By Bobby Cross, writing entirely as a Heywood player concerned for the future:
Two members of Heywood Cricket Club’s cricket committee attended a very informative morning at Emirates Old Trafford on Saturday 8th November to listen to several presentations regarding the future of cricket in Greater Manchester.
There is agreement around the region that something must be done to address the common themes of players dissatisfaction, poor facilities, players being lost from the game and the number of teams unable to find a level of competitive cricket.
Meetings between concerned members of a variety of leagues and clubs from all over the region have been taking place throughout 2014 and with the help of the Lancashire Cricket Board it has been established that there is an overwhelming desire to explore possibilities for change.
Importantly it was felt that any changes made should be following discussions with others so as to protect clubs from a similar fate that has befallen some of those in the former Manchester Association. Clubs being left without cricket after teams left that league to join others.
The turnout on Saturday was high and the feeling overwhelmingly positive that the discussion around a proposed new “pyramid” structure should be taken further and more detail put into a proposal that ultimately the clubs could be invited into. An “elite” division at the top with two divisions below would cover the whole region whilst divisions below that would be on a regional basis to minimise travel and costs for those at a recreational level. Promotion up the system would be available to those aspiring to it.
Worryingly there were no attendees at that meeting from the CLL Management Committee in a League capacity. Also worrying was that only 8 of last seasons 16 CLL teams were represented at the meeting.
Does this mean that the CLL clubs do not want to be part of the wider discussion about the future? Perhaps. Or does it mean that the information is not being provided to those clubs? More likely.
Whilst every other league in the discussions have agreed to sit tight and engage in this process the CLL are once again asking clubs to vote on whether it should look to invite new teams into the league. Such invitations potentially harm other leagues and go against the very cooperative principle being espoused at the meeting on Saturday.
So what next? There was a unanimous agreement on Saturday that the proposed structure is moved forward to a point where enough detail is available to allow clubs to decide whether they would like to join it. Those doing the work on the new structure are at pains to point out that they want everyone to be part of the journey together to achieve fairness and avoid harming other local leagues and clubs. Seems like a sound basis to work from.
It seems likely that a point will arise when CLL clubs are invited to join the new structure, possibly even in time for the 2016 season and yet some clubs are still failing to engage in the talks. Should some clubs take the plunge and join the new structure then another Manchester Association collapse would seem a non too remote outcome if some clubs are still in the dark.
And what for Heywood? As a club we must surely expect our decision makers to act in the best interests of the club. We can offer players no higher standard than at present and we have seen all too sadly those players that leave for the Liverpool area in search of better cricket. There is nowhere in Greater Manchester that provides the best players with the chance to play against the best players on the best facilities.
Yes internally we can improve facilities but there will always be a limit above, and below, the clubs in this league. There is nowhere within Greater Manchester that allows clubs to move fluidly up and down divisions until they have found their level and their players can look forward to their weekends knowing they will be playing competitive, ability appropriate cricket.
The new proposals contain similar facility based criteria that accompany promotion as we know work well in the Liverpool Competition. Any aspiring team would have to invest in facilities and not just players, surely something that would be welcomed by the future generations.
The mystery of all of this is in the lack of engagement by some clubs and by the league with the process. No-one is being asked to make a decision at this point, simply to explore the possibilities and the desire for change. Why then are we falling into the background and scrambling around trying to expand again after the disaster of the previous attempt? Now would seem the time for the CLL to stand tall and play a leading role in these discussions for the good of its clubs.
When it comes to the crunch, clubs will have to make a decision; in the meantime it can only be hoped that the people that will be charged with making those decisions have all of the relevant information before they do so. The information is out there, the effort is being put in by some genuine people who have cricket, and not parochial concerns, at heart.
Let’s hope that every single club and league that will be affected by these potential changes engage in the process for the good of Greater Manchester cricket.
Similar Posts:
- Cross Appointed LCB Director
- Fare: Something Had To Change To Halt Rapid Decline
- Enjoy Your Cricket And Wear The Badge With Pride
- Cross: Young Team Ready For JW Lees Wood Cup Final Challenge
- Heywood CC AGM – Report
- Why NatWest Cricketforce 2012 Is Such A Big Deal for Heywood CC
- Cross Interview Part 1: Pawson Will Blossom As Captain
- Cross Interview Part 2: I Want To Be A Part Of A Bright Crimble Future
- Heywood CC Set For Starring Role As National Showcase Club
- Grogan Has Reasons To Be Cheerful With Momentous Year Ahead
As I understand the situation the CLL were invited and chose to decline without consulting the club’s. The club’s found out and subsequently the league came to the table. For whatever reason the CLL management committee feels they don’t need the GMPL something clubs like yours clearly disagree with.
