Minutes of the Club Chairman’s Meeting held at the CCA on 2/12/04 @ 6 p.m.
Present
John Durning, Marist
Peter Crowhen, LPW CC
Peter Dow, East Chch Shirley CC
Michael Devine, Riccarton CC
Michael Pearcy, Sydenham Cricket Club
Alan Jamieson, St Albans CC
Brian Hastings, BWU CC
Brian Spear, OBC CC
Roger Georgieff, Christchurch Suburban Cricket Association
Richard Reid, Chief Executive, CCA
Richard Hayward, Director of Coaching & Development, CCA
Pierre Flavell, Marketing Manager, CCA
Doug McSweeney, Operations, CCA
Trevor Luke, Director, CCA Board
Brian Adams, President, CCA
Apologies.
Cran Bull, Director, CCA Board
Summary of agenda:
- Apologies
- Approval of last meeting minutes
- Matters arising
- Financial update (R.Reid)
- Playing conditions for Premier & 1st Grade (Marist)
- Consultation around rules (Marist)
- Ground & pitch feedback (D.McSweeney)
- Club 20/20 (R.Reid)
- Venue (R.Reid)
- Test v Australia, Marketing update (P.Flavell)
- Code of Conducts (D.McSweeney)
- Results & Reporting System (LPW)
- Club Cricket Advisory Group (Sydenham)
- Player Transfers (OBC)
- General Business
RR welcomed all in attendance, and officially called the meeting open at 6.05pm. The minutes had been circulated from the last Chairman’s Meeting, and RR asked for approval of the minutes as a true and accurate record.
PD Moved in that direction, Seconded by PC
1.0 MATTERS ARISING FROM THE LAST MINUTES:
NZ Cricket Foundation
A summary document has been circulated to all Clubs by Trudy Anderson, summarising the guidelines for funding.
Result Cards, Pitch Reports, Umpire Reports & Over Rates
The new reporting mechanism in relation to results, over rates, pitch and umpire reports seems to be working very well. Doug has had to remind some clubs that they risk points penalties if there captains are late in getting these in. The signing of the result cards, under umpire’s instructions, seems to have alleviated any concerns that were raised at the last meeting. Electronic filing of the results direct to the website has started well, there will always be teething troubles with any new system but feedback has been good. Doug will talk to any questions and concerns that you may have.
Community Cricket Coordinators
It was advised at the last meeting that we would review the operational requirements of Andrew Reid and Nigel Marsh for this season. This has been done and the status quo remains. The Board has signalled that they wish to review the CCC positions and Richard Hayward is currently doing this. Please can you come to the meeting with a point of view as to what is good about the program, what is bad and how it can be improved? Richard is due to present his paper at the March Board meeting.
Communication
The extensive use of the website has benefited all parties. There has been a calendar of events available to all. If there are any more issues re. Communication I am keen to hear about them. The first of a quarterly Board report has been posted on the website.
Code of Conduct
The issues raised at the last meeting have been implemented. It is disappointing to note that there are still a number of players appearing before the Commissioners. A further Commissioner, Richard McGuire, has been appointed. Please can all Club Chairman reiterate, thru players and coaches, that bad behaviour will not be tolerated and that our patience will outlast theirs!
2.0 AGENDA ITEMS
2.1 Finance
The Board has signed off on a break-even budget for 04/05. Although we are finding gaming machine monies more difficult to get this year than last, as I hear that a lot of the Clubs & Districts are, we are on track. There are some un-budgeted income steams that could make a difference in the New Year, not a lot but enough to make a difference. Unfortunately unlike Auckland and Wellington our ability to make money off either of the ODI’s or Test match is limited due to the differing natures of the agreements that they have with their ground authorities.
