Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Financial Results
#41
(23-03-2018, 12:28 PM)Terry Wrote:
(22-03-2018, 09:54 PM)Reabank Wrote:
(22-03-2018, 11:31 AM)Leicester Exile Wrote: Absolutely right, Terry. The ground had been allowed to deteriorate to a dreadful level. However, I do think the finished product has been a big disappointment from a spectator point of view. There is high praise for the facilities for the players and the media. But these are comments made in hindsight. We all had plenty of opportunity to see the plans before it went ahead.

Yes you're both right, of course.  The county faced a crisis in about 2010 and whichever way it went there would have been angst.  I have the advantage of hindsight and not having to make real world decisions so should be kinder.  Having said that I think the membership is, generally, far too reticent in questioning the Board.  I do a bit of work with mutual companies and the prospect of being asked a few searching questions at the AGM really does concentrate minds.  Warwickshire members just seem to go along with whatever is proposed.

Interesting point about the "big disappointment" of the ground from a spectator's point of view.  I'd say it works for internationals but is poor for county cricket.  But I do have some sympathy for the club there, building a ground that works for all of its functions (county, international, conference business) is tricky and I think we'd all agree the county couldn't have borrowed any more money.  The whole rebuilding exercise of the early 21st century was a botch by the ECB, counties were encouraged to compete against each other but that has seen Hampshire (I think), Glamorgan, Yorkshire and Durham bailed out and us the subject of a slow motion mini bail out.  And there seems to be disatisfaction at Old Trafford and the Rose Bowl about the facilities provided.

RB
http://sideoncricket.blogspot.co.uk/

I agree with all of the above.
Although members ultimately went along with the proposed constitutional changes, the fact that there was so much concern, especially on this Board, did stir the Club into responding in greater detail than might have otherwise been the case.
At the risk of repeating myself, I just hope that, when elections to the Members Committee are pending, there will be at least a few candidates who are young and full of ideas - not just more pale,stale males.  That, of course, rules out most (but not all) of us on this Board.
Well I'm certainly guilty on 2 out of three counts.  I hope not stale but I guess one never knows.
RB
Reply
#42
(26-03-2018, 07:32 PM)Reabank Wrote:
(23-03-2018, 12:28 PM)Terry Wrote:
(22-03-2018, 09:54 PM)Reabank Wrote:
(22-03-2018, 11:31 AM)Leicester Exile Wrote: Absolutely right, Terry. The ground had been allowed to deteriorate to a dreadful level. However, I do think the finished product has been a big disappointment from a spectator point of view. There is high praise for the facilities for the players and the media. But these are comments made in hindsight. We all had plenty of opportunity to see the plans before it went ahead.

Yes you're both right, of course.  The county faced a crisis in about 2010 and whichever way it went there would have been angst.  I have the advantage of hindsight and not having to make real world decisions so should be kinder.  Having said that I think the membership is, generally, far too reticent in questioning the Board.  I do a bit of work with mutual companies and the prospect of being asked a few searching questions at the AGM really does concentrate minds.  Warwickshire members just seem to go along with whatever is proposed.

Interesting point about the "big disappointment" of the ground from a spectator's point of view.  I'd say it works for internationals but is poor for county cricket.  But I do have some sympathy for the club there, building a ground that works for all of its functions (county, international, conference business) is tricky and I think we'd all agree the county couldn't have borrowed any more money.  The whole rebuilding exercise of the early 21st century was a botch by the ECB, counties were encouraged to compete against each other but that has seen Hampshire (I think), Glamorgan, Yorkshire and Durham bailed out and us the subject of a slow motion mini bail out.  And there seems to be disatisfaction at Old Trafford and the Rose Bowl about the facilities provided.

RB
http://sideoncricket.blogspot.co.uk/

I agree with all of the above.
Although members ultimately went along with the proposed constitutional changes, the fact that there was so much concern, especially on this Board, did stir the Club into responding in greater detail than might have otherwise been the case.
At the risk of repeating myself, I just hope that, when elections to the Members Committee are pending, there will be at least a few candidates who are young and full of ideas - not just more pale,stale males.  That, of course, rules out most (but not all) of us on this Board.
Well I'm certainly guilty on 2 out of three counts.  I hope not stale but I guess one never knows.
RB

Same here!
Keep up-to-date with County Cricket at http://deepextracover.com/
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)