achieve this feat: he  joins another famous Middlesex batter from bygone days: one DCS Compton on that list. Unfortunately it did not lead to victory on this occasion. 
 
Ian Lovett then explained that he would be taking the floor for 30/40 minutes going through the various proposals for ' Changing the Culture '. The points were displayed on  a screen which made it easier for both he and us, to follow his very clear explanation of each point. He added that this was only a preliminary discussion and nothing was as yet, set in stone.  He was amenable to any positive comment that was made from the floor in the Q and A session: and if thought valid: would be incorporated, if such suggestions found majority support at a later date.
 
'Changing the Culture ' was introduced by himself (IL) plus Vinny, The investigation to produce the report commenced in Jan 2008. Vinny/Richard Goatley drew up the requirements, in the light of nothing having been won in the previous 15 years. It was thought unacceptable to remain in Division 2 beyond 2009. So target(s) set for 2009, are to win promotion and retain the 20/20 Cup. IL passed the comment that as the squad, including himself, had all the gear and jabs for a return to India: he and they, would like to make use of same. He added that we wanted to be consistently in Division 1, though he did'nt expect to win it every year: saying he thought that no one was likely to do so: and to continue to produce England players as now. More international cricket/central contracts meant that the ECB had control of top county players. He pointed out that Andrew Strauss, centrally contracted, actually played 8 CC matches for The Middle in 2008, at no cost to us. He jokingly suggested that had we 11 such: our finances would boom. (only joking).
 
There are now 9 Test Arenas: this enhances the income of those venues: other counties are getting smarter commercially: this means that we have to keep up with this.  World cricket is now dominated by the BCCI. Ian said on his recent visit to India: it is a different world: the place is flush with sponsors who wish to be involved in cricket. Middlesex have to embrace this culture. Cricket costs will rise. County cricketers are now well paid. A part of ECB income should filter down to grassroots: Middlesex have to adjust to the modern cricket world ie cricket business. Club needs to operate as a business.
 
The current committee structure of 20 is unwieldy. Needs to be more commercially minded, or we will be left behind. We have the largest committee on the circuit: as we don't own a ground: there are few issues to deal with. Unlike say Notts/Warwick who operate with far smaller committees. Durham have only 6 on their committee. The report was prepared by Chief Exec and Richard Goatley. They consulted widely talking to other counties/top soccer and rugby clubs, to measure how they do things. Report was produced in May.
 
The next slide highlighted the following:- Spotting talent/being well organised.
 
Key recommendations:
 
1. More effective committee structure.
2. MOD of cricket: Angus Fraser. Expected to start mid January
3. Youth development.
4. Embrace recreational cricket (more than before)
5. Development of a new facility.
 
Comments on the above:
 
Committee: to be streamlined: to create:-
1. An Executve Board.
2. Board to meet monthly with 13 members.
3. Membership approval required.
 
Issues: MOD v Cricket Committee. Board to decide where there are issues of conflict. Ian said we currently have nearly 10,000 members.
 
Make up of Exec Board.
 
1. Treasurer/Chairman/Chief Exec
2. 6 to be elected.
3. Chairperson MCB/2 Co-opted/MOD
 
Ian Lovett's comments on the Board structure and other key recommendations.
 
Six persons only, to be elected to Board: on a rotation basis of 2 for 3 years or 3 for 2 years. We require a mix of skills, so co-opted members are intended to fill that gap. Otherwise you may get 6 former players or members elected without requisit skills. ( generally the Exec Board structure proved to be an area of contention: more of that later ) MCB Chairperson is required, to facilitate contact with Middlesex Premier League and Championship clubs. ( more of that later)
 
The proposed structure is similar to the current England Cricket Board. IL wants a more effective and business like approach to Board meetings. Day to day stuff will be handled by Ian L/Vinny/MOD.
 
MOD - this is very much a work in progress (more of that later). Also mentioned at this point I believe: that The Middle will be involved in a pre-season 50 over competition in  Abu Dhabi.
 
Youth Development - this is crucial as it protects future revenues: insofar, if successful, it will negate the need for expensive imports. Club is currently trawling for promising spin bowlers. None have emerged locally since Tuffers retired.
 