Finance update
RR gave an overview of the breakeven point for this season. Funding from gaming societies is becoming more and more difficult to obtain. A question was asked from the group as to possible revenue generation from gate receipts. RR commented that there is a small amount of budgeted revenue from gate receipts as most of the domestic matches are free to the public, however this is a potential option for revenue generation. Further to the finance update, RR advised that the CCA is still in negotiations with the Christchurch, and sponsorship funding from the Casino was not part of the budget and this contract was still under negotiation – ultimately it may increase the bottom line.
Trusts - discussion
BH agreed with RR that from a club perspective it is becoming increasingly difficult to access funding from the gaming societies – which is of concern. PC agreed that is a problem, however thanked CCA for the support with providing cricket balls this season, as this has taken the pressure off clubs somewhat. BS commented that when making an application at the moment the gaming societies ask a lot of questions, and then ask that the application be resubmitted. BS asked the group if there was a solution? RG commented that big ticket items are bring rejected by the gaming societies, and a better option is to apply for smaller amounts to make-up the total required. e.g. Rather than going for 9K in one application, clubs are better to put in three applications for 3K. AJ commented that completing the applications is time-consuming affair.
As a word of caution RR advised that the five major trusts now use a shared database and it is important that all clubs are diligent when applying for funding.
Subs - discussion
RR asked the group what other revenues were used for fund raising. The group commented that between 10% to 50% is raised from the collection of subs. All clubs agreed that there was little revenue generated over the bar. Subs collection is always an issue for clubs, with most clubs having to following up with 50% of members for payment.
RR asked the group what each club set their subs at. From around the group it was evident that all subs were similar across the city. BWU increased their subs this season to fall into line with all other clubs. RG commented that most of the suburban clubs set their subs at under $100, with a small few being over this amount. $150 would be the maximum amount charged by a couple of CSCA Clubs. MP commented that Sydenham have a large number of students. Rep players play subs at some clubs, some clubs don’t charge a sub. PD commented that at ECSCC even rep players play subs.
TL asked the group how much do subs cover the cost of playing cricket? Overall the group commented that cubs would cover less that less than half the cost of running a cricket club. AJ major income comes from Bar, subs, fundraising – trusts.
As far as costs were concerned MP said that the largest costs for clubs are balls, grounds, and cricket equipment. BS commented that the OBC top teams don’t have a gear bag, lower grade teams do have a gear bag, and this is a cost.
BH stated there is a small problem with club revenue across the bar with a lot of lower grade teams bringing beer to the games and drinking it on the sidelines after the match. BH also commented that differing start times also causing problems.
RR commented some things that Club must spend money on, funding slows down, do you budgeting to ensure, real issue that funding. JD subs would be $500 relative to 40 years. RR some costs are a necessity, club coach.
RR concluded by say that this matter will be carried over for further discussion, as it is a topical issues at the moment.
2.2 Playing Conditions, Premier & 1st Grade (Marist CC)
John Durning has requested that this be on the agenda and he will talk to it at the meeting.
JD commented that his club had concerns over the playing time lost rule, and the proviso that mutual consent must be sort from both captains before the start of the match. JD added that potentially two games played on the same day, in the same competition, could play under different playing conditions. There will come a day when this will cause a problem. JD commented that a rule change was made just prior to the start of the competition, and there was little consultation. JD added that this rule does needs to be tidied up.
RR replied on behalf of the CCA by saying that he excepts part of what JD is saying, however a compromise was sought between the two associations to ratify this rule before the start of the season. RR added that the playing conditions will be reviewed at the end of the first year. RR added that representatives from CCA and CSCA had input into the playing conditions, and the CCAG signed-off on the final draft. There was a rule change to the playing time lost rule, however the CCAG was consulted. RR added that there was a captains meeting prior to the start of the season to communicate the rules and playing conditions to all concerned.
RG commented that the playing conditions could have been sold to all concerned if the CCA/CSCA was allowed the due process. RG did agree that communication was not the best.
RR asked the group how the competitions going, from a club perspective, and also asked for feedback from any players?
