Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Special Resolution for AGM
#21
An interesting read.

I found the explanations a bit spurious if I'm honest.

I'll go along next Monday and listen and then make my mind up.

I'm particularly concerned about the direction of the Club as the identity of Warwickshire CCC become more and more eroded and the transformation of HQ to be the all and end all seems to get ever deeper.
Reply
#22
(13-02-2018, 03:06 PM)Jon Wrote: An interesting read.

I found the explanations a bit spurious if I'm honest.

I'll go along next Monday and listen and then make my mind up.

I'm particularly concerned about the direction of the Club as the identity of Warwickshire CCC become more and more eroded and the transformation of HQ to be the all and end all seems to get ever deeper.

I understand your thinking. I do believe Warwickshire CCC should be there at all times. However, the marketing of Edgbaston Stadium (or just Edgbaston) must make it more attractive for large non-cricketing events. Many football clubs market the ground name for events like pop concerts.
LE - aka John
Reply
#23
As promised, here are the bits of what Norman Gascoigne said that didn't make the published article because it was aimed at cricket lovers generally and not just Bears fans:

"The proposals are an attempt to open up opportunities to bring in new blood and prevent the Club stagnating. That’s why we are limiting involvement to three terms of three years each, with no provision to come back in after a gap.
We had some debate about moving to a single Board but we decided to keep a Members Committee to provide a wider opportunity for the membership to come onto that Committee which will have quite a powerful position in supplying checks and balances on the Board and on the executive. The members will have two people on the Board. We felt that it provided a more holistic model.
What we are doing is unique. Yorkshire have a membership committee but no member representation on the Board. Hampshire have one too; but it’s a bit of a misnomer because the Club is in private ownership.

The aim is to be open and inclusive. But the Nominations Committee is needed so that we have a broader skills base. At the moment, it’s usually down to the Chairman to find some successors and there’s always the risk that the Chairman goes off and asks his mates and just perpetuates things – not quite a Putin situation but not far off. The Nominations Committee will broaden out that search and selection process. 

But the Nominations Committee will not apply to the Members Committee. They will get the nominations in from the membership – on past history, they may have to go looking for them. They will decide as against what they need – and they will publish their needs annually.

It’s about good governance. We need to represent our membership. With the best will in the world, an average age of 60, all white and a bit stale because they have been around for 20 or 30 years is not a great representation of our membership. They are not representative of the members or of the community as a whole, either in terms of race or gender.

What would I say if a member asked what’s in it for me? My answer would be that my primary role as Chairman is to represent and secure the interests of all Club members – and that’s also the role of the Committee and the Board. I believe that the changes will better enable us to do that by getting the right skills around the table at a time when financial risks are increasing. There’s more money coming into the game and the ECB are likely to put more restrictions on how that is spent.

There are also operational risks – how do you stage a Test match when bombs are going off in Manchester?

What we are doing now is just part of the process that has been going on over the last ten years to get to the point where the members can have confidence in the way the Club is managed with the right people at the helm to do that.

I know we won’t please everyone. It’s a tricky balancing job between playing cricket and trying to manage a Test match venue. 

We were extremely luck to get Neil (Snowball) and we need to convince him and others that they have the right support by bringing in people like Mark McCafferty.

I want to be able to hand over, whenever I do, to a new Chairman with the right structure. There’s nothing wrong with what we’ve done over the last ten years. We’ve developed the ground, we’ve survived the setback of having no Test matches in 2013/14, at the same time we’ve still been able to invest in a team which, prior to last season, was the most successful team in the county structure, having won all tournaments during a five year period. But we can’t sit still. We’ve got to keep moving forward in an ever-increasing competitive environment.

If collectively the membership say no to the proposals, we will have to get underneath why this is so – what are the principle blocking points? What are the reasons behind the objections? And then we will have to try to ameliorate them to get us to a point where we can get support. 

Am I saying that the status quo is not an option? Yes, I am, I think. It’s not tenable."
Keep up-to-date with County Cricket at http://deepextracover.com/
Reply
#24
(13-02-2018, 01:13 PM)Leicester Exile Wrote: My reading of this interview is that the club will be more professionally run to match the large sums of money now generated. Thank you Terry for this interview.