As I see it cricket needs a boost the formation of a pyramid structure will benefit all greater Manchester clubs.
Bobby.
The points you make and the validity of the argument presented is sound.
Surely anybody with an ounce of common sense can see that a progressive, flexible, new structure benefits all, the caviat on that is so long as all pitfalls and potential problems are thoroughly explored and managed. Using elements of the Leicestershire and other models as a guide.
It seems to me as a current player that some decision makers within the CLL hierarchy are interested in ‘feathering their own nest’ as it were. Putting self before the good of the league, clubs and ultimately individual cricketers. I’m not entirely sure what can be done about that without having mutiny on your hands.
There are still interesting discussions to be had RE how the initial premier division would be made up? Also the 2 regional leagues below? I know many clubs will feel they have a strong enough case to dine at the top table from day 1, again this will need co-operation and maybe some concession for the greater good of all.
As a player in my mid 30′s I’m hoping things progress sooner rather than later, we relish the challenge of playing in the LKO each season, it brings out the best in us. If the new league provides the same level of competition and quality then that can only be a good thing.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I’m sure the vast majority of players echo your sentiments.
Regards
Andy O’Brien
Denton West CC
I admit I lost the plot with the CLL last season. No variety, God knows how many times we played L’Boro in two months, no home games in June (I think) or July. Add to that the ridiculous situation where some clubs prefer to fork out on players rather than facilities or making their square playable when it’s rained a bit.
This should solve all this. I’d like to see no access to grants – or at least no support from the LCB – for any club in Lancashire that has put paying players ahead of improving facilities. Hell, I don’t think a club who has spent on amateur players should be supported in any grant application as that money could be spent on the ground. But that’s a digression.
As Andy says above, not everyone will be where they want to be and compromising is needed. For me, the main criterion for placing in a structure should be quality of facilities. Doesn’t have to be a picture-postcard ground, just a ground where it is obvious love and attention and, if the club has it, money is spent on it. If a club has a lovely ground and pays its players, that’s fine, but a club should not be allowed promotion to a higher division until it meets exacting standards, whatever those standards are. If that rules Heywood out of a higher league because we need, say, better changing facilities, then so be it. But investment in the club and facilities has to be paramount.
Seems this what why CLL management were not at your meeting Bobby?
From the Oldham Chronicle…..
THE Lake Garage Central Lancashire League could merge with the Lancashire League to form a powerful new cricket organisation.
Member clubs asked CLL chiefs to approach the Lancashire League in October. The Lancashire League is expected to give its response after a meeting on November 26 — two days before the CLL’s annual meeting.
The merger proposals are at odds with the continuing talks being held by clubs across Greater Manchester, many of whom attended a recent meeting at which an Elite Division and pyramid system was proposed.
Another meeting on Thursday will allow league representatives to give their views following talks with their clubs. But for now the CLL looks like it will pursue another course.
League chairman Neville Fletcher said the Lancashire League declined a merger 10 years ago, but declined. But he said a “different mindset” might now prevail.
He said: “Everybody acknowledges the needs for change, but these changes should be for the benefit of the majority.
“CLL clubs were unanimous in their view to approach the Lancashire League. We have done this orally and in writing and are awaiting their response.”
Thanks Bob,
Yes we were aware that the CLL had been talking to the Lancashire League, an interesting possibility.
The CLL outgoing President also stated on Friday evening that the CLL would be “pursuing its aims of creating a 24 team, two division structure”. As we currently have 18 clubs this does not tie in with the merger with the Lancashire League.
It is good that people are discussing these possibilities openly and that there is healthy debate on the topic.
It was refreshing that following the meeting at Old Trafford on 8th November the Bolton League wrote to every club and invited them to a meeting of the clubs and League Management to find out what the clubs themselves wanted.
I understand that similar discussions are now taking place in the Bolton Association and have taken place in the Saddleworth League.
The group putting forward these proposals will no doubt be pleased to hear that talks are ongoing and leagues are listening to their clubs as this process has been started by player response to the National Cricket Playing Survey and the comments of 95 local clubs to the LCB.