PC commented that the club is happy with the competition. BS had similar feedback as PC. BH said that the BWU CC was not happy. AJ happy at the moment. MP commented that the Sydenham team is playing negative cricket, and really doing their best not to get last. MD commented that winning the competition is the focus for the club, and overall the club is happy with the comp. PD commented that the players are really enjoying the 2-day comp, and regards the 1-day competition the senior team was disappointed in the strength of some of the teams. PD added that ECSCC are going to struggle a little with team strength when the rep players are on rep duty. JD not getting a bat in the middle order. 1-day games making them aware of the gap. Philosophy. Very distinct 3 strong sides, 3 weak sides. 3 sides Marist & BWU, no impact on the comp. RG commented that the CSCA teams have enjoyed the two new teams in the competition. RG conceded that a couple of clubs are struggling..
2.3 Ground & Pitch Feedback
CCA Turf Advisor
Russell Wylie has continued his excellent work from last season, visiting clubs and schools pre-season to offer advice on spring renovation work, as well as ‘in season’ follow-up visits.
All clubs and schools visited by Russell receive a verbal report from Russell, and in most cases a written report is also sent. 39 visits have been completed by Russell up to this point in the season.
Table 1 Summary of Turf Advisor Visits:
Club/School/Park (Number of Visits, Report Written)
Burnside Oval 2 1
Hagley Oval 2
Middleton Grange 1 1
SBHS 1 1
Garrick Park 2 1
St Thomas 1 1
Elmwood Park 4 1
Sydenham Park 3 1
CBHS 4 1
Malvern Park 1 1
Porritt Park 1 1
Middleton Park 3 1
Woolston Park 1
Beckenham Park 3 1
Ashburton Domain 2 1
Rang Rec Ground 6 1
St Andrews 1 1
Cashmere HS 1 1
Total 39 16
Cover Inspections
Russell has also completed a round of inspections of club covers. Feedback has been provided where required.
Outfield Cutting
There have been a number of concerns raised by club that the cutting of outfields by City Care has been sporadic and inconsistent. A meeting was recently held between CCA, CSCA and Ian Jackson from the Christchurch City Council to address the concerns raised.
Ian advised that there were a number of issues with the work done by City Care at the start of the cricket season, with machinery breakdown and illness contributing to a delay is some parks being cut at the time of the spring flush. Ian advised that these problems have now been resolved.
Autumn Renovation ‘Critical’
The CCA, with the assistance of clubs and schools, and the work of Russell, have made some significant gains this season regarding the quality of pitches and playing surfaces, however the critical time to make the greatest improvements is at Autumn Renovation time.
Russell will be visiting each club and school before the end of the season to ensure that each ground staff has a plan in place for renovation work at the end of the season. The renovation work varies depending on the use of the field over the winter period, however it is critical that the correct treatments are completed.
Russell will also be reviewing the irrigation systems on each of the parks during this period.
Table 2. Pitch Reports (Captains)
Number of report received 79
‘Overall Assessment’
1st Grade Women
Very Poor Not up to standard Satisfactory Good Excellent Total
2+ 11 4 3 20
NUS+ Elmwood 3. Anna Wilkins. Wrong pitch used.
NUS+ Hagley 4. Anna Wilkins.
Premier Men
Very Poor Not up to standard Satisfactory Good Excellent Total
2* 2* 11 17 3 35
VP* Burwood 1 (25/10). Warren Wisneski. DM discussed with ECS & OBC
VP* Rang Rec Ground. Grant Elliot. DM discussed with RW & PD
NUS* Burwood 1 (25/10). Jason Pawson. DM discussed with ECS & OBC
NUS* Rang Rec Ground. Scott Wilson. DM discussed with RW & PD
1st Grade Men
Very Poor Not up to standard Satisfactory Good Excellent Total
1^ 1^ 6 6 4 18
VP^ Rawhiti Domain. Simon Bell. PC, DM, RW visited and followed-up with club.
