Cirencester Cricket Club > News > September 2003 > GCB publish report on restructuring league cricket

GCB publish report on restructuring league cricket [Tuesday 30 September 2003]

Below is the recently published Gloucestershire Cricket Board report into the restructuring of league cricket in the county.

Enquiry into league cricket in Gloucestershire

Background

This Enquiry was set up early in 2003 by the Gloucestershire Cricket Board Recreational Cricket Committee, in response to long-standing concern in some quarters about the structure of League cricket in the county .The remit was to recommend a plan for recreational cricket that would aid the objectives of improving overall the standards of club cricket in the county in both play and facilities. Our investigation was confined to the north and centre of the county, as the Bristol area has a separate league system, well established and successfully organised, with its own access to the Glos/Wilts and WEPL leagues.

Members of the Enquiry Team

Malcolm Brown (Chairman), Len Attard, Martin Brown.

The Enquiry Process

We were interested to understand the evolution of the present League structure, and to sound opinion about it.

We were grateful to those clubs (46 out of 120) that responded to our questionnaire (see Appendices B & C). The majority of responses were detailed, helpful, and well thought-out, and the ideas and suggestions were many and varied. The two issues that were common to many were dissatisfaction with the workings of the system of promotion and relegation (particularly at the interface between the District Leagues and the County League), and dissatisfaction with the application and enforcement of facilities criteria (but not with facilities criteria themselves). A significant number of clubs was not especially ambitious to progress through the present system, many of them citing travelling distances as a reason for this.

We were also very grateful to the representatives of the existing leagues, who gave their time and considerable research into talking to us about what they thought works well in the existing system and what they thought does not. It was clear that without exception the leagues are run by hard-working and dedicated officials who deserve every gratitude from clubs and players. The attitude to the present system ranged from the incandescent to the parochial and complacent, fortunately via a majority who had a more balanced and purposeful view. We did however conclude that, in one or two cases, personality clashes tended to obscure or hinder the best interests of cricket development.

We felt that the establishment of the County League had been an important and valuable development of the cricket pyramid, but that its relationship with the District Leagues had not been entirely satisfactory , and we felt that this inhibited the development of the game from the grass roots upwards.

Recommendations for the Future

We looked at various possible arrangements for the future, from maintenance of the status quo to starting all over again. We feel that there is much good with the present system, but that something more than mere tinkering is needed, as otherwise this would leave the system still bedevilled by personalities, and would fail to break the mould where dissatisfaction exists.

1. Overall responsibility. Our most significant conclusion is that, for the pyramid system to have consistency and credibility, the Board (through a sub- section of the Recreational Committee) should assume overall responsibility. The Board's roles would include
· Overall strategy and policy
· Consistency and compatibility of playing conditions ~ Disputes procedure
· Disciplinary policy and procedures
· Consistency and compatibility of facilities criteria, and their practical application
· Monitoring of promotion and relegation

2. Structure of the League. Our proposals are that there should be three Levels feeding in to the Glos/Wilts Leagues:
· Level 1 should have two county-wide Divisions (equivalent to the present County League Divisions 1 and 2)
· Level 2 should have two parallel regionalised Divisions, formed from the clubs at present in County league Divisions 3 and 4. Our method of sub- dividing the county (though this could be the subject of further debate) would be to use the River Severn as the dividing line from Sharpness to Gloucester and then continue in a roughly north-easterly direction, so that one area would include the Forest, Gloucester, Cheltenham, Tewkesbury and the north of the county, and the other would include Dursley, Stroud, Cirencester, and the east of the county.
· Level 3 should consist of four parallel, further regionalised Divisions, formed of clubs from the present County League Division 5 and the top divisions of the present District Leagues. These would be loosely based on the present four Districts that run leagues.
· Each of the four Level 3 Divisions mayor may not have feeder leagues (based on the lower Divisions of the present District Leagues).
· All Divisions would be of 10 clubs (except perhaps for the feeder leagues).
· It would of course be feasible for Districts or other groupings of clubs to run other leagues of their own, but these would not and could not be part of the pyramid.
This structure is illustrated in Appendix A (though please note that the names given to the various divisions are for illustrative purposes only)

3. Day-to-day administration of these Levels would be in the hands neither of the present County League nor of the Districts (though it would be hoped that many of the present administrators would be involved) but would be in the hands of the clubs.
· The Level 1 clubs would elect an executive/secretariat and divisional managers to run their two Divisions, with representatives from the two regionalised Level 2 divisions in attendance
· The Level 2 and 3 clubs for the NW Glos region would elect their own executive/secretariat and divisional managers, with a representative from the Level 1 clubs; the SE Glos region would do likewise.

