Unfortunately members lost out when we accepted the constitutional changes a few years ago. It was a barely disguised attempt to separate Edgbaston from Warwickshire IMO.

The members committee is pretty pointless. Anybody interviewed to join has to commit to the Club’s strategic objectives. So it’s a bit of a fix.

We’ve now lost the direct link between holding the committee directly to account.

It’s concerning our chair seems to be heading the ECB efforts to reduce the county championship.

No doubt it will end up a fudge but I don’t think it will be difficult to get an SGM if the changes are too stringent,

The worry is that this is salami slicing and they’ll just keep on doing this until county cricket is right at the margins of the game.

Personally I’ve reached the point where I would like a formal split in the game between tradition cricket and franchise cricket.

The reasons for the constitutional changes introduced in 2018 were related to the Code of Governance issued by Sport England. Failure to comply could have resulted in problems with big game allocation.
If you want to delve back that far, here is the full interview I did with Norman Gascoigne at the time:
https://deepextracover.com/2018/02/proposed-changes-at-warwickshire-signal-a-shift-in-how-county-clubs-are-run/
The key point (for me) is that, both before and since the changes, members have the power to compel the Club to take (or not take) a particular course of action. What is in doubt is whether the will exists amongst the members to challenge the Club. As I said in an earlier post, if the will isn't there, we'll have to accept what comes our way. I could have added "and not whinge about it" but I'm not that naive.

Not going to revisit this at length and Norman certainly had the gift of the gab but I think this one just merits the Mandy Rice-Davies response.

BosworthBear wrote:

Not going to revisit this at length and Norman certainly had the gift of the gab but I think this one just merits the Mandy Rice-Davies response.

Go on, if you've any facts that refute what he said, let's hear them.

GerryShedd wrote:

BosworthBear wrote:

Not going to revisit this at length and Norman certainly had the gift of the gab but I think this one just merits the Mandy Rice-Davies response.

Go on, if you've any facts that refute what he said, let's hear them.

Ok as I said I wasn’t going to revisit this but if I don’t respond you will say there is no case. So the most obvious retort is that off the top of my head Surrey, the MCC, Nottinghamshire, Lancashire and Yorkshire haven’t reformed their governance structure in this way and it hasn’t affected their ability to host major matches. If you look at Norman’s words in that interview most of it is BS to make a case for change. Not irrefutable facts. That’s not criticising your interview BTW it’s good you raised concerns at that time. I just don’t find the answers compelling or even direct responses to your questions TBH. Just blather which he was v good at!

I’m afraid it was a racket to separate Edgbaston. I had a drink with Giles Clarke when he was ECB Chair and he told me they had told Norman and Warwickshire not to rename the T20 side as Birmingham Bears because of the affect in heritage and branding, They ignored that!

As for the non execs there was one lady who served for years after appointment by Norman as a supposed expert on marketing and branding. To this day she still doesn’t understand WCCC.

I’m afraid Edgbaston (and the loan etc) just got too big and they felt they needed to take away directly accountable governance from Members.

I do think things have improved slightly under present Chair and CEO but there wasn’t a high bar!

OK - thanks for that.

I'm pretty sceptical about the Sport England explanation for the rule changes. The situation we've ended up with is that the county is controlled by the board and the board is elected by the board. Other than the SGM route, which is clunky and involves coordinating 250 members out of a total membership of 3,000 there is no way for members to influence the running of Warwickshire. At Surrey by contrast every year there are elections for the board and there are always more candidates going forward than seats available. But despite this Sport England still provides funding to the ECB.
I'm basically in favour of avoiding boards consisting entirely of white middle aged men but I think this could be done in a number of ways, Warwickshire took the one that most restricted member involvement.

it would be too glib for me to say that in any argument, I would want to be on the opposite side to Giles Clarke. And there are some good points made here. But it's also true to say that the old system didn't work well. I remember helping our late and much missed friend Kim Jones with his bid to join the committee and, as Norman says, he got nowhere. But it may be that the answer should have been to make it work better.
Anyway, clunky though it is, I would suggest that the SGM route needs to be pursued now or we all will have to live with the consequences.

Hi Gerry
As reasoned as ever and I certainly agree with the last statement, does anybody know whether signatures are being collected?

i don't think signatures are being collected at the moment. Maybe after members have heard the Chief executive speak at rthe Momday lunchtime meeting, it will focus minds.
Middlesex members have forced an SGM but I haven't seen anything from other counties.

The national organiser (Lancs and Surrey members) has been asking how many members Warwickshire have so may be planning something at some point, I think the last time the signatures were gained pretty quickly but weren’t needed because club and ECB backed down. Strauss Review then I think.

I think our lot are pretty apathetic these days (unlike the 80s) but if other counties hold SGMs I think we would be likely to!

Just seen the email from Stuart Cain who outlines the 'options' which seem to be aimed at a big end off season championship game just when its raining and the football starts. No doubt they hope this will bring in the crowds.

They haven't suggested my option of having one game every season against an opponent with a single league of all first class counties (16 matches). The next season teams will play the reverse fixture. I would make room by scrapping the crisp league and making the 50 over competition a straight knock out with a 'plate' competition for first round losers.

The biggest problem with scheduling is the crisp league which is destroying non-test counties and devalues the T20. No other cricket nation plays 16.6 overs arranged in groups of five so why should we?

On a side note I'd remove all Birmingham Pxxxxxx merchandise from the Warwickshire shop and ditch it from the clubs website. Let them use Blues' facilities as they seem to be so enthusiastic (probably a baseball upbringing).

Worth reading this for anyone attending on Monday

https://x.com/lancsccmg/status/1935785541410472124?s=46&t=1A7xfLJNUgdI6215TY6YlA

The option the membership committee have “picked” seems designed to kill off six counties!

The suggested preferred format for the County Championship, apparently, is:

" 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."

Many counties have done a member survey of their own. Lancashire are giving members a vote on it. Surrey are voting against a reduction in CC games. Yorkshire need member consent before they can approve a reduction in CC games. Middlesex have a SGM on 26 June which will pass a resolution to oppose a reduction in CC games I expect. Glamorgan are having a SGM in the near future. Derbyshire are opposed to a reduction in CC as are Somerset.

Thanks BB - that's an interesting summary. I think we need to start getting votes for a SGM - no need to hear what Stuart Cain has to say, we know all of the proposals are bad and the entirely unrepresentative members committee with a little prompting, I suspect, has gone for the worst of the bad options. One thing that caught my eye about the T20 proposals, "A continuous tournament from mid-May to July - finishing before The Hundred starts." To me that means county cricket is not only cut down in games but it's even more than now pushed to the edges of the season as the Blast is projected to start in mid - May and runs uninterrupted until the Hundred which takes up August. Annoying and disappointing.

All about opening up a big summer slot for the t20 blast and the hundred.

Nothing to do with player welfare or reducing injuries

That email from Stuart Cain we've had today, sounds as though our lot have accepted the reduction in the amount of games no matter what.

Could someone paste the email here?

Exiled Bear wrote:

Could someone paste the email here?

Reimagining the domestic schedule: Is change essential for red and white ball cricket to thrive?

Hi Anthony,

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