NUS^ Burnside. C Dockrill. DM followed-up with groundsman
Other
Very Poor Not up to standard Satisfactory Good Excellent Total
5 1 6
Total numbers as a percentage of the total reports received
Very Poor Not up to standard Satisfactory Good Excellent
3.8 6.3 41.8 35.4 12.7
DM added that the focus of RW for the second half of the season will be on clubs planning autumn renovation treatments. DM added that these treatments are critical to the improvement wickets for the 05/06 season.
2.4 Club 20/20
I have spoken to four Club Chairman of you in relation to this, and all have endorsed the concept. Some/all of you will be aware of the huge success this format of the game has been in England and South Africa. The opening game of the Australian tour is a 20/20 international, being the first of its type in the world. It is also likely that there will be a domestic representative competition commencing 05/06. We are considering playing a club 20/20 competition, proposed dates late Jan 05/mid Mar 05. Some thoughts for you to consider and come armed with a point of view.
- Best day of the week to play it on…Monday @ 5.00/5.30?
- Centralised venue…Hagley, Burwood, Burnside?
- Issues around pitch availabilities?
- Number of teams..8 CCA, CSCA, Canterbury Country?
RR commented that he has spoken to 5 or 6 club chairman who all like the idea in principle. The match format would be 11 players per side with each team batting for 20 overs maximum. May have a sponsor. Late Jan, early Feb. 5 or 6 week period. Monday night may be the best option. Centralised venue. There is still an amount of operational detail, but this could be worked through. Number of teams 8 – 12? RR added that it is likely that there will be a Domestic 20/20 competition next summer. RR commented that Canterbury County will not be available because of Hawke Cup commitments.
The group commented that twilight cricket was very successful in Christchurch, until it died a natural death. The group was generally supportive of the concept, however viewed the competition fitting into the club programme as more of a development level, than senior cricket level. This would take the pressure of senior players to play.
RG stated that CSCA have not discussed this concept at executive level, but it could be an option for a couple of clubs.
MP commented that from a Sydenham Club point of view its sounds like a good concept, and the club would be keen to be involved. MD commented that Ricc would approach the competition with a team derived from 1st grade and 2nd grade - a development team.
RR commented that if the concept was to use the competition as a development level competition, then a selection criteria could be imposed. JD could put a limit on the number of senior players – there could be an off-shoot of 20/20 for secondary school. AJ added that each team may require two secondary school players. The group felt that Monday was potentially the best day, however Sunday could also be an option. RH, on the link to schools, commented that a couple of school teams could be added to the competition. MP commented that it may be best to get the competition started amongst the club teams and then look to increase the team numbers by including school teams.
RR asked the group for comments on venue? JD commented that if all games were to be played at the same venue then Hospital corner could be an option either grass or artificials.
RR thanked the group for their comments, and advised that the final details would be discussed by the CCAG, and the clubs would be advised in due course.
2.5 Venue
As you are all no doubt aware considerable time and effort has been spent on this issue over the recent past. Brian Adams has put, to the Board, a comprehensive paper identifying 3 options. These 3 options are now being put through a feasibility study by an outside consultancy firm and they will report back to the Board, post-Xmas.
The Board will then consider all the ramifications, and they are many and varied, before deciding on a preferred option. This will be then communicated to all stakeholders, hopefully before the end of the season.
AJ, asked if the Chairman’s Group will be consulted before this decision is made?
BA replied that yes the group will be consulted.
2.6 NZ v Australia, Marketing Update (P.Flavell)
Pierre will talk to this at the meeting. The Board have requested a paper at the next meeting (8/12) and we would like to incorporate your comments into this paper.
RR advised that PF would talk about the initiatives for the international programme, essentially fro NZC it was about ‘bums on seats’. PF said that the CCA were approaching ticket sales from a clubs perspective. Sell tickets via the clubs. Confirmed. Thrus/Friday ‘children’s day’, and the CCA would like clubs to focus attention of feed schools for your club. Friday – Lincoln/UC ‘student day’. Sat/Sun ‘family day’.