I still think membership is little more than a season ticket but then it has felt like that for a number of years. And that is no bad thing - the club does need to be run by experts in their field and not just because they are enthusiastic supporters.
Reply
#25
(14-02-2018, 08:43 PM)Reabank Wrote:
(13-02-2018, 01:13 PM)Leicester Exile Wrote: My reading of this interview is that the club will be more professionally run to match the large sums of money now generated. Thank you Terry for this interview.

I still think membership is little more than a season ticket but then it has felt like that for a number of years. And that is no bad thing - the club does need to be run by experts in their field and not just because they are enthusiastic supporters.

Thanks Terry

I read your post very interesting.  Your extracover site also gave me the opportunity to "meet mature women who only say yes".  I assumed what they were saying "yes" to was the changes to the WCCC rules, so I didn't click on the advert because I'm still against the proposal.

I liked your question about what would happen if the Board signed us up for a 10 over competition which replaced all other cricket.  But I wasn't convinced by NG's response.  He says its OK because provided 250 members were prepared to ask for a special meeting any proposal could be blocked.  But if you read section 20 of the new rules it's more complicated than that.

" Subject to the provisions of the Acts and these Rules and any directions given by special resolution, the affairs and activities of the Club shall be managed by the Board which may exercise all the powers of the Club. No alteration to these Rules and no such direction shall invalidate any prior act of the Board which would have been valid if the alteration had not been made or if that direction had not been given."

So the members can only stop the board if: They can get 250 members to ask for a special meeting, and
They can go through all the formalities required, and
They can get the 2/3rds vote at the meeting required to pass a special resolution.

Which is hard to do.

But even if they do all that they can't block the board if its already gone ahead and exercised "all the powers of the club".

If you remember last year the county voted for the ECB proposals for a new city based 20/20 competition.  I don't want to go through all the arguments about that again as it's one of those things where reasonable people can disagree but I thought the Board / Committee acted very poorly as the first members knew about how they intended to cast our vote was once they had already voted and it was too late for special resolutions.  I did have a moan to Neil Snowball about this, he seemed like a decent enough person but I didn't get the impression he has any great interest in county cricket.
Reply
#26
(14-02-2018, 09:11 PM)Reabank Wrote:
(14-02-2018, 08:43 PM)Reabank Wrote:
(13-02-2018, 01:13 PM)Leicester Exile Wrote: My reading of this interview is that the club will be more professionally run to match the large sums of money now generated. Thank you Terry for this interview.

I still think membership is little more than a season ticket but then it has felt like that for a number of years. And that is no bad thing - the club does need to be run by experts in their field and not just because they are enthusiastic supporters.

Thanks Terry

I read your post very interesting.  Your extracover site also gave me the opportunity to "meet mature women who only say yes".  I assumed what they were saying "yes" to was the changes to the WCCC rules, so I didn't click on the advert because I'm still against the proposal.

I liked your question about what would happen if the Board signed us up for a 10 over competition which replaced all other cricket.  But I wasn't convinced by NG's response.  He says its OK because provided 250 members were prepared to ask for a special meeting any proposal could be blocked.  But if you read section 20 of the new rules it's more complicated than that.

" Subject to the provisions of the Acts and these Rules and any directions given by special resolution, the affairs and activities of the Club shall be managed by the Board which may exercise all the powers of the Club. No alteration to these Rules and no such direction shall invalidate any prior act of the Board which would have been valid if the alteration had not been made or if that direction had not been given."

So the members can only stop the board if: They can get 250 members to ask for a special meeting, and
They can go through all the formalities required, and
They can get the 2/3rds vote at the meeting required to pass a special resolution.

Which is hard to do.

But even if they do all that they can't block the board if its already gone ahead and exercised "all the powers of the club".

If you remember last year the county voted for the ECB proposals for a new city based 20/20 competition.  I don't want to go through all the arguments about that again as it's one of those things where reasonable people can disagree but I thought the Board / Committee acted very poorly as the first members knew about how they intended to cast our vote was once they had already voted and it was too late for special resolutions.  I did have a moan to Neil Snowball about this, he seemed like a decent enough person but I didn't get the impression he has any great interest in county cricket.