Embrace recreational cricket. - need to embrace this - Middlesex are hugely strong in club cricket - must be talent there as all of the major clubs run strong colt sections - this is an MCB area. So county policy will in future be, to ensure that a strong relationship is forged with clubs within ( possibly nearby Minor Counties as well) the county.
 
Development of a new facility - the current lease at Finchley expires in 2010. Ian Lovett said whilst it had done a job - now too small for county's requirements. Other county's facilities generally encompassed an outdoor and indoor facility: which means practice can be tailored according to the weather gods in late Feb/March. We are not able to do so at present. So, while Ian said the minimum requirement would be indoor: in his mind, it needs to feature outside pitches/nets. We need to progress this pdq. All options are being considered. ( I would have thought offices for the coaches, as requested by the outgoing Richard Pybus, would be a bonus here ). At this point, Ian made reference to our recent trip to Antigua: where he explained he sat next to Sir Alan Stanford. He denied sitting on his lap or allowing Sir Alan to sit on his (laughter).  However, in conversation, Sir Alan asked Ian for his take on The Stanford Ground. Ian said, apart from it's lack of a scoreboard: it was a beautiful ground: and his wishlist would include being able to physically remove and relocate it, somewhere in Middlesex (N.London), as an outground. Sir Alan leant over and said ' that may not be as silly as it sounds '( only joking). (Though apparently SAS did say this ) . IL said he made a point of politely, calling him Sir Alan. ( always handy to keep onside with a rich Anglophile methinks ) ( I suspect as per the recent Simon Hughes article in The Telegraph, in which he said: that Lord's would be our in-town base: with an out-of-town satellite. )
 
 Other issues: IL said that the re-structure ensured that the club would still retain the element of being a members club: but would also be a business, to attend to issues as they occurred. An Events/Forum would still be required to act as a conduit between members and board.
 
Rules are to be rewritten - AGM has to approve before changes can be made. Then as we are a business. FSA has to approve changes.
 
Objective:- better cricket and good guardians of the club's finances.
 
Q and A session.
 
Q. Lady member thought that players looked unhappy last year. Why was this?
 
A. IL - said he thought players were a lot happier at season's end than at beginning. Though he agreed that early season results had'nt helped. Said that that underlined the need for MOD who would understand dressing room issues. Decisions were being made by people who did not know what was going on in the dressing room. Committee did'nt understand the ambience of players: don't watch enough cricket, maybe an hour or two, here and there: hence incorrect appointments had been made: particularly in captaincy arena. Players had no clear line to report grievances. Players were consulted on the re-structuring.
 
Q. From a gentleman member. He was a believer in change to stay alive. However, he did'nt think that the proposed changes went far enough. The Board should be smaller. Chairperson of MCB should not have vote. Co-optees should not be members of Board and be without a vote. Should be slimmed down further to 4 electees. ( this man's view had a lot of support amongst the audience. SM).
 
A. Ian Lovett shared his view.
 
Q. From Peter Moore. in two parts. Firstly, he also agreed that the Board should be slimmed down further. Saying ( and he had a fair point ), that the Co-opted need not be incorporated on a permanent basis. If you required extra skills, say a lawyer to assist, in say the acquisition of the 'new facility'. Then someone could be brought in for that project only: and depart when no longer required. Plus no vote on the Board: only recommendations. Secondly, would MOD, drop players? Mention was also made with regard to the proposed new ' Test Match ' staging agreements. Though this was not fully examined.
 
A. Vinny answered this as MOD will report to him. Accountability: captains in past not well chosen. MOD responsible for cricket in Middlesex. Currently Middlesex involved in talks on a  new tenancy agreement with MCC. This year the CC will have 5 matches at Lord's due to uncertainty over early tourists (now Windies). This meant apparently, that the season had to be moved forward 8 days due to 20/20 WC: meaning that Southgate will host an early CC fixture and Uxbridge host two in September, starting on 9th Sept. The OD fixtures at Lord's will remain the same as last year. The new Tenancy Agreement will include 'wicket preparation'. Some on the square were as dead as a dodo. We need a good 4 day cricket wicket. This task will be part of MOD's Mission Statement. The question as to whether MOD would drop players was not addressed IMHO at this point. ( since I reckon that has yet to be figured out. see Q and A). However, it does appear that Coach/Captain have to report to MOD: who has the power to hire and fire: and is in involved in player recruitment (personally I think it will be unworkable for MOD to feature in team selection. Should be left to captain and coach.). Other remarks on this subject suggests we are looking at a 5 year plan: after which?
 