PF commented that he will be in touch with clubs to discuss the planned promotional arrangements and the financial benefit to the clubs. MP allocated areas for the Sunday for each club. Might be easer for clubs to sell tickets that way.
RR also added that the NZC Hero’s campaign would be run again this summer with tickets being given away to volunteers who supported the game at club and school level over the past season.
PF added that the CCA hoped to confirm Mark Nicholas as the speaker for the CCA Dinner during the test match weekend. PF would discuss the options of Clubs selling tables and the incentives on offer.
BH commented that the BWUCC have their centenary celebrations on the test match weekend, and the club would like to fit in with the CCA’s arrangements. RR said that this request would be catered for, and for BH to get in touch with PF to discuss possible arrangements.
2.7 PF Coverpoint.
PF commented that Coverpoint will be re-released in the New Year, and it will be in Hardcopy as well as electronic via the CCA Website.
2.8 Code of Conduct - Summary of Hearings
DM circulated a summary of the code of conduct hearing held thus far, and talked to each of the hearings. DM added that the COC system seems to be working well, and with the appointment of Richard McGuire as the 4th CCA Commissioners, the workload of the commissioners will be more evenly shared.
PC commented that from the LPW CC point of view the club has been disappointed with the behaviour of its players. PC added that all senior players have been spoken to, and team Captains have been asked to ensure that discipline is maintained - overall LPW very disappointed with the start to the season.
RG commented that citings need to come via the club i.e. on club letterhead - non-umpire controlled matches
RR asked the group for their comments on RG suggestion. The group generally agreed that COC reports should be written on club letterhead, and be sent via a club official. RR commented that he will discuss this matter with the CCAG, with the view to make an amendment to the Code of Conduct for next season.
BH commented that one disappointing aspect of the process was the lateness of notification of the decision, in particular, as this impacts on team selections. DM commented that in most instances the CCA attempt to convene a hearing as soon as possible following the incident, however with having to notify all concerned this means that Wednesday is unusually the earliest that a hearing can be convened. DM added that in every instance the CCA tries to keep all involved informed of proceedings.
BA commented that it appears that the difficulty of convening a hearing is because of the need to have two commissioners. He added that if the process only required one commissioner, then surly it would be a great deal easier to convene a hearing ASAP. RR replied to BA, by commented that the CCA process has no right of appeal (Only NZC can appeal the penalty), and it is considered that if two commissioners sit on each hearing the correct decision will be made.
MP commented that Clubs should also look to sanction players who offend on the field, as this would be add support to the COC process. RR support this statement, but cautioned that the because the CCA is the controlling body, then clubs must respect the COC process, and not try to handle matters internally.
Table 3. Summary of Code of Conduct hearing – 16 Oct – 13 Nov 2004
Name of player/Official Offence Match Date Hearing Date Commissioners Penalty
Wade Cornelius Offensive language & dissent 16 October 2004 21 October 2004 Peter Doody & Lee Robinson 1 Playing day
James Winstanley Dissent 25 October 2004 28 October 2004 Peter Doody & Lee Robinson Written censure
Nathan Tarami Assault 13 November 2004 15 November 2004 Peter Doody & Lee Robinson 3 Playing days
Mark Hastings Dissent 13 November 2004 18 November 2004 Mark Bond, Peter Doody & Richard McGuire Written censure
Rory Oliver Verbal abuse and offensive language 13 November 2004 18 November 2004 Mark Bond, Peter Doody & Richard McGuire 1 Playing day
Rodney Hooper Offensive language 13 November 2004 18 November 2004 Mark Bond, Peter Doody & Richard McGuire Written censure
Results & Reporting System (LPW CC)
Peter Crowhen has asked that this be on the agenda and will talk to it at the meeting.
PC commented that the LPWCC results convenor is having some minor problems with the results entry system, and if DM was aware of this?
