Members Meeting

[alanw]

I attended the members meeting in the lunch interval yesterday. The meeting was hosted by Daniel Gidney and I think James Sheridan. It was difficult to follow the start of the meeting because Lanc tv was coming through the speakers in the room and it took several minutes for this to be sorted out. These are the points from the meeting which stood out for me.

Gidney emphasised that the club was financially secure and that there were no plans to demutualise the club.

Gidney said that the Manchester Originals were not expected to make a profit until 2029 when a new broadcast agreement would be in place. When asked where the shortfall would come from (which I thought was a rhetorical question) he waffled and gave what I thought was a nonsensical reply.

It was stated that after the teams had been sold off the eight franchise teams would get 80% of the Hundred broadcast revenue and pay 80% of the tournament cost the remaining 20% would go to the ECB. Which as far as I see it the counties who are not getting a share in a franchise team are going to be getting very little from the Hundred after the initial windfall. Gidney also made the point that as revenue from franchise broadcast goes up revenue from tests and internationals is going down.

Gidney confirmed that the ODC would be played at the same time as the Hundred next year. However he did say that Lancashire were one of the few counties who wanted to play championship cricket at the same time as the hundred which I am totally against. With the number of Lancashire players in the hundred I think it would seriously reduce our chance of winning the championship and could result in us spending a significant amount of time in the second division. I assume the Lancashire board are eying the money that could be made from a higher profile more competitive 50 over competition.

There was much discussion about player availability. Gidney said that the PCA had negotiated a clause in the contract of every player where they can opt out of playing in any game. So in effect the likes of Luke Wood and Saqib Mahmood can choose which games they play in. Gidney used Matty Hurst as an example saying that if he had a good Big Bash, an IPL contract could follow and his availability to Lancashire would be significantly reduced next season.

Gidney said that the club were looking at ways to make money from Lancs tv but it would be free to members.

Mark Chilton appeared towards the end of the meeting. His summary was essentially that we had a squad of promising young players and proven experienced players and that the experienced players had let the team/ club down with their performances this season. There was then more talk around player availability before the meeting broke up.

I went to the meeting with concerns over the stewardship of Lancashire and the future of county cricket. Both these concerns were reinforced by what I heard in the meeting. The only bright spot was that the club was selling off beer at £3 a pint but this only provided temporary relief to my gloom.

[oldhamexile]

Thanks for the report Alan, your quip about cheap ale at the end made me chuckle.

If LancsTV is free to members I have no idea how they expect to monetise it beyond higher levels of advertising. I put in my survey response that they need to consider what the free access gives the club in terms of exposure and the potential to attract those curious about the game - if it goes behind a paywall it becomes the preserve of those that already love their cricket

[alanw]

Sept 19, 2024 13:12:55 GMT oldhamexile said:

Thanks for the report Alan, your quip about cheap ale at the end made me chuckle.

If LancsTV is free to members I have no idea how they expect to monetise it beyond higher levels of advertising. I put in my survey response that they need to consider what the free access gives the club in terms of exposure and the potential to attract those curious about the game - if it goes behind a paywall it becomes the preserve of those that already love their cricket

What they said about Lancs tv hadn't been thought through and was a bit embarrassing. James Sheridan floated the idea that there are 100s of million cricket fans in India, it's monsoon season in India from June to September so if you get a small percentage of these fans paying a couple of pounds for Lancs tv you get a few million pounds in revenue. Somebody in the audience with knowledge of the media shot this theory down and explained how Lancs tv could be used to generate interest in Lancashire and attract new supporters/ members.

The whole meeting was amateurish, no facts or figures behind anything. The story was we are going to get a share in the Manchester Originals worth lots of money, MO will make a loss for a few years but then there will be a more favourable tv deal and it will become profitable. When somebody asked a question about the level of debt and how it was going to be repaid obviously wanting some numbers. Gidney answered in a condescending way waving his hand at the view from the pavilion window saying something along the lines we've got all this, two hotel, the point, doesn't it look nice and it makes lots of money.

These things can be done so much better.

[anyportinastorm]

Thanks very much for the updates. So basically an amateur hour farce. Did anyone ask Chilton how he is still in employment or ask about Benkensteins future? Or the appalling overseas recruitments?

[Phil]

Sept 19, 2024 18:46:03 GMT anyportinastorm said:

Thanks very much for the updates. So basically an amateur hour farce. Did anyone ask Chilton how he is still in employment or ask about Benkensteins future? Or the appalling overseas recruitments?

Fair questions that will be asked at the meeting on 3 October!