Q. A member wanted to know of Vinny, how the restructure would assist him on a 'day to day' basis? Give an example.
 
A. VC. Say a player is to be capped. At present it requires about 20 odd phone calls to ascertain opinion. Not the most effecient way of doing it. That is just one microcosm. Can now be settled  by IL/CE/MOD if not raised at previous Exec Board Meet.
 
Q. Viveca Dutt I think, raised the issue of elected members to do one term only: cannot continue year after year? ( I thought this was a good point? ) She did qualify this by saying, that after a break a previous member could apply for re-election. As an example ,one former committee member was on his fifth term having done 13 years. This is far too long for one person: fresh blood is surely required after at most two terms. )
 
A. From IL. He has sympathy for one session. Saying, his only point would be, maybe losing valuable experience.
 
Q. Member pointed out that 2 members of staff had voting rights. What if CE/MOD not making progress?
 
A. IL - they will be appraised by me on an annual basis.
 
Q. More of a statement than a question by member sitting behind me.  He said that he had played recently in the Surrey Championship, the standard of which is poor IHHO. Part of the reason why they (Surrey ) had gone bellyup he thought. Thought that MCB clubs had a big role to play. In past Gatting (Brondesbury) and Fraser (Stanmore) had had distinguished Middlesex careers. Club cricket in Middlesex was a great set-up. He was'nt sure how the Irish connection worked ( a reference to Ed J and Eoin ). I was able to satisfy his curiosity on that. As I was fortunate to meet their college cricket coach once on a train to Guildford. Their former coach explained that he was a big Middlesex fan, and recommended any outstanding talent that he saw,to The Middle. He mentioned Eoin was the latest. That was back in 2003. And he has'nt done too bad, has he!
 
Q. Member asked about future communication between Board and members. Mentioned the recent SGM which eventually became an ' angry forum'. Resentment/rumours flowed from lack of communication. The elected 4 or 6. Would they communicate with members? And should they have a specific job description as to their responsibilities. ( this I think is an excellent point.  It was previously vague as to what the '20' actually did.)
 
A. IL/VC thought that the old style forums may need ramping up to include Exec Board presence to ensure good communication with membership.
 
Q. Janet Davis. She wanted to know. Would the elected person(s) be based on a ' first past the post' system? A single transferable vote she thought had been mentioned which she found confusing.
 
A, IL - simplicity would be the key. As now, if 2 are up on the rotation system ( to stand down) and 6 apply. Those with the most votes would qualify.
 
Q. Member said there should be improved accommodation for our staff who he thought were the best. Progress?
 
A. IL - Lord's squashed for space. It is included in the re-development plans BUT that may be a long way off.
 
Q. Smaller committee. What are MOD's specific targets?
 
A. IL - Vinny is his boss. Toby/Shaun Udal report to MOD. Toby has targets - captain to pick team. Specific target - promotion to Div 1 - this responsiblity of MOD. He can hire/fire coach/captain/squad members - true Middlesex side in 5 years. This answer seemed to clarify the MOD position.
 
Q. Member stated that quality of cricket will bring success to Middlesex. Disappointed in co-ordination of players ( presumably meant team spirit ).
 
A. IL - MOD to get to grip with team spirit. Get best out of individuals. Recently appointed captain Shaun Udal was doing the biz. Lost only one match in Ian Lovett's recall since appointment.
 
 
At this point, the meeting broke up. With the audience heading out into the dark December night. I headed with a couple of the Mafia-on-the-Hill lads to The Star. We continued the discussion, in the warm with a few beers and headed for home at closing time. Sorry, this report is so long, but I hope I have remembered everything accurately. Yours as ever SM.   Happy Christmas and New Year to all MTWD devotees.