DM replied that there have been a few teething problems with the system, and that it was year 1 for the system. He added that he had spoken to the LPWCC results convenor, and was working through the problems that had been encountered.
2.10 Club Cricket Advisory Group (Sydenham CC)
Michael Pearcy has asked that this be on the agenda and will talk to it at the meeting.
MP commented that he doesn’t want to revisit the new competitions, etc, but thinking of the future asked the question: is the CCAG becoming obsolete? MP added that with the combined competition, there is a need for a wider group to comment on Christchurch club cricket issues. MP added that a group that is more representative of the club involved should be set-up to make decisions relating to the competitions, particularly with the movement of teams up and down in the promotion/relegation competitions.
RR replied that the CCAG serves a very important purpose in making recommendations on club cricket matter, in particular rule changes and amendments and also setting the playing schedule for the season. RR added that RG sits on this group and provides representation from the CSCA clubs who are involved in any of the CCA competitions, or the CSCA/CCA combined competition.
RG added that he is very in touch with the CSCA clubs, and puts their views forward to the CCAG when appropriate.
RR commented that the CCAG are non-representative group, and not suppose to represent their clubs views. RR added that if there was a representative from each of the clubs involved in the competitions, and then the group would be too large to achieve anything of significance with respect to rule changes and the running of the competitions. TL supported RR’s commented by adding that there use to be a club representative group that made decisions relating to club cricket, and there were two major flaws with this group, the first being that with 20-odd people sitting around a table it was very difficult to reach consensus, and also there would be different club representatives sitting at each meeting, which meant that the previous meeting’s discussion would be new to a number of the participants. RG added that the CSCA endeavour to get a fair represent the CSCA views, were trying to create a forum where we get their views. RG commented that Clubs and senior players often had differences of opinion, and it is important that clubs seek the opinion of their players.
Player Transfers (Old Boys Collegians CC)
Brian Spear has asked that this be on the agenda and will talk to it at the meeting.
BS commented that as per Rule 9. any player who is an un-financial position within the club is not allowed to play for another club. BS felt that this rule was no longer being enforced, as there are players who have left the OBC club and who are not financial.
DM commented that the CCA will enforce the rule if required, and if an un-financial player plays for another club, then points will be removed. It is important that clubs communicate the transfer of players to the club concerned, particularly if a player is in an un-financial position
3.0 General Business
BH commented ton the replacement of players rule, and if the maximum of two could be increased to three? DM commented that he will raise this matter with the CCAG for the end of season review meeting.
AJ asked as to the allocation to clubs of CCA scholarship players for the 2005 intake. RH advised that he has been very impressed with the quality if applicants for the new intake, with 11 of the 12 scholars being Cantabrians. RH added that are number are Canterbury Age group representatives and are also attached to clubs. MH commented that he will advise of the allocations ASAP.
MP commented that it is important that the clubs are involved in the process, so that the club’s requirements are filled.
AJ asked re the 4th grade men’s competition, and if any thought had been given to removing the bye from this competition?
DM replied that both Canterbury Country and Mid Canterbury had been approached re a team to join the competition, however the response for both competitions have not been positive at this stage. In discussions with RG it is likely that there will be a number of matches in the New Year from against CSCA teams, however the details of these matches are yet to be confirmed.
AJ asked if the CCA had any long term Shifts of clubs strategic plan for the number of clubs in Metro Christchurch, and if consideration has been given to the North West area. RR commented that the CCA can’t force a clubs to merge, however there are too many cricket clubs in Christchurch, and a lot of doubling of resources.
RG commented from a CSCA viewpoint that there has been no formal discussion re amalgamation between the two associations, however the CSCA sees the need to link into coaching and development programmes, and other resources that the CCA has to offer – indoor training, etc. Process we need to work through with all our stakeholders.
With no further business, RR thanked all for their attendance and officially called the meeting closed at 8.45pm.