[anyportinastorm]

Was there a meeting yesterday?

[ross]

Yes, about 75 members in the pavilion, some listening, some hostile. Chilton, Benkenstein and Jennings on the platform, so rumours of the departure of the captain are scotched. After short opening comments the meeting comprised questions from the floor. Overall the mood was one of apology. They had placed too much reliance on the excellent records of Lyon and Bruce and they did not deliver, creating too much pressure on the youngsters they were supposed to guide. The youngsters will be better for the experience, shaken from comfort zones by learning what they need to improve. Domestic transfers were investigated but this year were unattractive beyond Jones. They plan a major bid for any good out of contract seamer next summer. Otherwise it will be overseas recruitment which is underway, a batsman and a seamer with penetration. They praised Phillip but did not commit. Surprisingly they expressed confidence in our spinners with work on Hartley to improve, Wells a positive and Barnard impressing. No one is leaving that we would rather stay. No mention of plans for Lavelle, Blatherwick and Morley.

It was an interesting session. Hostile comments were voiced but the platform did pretty well in providing some reassurance that they were working to avoid the disappointments of the season

[anyportinastorm]

Oct 4, 2024 10:11:41 GMT ross said:

Yes, about 75 members in the pavilion, some listening, some hostile. Chilton, Benkenstein and Jennings on the platform, so rumours of the departure of the captain are scotched. After short opening comments the meeting comprised questions from the floor. Overall the mood was one of apology. They had placed too much reliance on the excellent records of Lyon and Bruce and they did not deliver, creating too much pressure on the youngsters they were supposed to guide. The youngsters will be better for the experience, shaken from comfort zones by learning what they need to improve. Domestic transfers were investigated but this year were unattractive beyond Jones. They plan a major bid for any good out of contract seamer next summer. Otherwise it will be overseas recruitment which is underway, a batsman and a seamer with penetration. They praised Phillip but did not commit. Surprisingly they expressed confidence in our spinners with work on Hartley to improve, Wells a positive and Barnard impressing. No one is leaving that we would rather stay. No mention of plans for Lavelle, Blatherwick and Morley.

It was an interesting session. Hostile comments were voiced but the platform did pretty well in providing some reassurance that they were working to avoid the disappointments of the season

Thanks for that.

[Dave Towers]

I’d say it’s a little harsh to say Lyon didn’t deliver; 26 wickets mostly in April and May isn’t that bad an effort.

[alanw]

I also attended the meeting yesterday In addition to Ross's post I would add:

Same excuses made for relegation, player unavailability, Croft and Vilas not in the team, poor performance by both overseas and squad players.

Anderson Philip seems to be the preferred option as the overseas fast bowler depending on availability.

Chilton did say that they had considered Emilio Gay but thought that Michael Jones was the better option because he is an accomplished red ball opener and would also contribute in the white ball where as Gay was only a red ball player.

There was a question about playing at Liverpool. Chilton said that they had seen the schedule and he expected that six out of the seven championship games would be played at Old Trafford next season and that Blackpool was the preferred out ground because it had the best wicket. He did say that Liverpool was an option for a One Day Cup game.

Benkenstein gave what I thought was a muddled explanation for Flintoff batting at No4 along the lines, that Rocky was an allrounder but did not currently bowl at the top level due to his age, they wanted to split the batting order up with experienced players around the youngsters (this was the case in the Somerset game when Wells batted at 6) and that Flintoff was stronger against pace bowling than spin. None of his explanation made much sense to me but he seemed adamant that he had made the correct decision to bat Flintoff at 4.

I was surprised by the faith both Chilton and Benkenstein had in Hartley as our leading spinner and when Morley was not mentioned in the discussion around spin it seemed to confirm the rumour that he would be leaving.

[slipstream]

Oct 4, 2024 12:14:59 GMT alanw said:

I also attended the meeting yesterday In addition to Ross's post I would add:

Same excuses made for relegation, player unavailability, Croft and Vilas not in the team, poor performance by both overseas and squad players.

Anderson Philip seems to be the preferred option as the overseas fast bowler depending on availability.

Chilton did say that they had considered Emilio Gay but thought that Michael Jones was the better option because he is an accomplished red ball opener and would also contribute in the white ball where as Gay was only a red ball player.

There was a question about playing at Liverpool. Chilton said that they had seen the schedule and he expected that six out of the seven championship games would be played at Old Trafford next season and that Blackpool was the preferred out ground because it had the best wicket. He did say that Liverpool was an option for a One Day Cup game.

