mad wrote:

The Warwick pool that kept Essex or was it Surrey? afloat in the 1970's? Or helped rebuild crumbling Oval or Chelmsford at that time?

Essex and Chelmsford. Trevor Bailey always expressed gratitude.

I think it was more complaints about the four West Indians and signing Willis etc at a time when Counties were expected to produce their own players.

paulbear wrote:

Reabank wrote:

Great result, made my day. Don't know who was responsible but (4 games in) looks like we made some really shrewd decisions over the winter. As for negative views of Warwickshire, seems to come with the territory - every time we've won the title in my life time it's been met with a mixture of backhanded compliments and downright whinging. Makes it all the sweeter when we come through.
I agree, there are always negative comments when we win anything, in 2004 we got a lot of comments because we won only 5 games. We did draw 11 but lost none and by July, it was obvious that a side who would go on to have a lowest score of 265 in the CC were not going to lose any games and during July we were so many points ahead of 2nd, that all we had to do was keep accumulating points. No other side had the nerve to declare too many behind and try to encourage us to set up a finish so what were we to do. In 1995, Mike Brearley said our pitches were green-tops prepared for our bowlers. If your first 3 bowlers are Donald, Small and Munton, you are going to win a few games and it doesn't explain how we played 2 spinners every game, any 2 from Smith, Davis and Giles. And in 2021 we got all the "They only won because it was a different format and Essex and Notts had better records" - Tough, all the counties knew the score from ball 1 and if they didn't play well enough to get in to the top tier and carry forward any points, then that is their hard luck. We have won more trophies during the modern era and if you take any block of a 5 year period going back to the mid-90's we are in the top 3 of trophy winners in EVERY period, I suppose the other counties think this is all a fluke as well. Happy Bank Holiday everyone.

Before my time but even in 72 we were accused of buying the title (after the success of the Warwick Pools) and called the United Nations because we had so many overseas players.

Meanwhile Henry Brookes has 5-8

Hope I am wrong but this squad doesn't look great at all.

Resting Ali suggests we aren't confident at all.

He was a wonderful appointment. Absolutely first class!

Doesn't look that different to what they showed before. Presumably just an attempt to get central government money.

It's not great that they are calling the County Ground, Edgbaston as Edgbaston Stadium and that they acknowledge Birmingham but not the rest of the County.

Bit worrying they see members are one of a range of stakeholders rather than literally the only stakeholder.

Of course paid employees can advise but the Board is answerable to the owners of the Club - the members.

Also worrying they seem to be trying to dilute membership by allowing Hundred ticket holders full membership rights.

It's Warwickshire County Cricket Club!

Cant see any point in shutting up shop at any point.

Best thing that could happen is a few sixes.

Provided we bowl Hamps out first innings which we should.

So if Yorkshire lose do we need 3 bonus points and a win to stay up?

But the Yorkshire match looking a bit more hopeful and will show how many bonus points we need.

It's Edgbaston v Warwickshire CCC

Technically the former doesn't exist but thats who the Board think they report to.

If we have an analyst I hope they are telling our bowlers to replicate exactly what Price has done!

its only the third day

Well its in our own hands. Poor Somerset have now batted at 1030 three times in this match!

The one bright spot from the late rally is Somerset now have to bat at 1030 so hopefully gives our openers a bit of respite!

I worry its expectation management.

Float out extreme bad ideas and then anything will look a more reasonable compromise.

It was spot on Terry but maybe reveals why they set such a high bar in terms of signatures needed to call an SGM.

Also in this case an SGM cannot be called in time to bind the Chairman to vote on behalf of members. So the only other option is no confidence after the event.

Cain's reply worries me the most as it seems to indicate that both the Board and Senior Management Team are not accountable to Members and make their own minds up. If this is the case who are they accountable to?

Still concerned that Board aren’t accountable to members and neither are senior management team.

Who do they think they act on behalf of?

It also is wrong that we require 250 signatures for an SGM when Lancashire with a larger membership require only 100.

The members committee is clearly a sham.

So the constitutional changes have marginalised the membership and reduced the incentive to join.

I really hope we can send a message on this one or the future is bleak.

I signed it on Sunday, I am in contact with Alan, I can't attend Edgbaston this week due to work but I've posted the link on here.

what are you doing?

I hope we won't be passive this time.