I think the point that Norman was making is that, as at present, it will still be possible for members to ask for a SGM and put resolutions that, if passed with a two-thirds majority, will be binding on the club.  This has never been an easy thing to do so I don't think we should pretend that it's something that is likely to happen very often.
My take on it is that we (as members) should be thinking very hard about how we can get genuine supporters to stand for the Membership Committee and then get them elected.  I mentioned the case of Kim Jones at the start of this thread and Norman mentioned it too.  There is obviously a will from the Club to encourage new people onto this Members Committee so how can we make this work for the benefit of the Club and for the members?

PS - I'm not responsible for the ads on the Deep Extra Cover site!!
Keep up-to-date with County Cricket at http://deepextracover.com/
Reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Terry's post:
Warleybear
#27
Thanks for all your work on this Terry.

I'm a little clearer about the proposals now - a shame they couldn't have been illustrated in the mail out from the club.

I had already voted against, however, and nothing I've read in either your piece or the follow up interview has made me reconsider.

I still feel that members are being railroaded into accepting a fait accompli that has already been nodded through by the executive in the belief that they and the ECB know best.

And I don't see how citing terrorism concerns or promoting diversity necessarily justifies a wholesale takeover by the executive. As you yourself state the 250 member threshold is pretty much unknown and unlikely to be used. 

I still like the idea that under the current constitution we still ultimately have the right to  vote the bastards out. I worry that this will be lost.
Reply
#28
Will go on Monday, but to be honest only going to listen the cricket chat. Can the chairman avoid talking rubbish, or making a prediction that doesn't become fact? That's if he does the talking of course.
Reply
#29
I take on board what other posters have said.

My view is that I can see the benefits of the changes in that they:
  • keep the Club on-side with the ECB so that long-term future match allocations are not adversely affected
  • keep the Club also in good favour with Birmingham City Council so that the loan isn't pursued too eagerly in bad years and comes to be seen more as an investment
  • bring in more people like Mark McCafferty with a range of skills and experience that are needed
  • make it more likely that the Club can attract top-notch executives when vacancies occur because they can see the calibre of people in non-executive roles
  • encourage members to get some new blood onto the Committee so that people of the calibre of Kim Jones put themselves forward and actually get elected
Of course, all of this depends on believing that the Chairman is telling it like it is, which is why I think attending the Forum, listening and asking questions must be a good idea.
Keep up-to-date with County Cricket at http://deepextracover.com/
Reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Terry's post:
parkfield bear
#30
(18-02-2018, 04:49 PM)Terry Wrote:
  • keep the Club on-side with the ECB so that long-term future match allocations are not adversely affected
  • keep the Club also in good favour with Birmingham City Council so that the loan isn't pursued too eagerly in bad years and comes to be seen more as an investment
  • bring in more people like Mark McCafferty with a range of skills and experience that are needed
  • make it more likely that the Club can attract top-notch executives when vacancies occur because they can see the calibre of people in non-executive roles
  • encourage members to get some new blood onto the Committee so that people of the calibre of Kim Jones put themselves forward and actually get elected
 good idea.

Well I would certainly agree with your last point. Kim was a wonderful man with the Club at heart. 

But I'm afraid I don't accept that the way to get new blood on the Committee is through these changes.

As for the other points I'm afraid I just don't accept them at all.

I haven't voted yet and i will listen tonight but probably not speak as I am just so annoyed that the Club seems to have completely lost its way. A sporting club that brands its HQ ahead of its own name, that ignores most of the geographical area it is supposed to represent and astonishingly even plays in one competition under a different identity has lost its identity I'm afraid.
Reply
#31
(Yesterday, 11:16 AM)Jon Wrote:
(18-02-2018, 04:49 PM)Terry Wrote:
  • keep the Club on-side with the ECB so that long-term future match allocations are not adversely affected
  • keep the Club also in good favour with Birmingham City Council so that the loan isn't pursued too eagerly in bad years and comes to be seen more as an investment
  • bring in more people like Mark McCafferty with a range of skills and experience that are needed
  • make it more likely that the Club can attract top-notch executives when vacancies occur because they can see the calibre of people in non-executive roles
  • encourage members to get some new blood onto the Committee so that people of the calibre of Kim Jones put themselves forward and actually get elected
 good idea.

Well I would certainly agree with your last point. Kim was a wonderful man with the Club at heart. 

But I'm afraid I don't accept that the way to get new blood on the Committee is through these changes.