Benkenstein gave what I thought was a muddled explanation for Flintoff batting at No4 along the lines, that Rocky was an allrounder but did not currently bowl at the top level due to his age, they wanted to split the batting order up with experienced players around the youngsters (this was the case in the Somerset game when Wells batted at 6) and that Flintoff was stronger against pace bowling than spin. None of his explanation made much sense to me but he seemed adamant that he had made the correct decision to bat Flintoff at 4.

I was surprised by the faith both Chilton and Benkenstein had in Hartley as our leading spinner and when Morley was not mentioned in the discussion around spin it seemed to confirm the rumour that he would be leaving.

So we are not getting an overseas batsman. 

[alanw]

Oct 4, 2024 12:44:55 GMT slipstream said:

Oct 4, 2024 12:14:59 GMT alanw said:

I also attended the meeting yesterday In addition to Ross's post I would add:

Same excuses made for relegation, player unavailability, Croft and Vilas not in the team, poor performance by both overseas and squad players.

Anderson Philip seems to be the preferred option as the overseas fast bowler depending on availability.

Chilton did say that they had considered Emilio Gay but thought that Michael Jones was the better option because he is an accomplished red ball opener and would also contribute in the white ball where as Gay was only a red ball player.

There was a question about playing at Liverpool. Chilton said that they had seen the schedule and he expected that six out of the seven championship games would be played at Old Trafford next season and that Blackpool was the preferred out ground because it had the best wicket. He did say that Liverpool was an option for a One Day Cup game.

Benkenstein gave what I thought was a muddled explanation for Flintoff batting at No4 along the lines, that Rocky was an allrounder but did not currently bowl at the top level due to his age, they wanted to split the batting order up with experienced players around the youngsters (this was the case in the Somerset game when Wells batted at 6) and that Flintoff was stronger against pace bowling than spin. None of his explanation made much sense to me but he seemed adamant that he had made the correct decision to bat Flintoff at 4.

I was surprised by the faith both Chilton and Benkenstein had in Hartley as our leading spinner and when Morley was not mentioned in the discussion around spin it seemed to confirm the rumour that he would be leaving.

So we are not getting an overseas batsman. 

The plan is to get an overseas fast bowler and an overseas batsman. There was no indication at the meeting who the batsman would be be but I would put money on it not being Tom Bruce.

[Admin]

Oct 4, 2024 12:44:55 GMT slipstream said:

Oct 4, 2024 12:14:59 GMT alanw said:

I also attended the meeting yesterday In addition to Ross's post I would add:

Same excuses made for relegation, player unavailability, Croft and Vilas not in the team, poor performance by both overseas and squad players.

Anderson Philip seems to be the preferred option as the overseas fast bowler depending on availability.

Chilton did say that they had considered Emilio Gay but thought that Michael Jones was the better option because he is an accomplished red ball opener and would also contribute in the white ball where as Gay was only a red ball player.

There was a question about playing at Liverpool. Chilton said that they had seen the schedule and he expected that six out of the seven championship games would be played at Old Trafford next season and that Blackpool was the preferred out ground because it had the best wicket. He did say that Liverpool was an option for a One Day Cup game.

Benkenstein gave what I thought was a muddled explanation for Flintoff batting at No4 along the lines, that Rocky was an allrounder but did not currently bowl at the top level due to his age, they wanted to split the batting order up with experienced players around the youngsters (this was the case in the Somerset game when Wells batted at 6) and that Flintoff was stronger against pace bowling than spin. None of his explanation made much sense to me but he seemed adamant that he had made the correct decision to bat Flintoff at 4.

I was surprised by the faith both Chilton and Benkenstein had in Hartley as our leading spinner and when Morley was not mentioned in the discussion around spin it seemed to confirm the rumour that he would be leaving.

So we are not getting an overseas batsman. 

Didn’t Gay get a century against us in the 50 overs game at Blackpool?

[Phil]

Oct 4, 2024 12:07:40 GMT Dave Towers said:

I’d say it’s a little harsh to say Lyon didn’t deliver; 26 wickets mostly in April and May isn’t that bad an effort.

I thought that too, wouldn't have gone down had he stayed.

[alanw]

Oct 4, 2024 14:02:50 GMT Phil said:

Oct 4, 2024 12:07:40 GMT Dave Towers said:

I’d say it’s a little harsh to say Lyon didn’t deliver; 26 wickets mostly in April and May isn’t that bad an effort.

I thought that too, wouldn't have gone down had he stayed.

I think the frustration with Lyon was that he was expected for the full season and then it was cut to eight games just before the start of the season. Then the time of year, weather and our batting meant he was not that effective.