2025 Annual-report

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY CRICKET CLUB 2025 ANNUAL REPORT & ACCOUNTS 64 cast their votes. County Championship cricket was hugely important to Notts as a club, the Chair said, and the club had made that point repeatedly through this process. Throughout the consultation those members who regularly watched four-day cricket had expressed their views passionately. So, the club absolutely did under- stand why almost 700 members had voted to support the resolution and oppose any reductions in the County Championship. However, under the club’s Constitution, the General Committee was the ultimate decision-making body, which meant that the outcome of the ballot on the resolution could/ would not be binding. The decision to support a small reduction in men’s domestic cricket was not an easy one for the General Committee to take, the Chair said, particularly given that for many of the Committee the format they loved the most was the County Championship. However, the General Committee’s responsibility was to put any personal preferences to one side and consider views from all parties – including members, players and the wider workforce – before taking their decision. It had never been a binary choice about the number of County Championship games we play, but a process aiming to find a solution that delivers a balanced schedule for all formats of cricket. This review had highlighted the strongly-held views from all parties and had been a complex and emotive issue for the game as a whole. Discussions were still ongoing and, as of the date of the EGMs, no finalised proposal or a date for any vote had been confirmed. The Chair concluded by saying that the General Committee hoped that there could be a compromise agreed that provided a better solution to the congested calendar, and would do its very best to look after the interests of Nottingham- shire County Cricket Club and Trent Bridge, as well as the wider cricket family. He then opened the floor to questions. In response to a query from a member about limiting the number of appearances each player could make to control workload, the Director of Cricket said that, whilst this was a valid suggestion, its adoption could adversely impact the integrity of the County Championship, especially if it meant that counties were not selecting their best squad. One of the issues that the review was trying to tackle was the sheer intensity of modern cricket for players, coaches and groundstaff. It was also important to remember that Trent Bridge was no longer home only to a men’s professional club, but also to The Blaze and Trent Rockets. Mr Ian Jackson wondered if holding red-ball games at weekends would increase attendance at Trent Bridge. Ms Pursehouse said that experimenting with start times and days had shown that attendance numbers remain broadly the same regardless of the day of the week. Mr Bill Russell also raised the issue of workload, particularly where players had been part of a squad for The Hundred but had not played. Such players, he said, had been largely idle during August. Mr Graeme Swann responded by saying although such players had not played in matches, they would have practised hard and had the opportunity to work with world- class coaches during the tournament, which would have helped their development. He also observed that no player would wish to participate in a watered-down County Championship where selection was limited by the number of appearances, for example. Mr Nick Garrett also asked about workload; was it not the case that grounds maintenance was seasonal? Mr Newell explained that this was not the case, noting that the job of keeping the Trent Bridge pitch, wickets and outfield in shape was year-round. Furthermore, ground staff were not working only on matchdays during the summer; there were days of pitch preparation and practise sessions for all the teams that now used Trent Bridge. In Mr Newell’s view, the head groundsman at Trent Bridge, Steve Birks, was one of the few genuinely irreplaceable members of staff at Trent Bridge. In response to a question from Ms Diana Peasey, the Chair confirmed that if a firm proposal was offered by the ECB on the County Championship, both the Cricket Sub-Committee and General Committee would meet to discuss. Mr Nick Sandford said that he had been impressed to hear about what Surrey had done to promote interest in four-day cricket, including red- ball cricket festivals. Surrey had also surveyed their players and they were not in favour of a reduction in red-ball cricket, he said. Mr Hunt emphasised that all clubs were different. He could under- stand why Surrey had opposed a reduction to County Championship cricket. We were dealing with a different set of factors in terms of resources at Notts, he said, and it was the job of General Committee to look at those in the round and take a balanced view. Mr Newell agreed with Mr Hunt: Surrey’s survey had been of all 31 of their players; Nottinghamshire, with a smaller squad, therefore have fewer squad-rotation options at their disposal. Surrey were also under far less pressure regarding space at their headquarters, having opted to use facilities at Beckenham for the majority of their women’s matches, for instance. Mr Simon Ireland said that he understood that the outcome of the postal ballot on the resolution was not binding. But, he asked, should the club not take account of the views of the members who had voted for no reduction? Mr Gordon Todd concurred and said that the club should vote in such a way as to reflect the views of the membership.