4. Promotion and relegation would be automatic, subject to facilities criteria (about which judgements would be made by the Board) - though it would be left open for the divisional winners to refuse promotion, in which case the offer would go to the second-placed team but no lower. From time to time relegation would produce regional imbalance in Levels 2 and 3; in these cases it would be the Board's responsibility to move clubs (the most conveniently placed geographically) between the parallel divisions.

5. Facilities criteria should be graded through the league, with the criteria at feeder league level perhaps merely being aspirations, and the criteria becoming more stringent higher up the pyramid. The criteria should be fairly, consistently and transparently enforced.

6. Second and Third XIs. At present the County League has a separate Second XI competition, though some club Second and Third XIs appear in the District leagues. We feel that the Second XI competition should continue to operate separately, and that this should apply as far as possible down the pyramid. For particular local circumstances it may be appropriate for Second or Third XIs to appear in the feeder leagues, but we would suggest that they should not appear in the Level 3 divisions or above, as the principle of one club having two teams in the same pyramid seems illogical. Administration of the Second XI competition could be by the same administrative system as above (though it is unlikely that the First and Second XI competitions can be kept in parallel), or it could form its own administration. We recognise though that this area may in practice require more debate.

7. The Present County League and District Associations would no longer have responsibility for league cricket as part of the pyramid, though it is envisaged and hoped that many of the dedicated and industrious officials involved in these organisations would serve within the new system. We would also envisage that the present County League regulations and playing conditions would be the basis for those that will need to be developed for the new system.

8. The Districts would as now have a vital role in the future of the game, in line with the Board's Development Plan, and their functions would. include club development, youth cricket, courses, evening competitions, etc.

9. New clubs, or existing clubs that are not at present part of the league system, would of course be welcome to join the pyramid, but they would have to start at the lowest level and work up. (Though should a number of clubs from an existing league outside the pyramid system, such as the present Cotswold Hills League, wish to join at anyone time, consideration should be given to forming a fifth parallel division at Level 3. We were attracted by the idea of having five or six parallel divisions at Level 3 but could not see a sensible geographical arrangement given the present distribution of clubs - but there must be potential in the north of the county.)

10. Sponsorship. We have not allowed ourselves to be diverted from a search for a robust system by considerations of existing or future sponsorship. We do however recognise that this is an issue of importance that will need to be handled carefully. We must try to avoid the withdrawal of existing sponsorship , but hopefully with careful presentation of the new system it will be possible to persuade sponsors of the benefits of being part of a bigger and more effective picture.

Time-scale

We envisage that the new system should be in place for the 2005 season, based on League positions in 2004.

Conclusion

Clubs and existing league officials will need to stand back from their present position to look at and fully appreciate the advantages of the proposals. The new system would produce a realistic and workable pyramid. It would give all clubs an incentive to improve, and an opportunity to better themselves, whilst at the same time retaining many local contacts and reducing some of the present travelling. It would offer a co-ordinated and graduated structure throughout the pyramid within the county. We commend it as a chance to build on the best of the present, whilst casting aside the issues that cause discontent, and as an opportunity to take the game in the county forward, in partnership with the Board's Development Plan.

Appendix C

Discussions with representatives of existing leagues

Gloucestershire County league: Bob Attwood and Steve Sawyer
Cotswold District Cricket Association: Phil Carter and John King
Gloucester Club Cricket Federation: Peter Richmond
Stroud District Cricket Association: Derek Ind and Richard lane
West Gloucestershire Cricket Federation: John Gurney

Clubs responding to the questionnaire

Of the responding clubs:
49% were from the Gloucestershire County league
17% from the Cotswold District Cricket Association
10% from the Stroud District Cricket Association
12% from the Gloucester Club Cricket Federation
2% from the West Gloucestershire Cricket Federation

Responses to those questions that can be statistically analysed

Do you find that the present systems of promotion and relegation work satisfactorily?
Yes 61% No 39%
Does your present League have facilities criteria?
Yes 84% No 16%
Does your club comply with them?
Yes 97% No 3%
Do you find the facilities criteria satisfactory?
Yes 94% No 6%
Are they properly enforced?
Yes 53% No 47%
Does your club aspire to play at a higher level than at present?
Yes 68% No 32%
Does your club meet the facilities criteria for the next higher League?
Yes 68% No 32%