As for the other points I'm afraid I just don't accept them at all.

I haven't voted yet and i will listen tonight but probably not speak as I am just so annoyed that the Club seems to have completely lost its way. A sporting club that brands its HQ ahead of its own name, that ignores most of the geographical area it is supposed to represent and astonishingly even plays in one competition under a different identity has lost its identity I'm afraid.

I wasn't expecting you to undergo a sudden conversion, Jon.
If the Chairman manages to persuade you tonight, I will suggest to him that he solves the Club's debt by changing water into wine and selling it!
Keep up-to-date with County Cricket at http://deepextracover.com/
Reply
#32
(Yesterday, 01:07 PM)Terry Wrote: I wasn't expecting you to undergo a sudden conversion, Jon.
If the Chairman manages to persuade you tonight, I will suggest to him that he solves the Club's debt by changing water into wine and selling it!


If he can outline how the changes will ensure the Club remains true to the history and traditions of Warwickshire County Cricket Club; will restore accountability to the membership and the people of Warwickshire (including Birmingham); how the Club will now accept the ECB's advice not to rebrand as Birmingham for T20; and how Edgbaston will be treated as a much loved home and asset rather than a holding company he has my support all the way!
Reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Jon's post:
parkfield bear
#33
(Yesterday, 11:16 AM)Jon Wrote:
(18-02-2018, 04:49 PM)Terry Wrote:
  • keep the Club on-side with the ECB so that long-term future match allocations are not adversely affected
  • keep the Club also in good favour with Birmingham City Council so that the loan isn't pursued too eagerly in bad years and comes to be seen more as an investment
  • bring in more people like Mark McCafferty with a range of skills and experience that are needed
  • make it more likely that the Club can attract top-notch executives when vacancies occur because they can see the calibre of people in non-executive roles
  • encourage members to get some new blood onto the Committee so that people of the calibre of Kim Jones put themselves forward and actually get elected
 good idea.

Well I would certainly agree with your last point. Kim was a wonderful man with the Club at heart. 

But I'm afraid I don't accept that the way to get new blood on the Committee is through these changes.

As for the other points I'm afraid I just don't accept them at all.

I haven't voted yet and i will listen tonight but probably not speak as I am just so annoyed that the Club seems to have completely lost its way. A sporting club that brands its HQ ahead of its own name, that ignores most of the geographical area it is supposed to represent and astonishingly even plays in one competition under a different identity has lost its identity I'm afraid.

I do think the idea of new blood on the committee, for people with the genuine love of the game would be a good idea and to have the diversity on it. Plus the idea I believe somewhere it mentioned members gave their own committee where we can discuss the issues to then pass onto the committee, so we still have a sense of having some power and we can put our thoughts/issues forward still.
Warwickshire I think still remains their priority at edgbaston, but if other ventures call they have to answers sometimes.
Reply
#34
I can't make the Forum this evening so would be interested in hearing how it went.
Keep up-to-date with County Cricket at http://deepextracover.com/
Reply
#35
Very interesting and more importantly very informative, the highlight? Graeme Welch saying 'I'm a purist, I prefer the longer format of the game', almost restored my faith in the game
Reply
#36
(Yesterday, 08:47 PM)Terry Wrote: I can't make the Forum this evening so would be interested in hearing how it went.

Well handled and amiable meeting.

chairman made a good case for reform and for acknowledging members concerns.

I voted For tonight.

Ashley said preparations for season going well apart from an injury to Ambrose.
Reply
#37
(Yesterday, 10:36 PM)narsty simon Wrote: Very interesting and more importantly very informative, the highlight? Graeme Welch saying 'I'm a purist, I prefer the longer format of the game', almost restored my faith in the game

Changes were explained very well and the forum was perfect to see different viewpoints and how it effects members directly and I think it may not be all as bad as first thought.
Good forum...especially the biscuits
Reply
#38
Did you get a chocolate one Em?
Reply
#39
(Yesterday, 11:32 PM)narsty simon Wrote: Did you get a chocolate one Em?

On the way out...after Norman coming over while I was stuffing my face ???‍♀️
Reply
#40
I'm glad that it was informative and well conducted.  Just sorry I missed out on the biscuits!
Keep up-to-date with County Cricket at http://deepextracover.com/
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)