Meeting notes from the Club Chairman’s Group

CCA Offices, 23a Iversen Terrace
18 May 2006

(Please note: The italicised items below are the meeting items circulated by Richard Reid prior to the meeting)

Meeting opened at 5.30pm

Present

• Brian Spear (OBC)
• Peter Crowhen (LPW)
• Alan Jamieson (STA)
• Mark Shackleton (BWU)
• Michael Pearcy (Syd)
• John Durning (Mar)
• David Shackleton (CCA Chairman
• Cran Bull (CCA Director) – Arrived 6.16pm
• Trevor Luke (CCA Director)
• Richard Reid (CCA CE)
• Doug McSweeney (CCA)

Apologies

• Brian Adams (CCA President)
• Michael Devine (Ricc)
• Peter Dow (ECSCC)

1.0 Welcome
RR welcomed all in attendance. Richard advised that the meeting agenda had been previously circulated, and for those present without a copy additional copies have been provided. RR advised that food and beverage would be provided shortly.

2.0 Previous Meeting Notes (12/12/05)
RR moved that the meeting notes be approved as a true and accurate record.
Moved PC. Seconded AJ.

3.0 Matters Arising From Previous Meeting Notes (18/05/05)
RR asked if there were any matters arising from the last meeting held on 18 April 2005, aside from those that will be discussed under tonight agenda?

Nil matters arising

4.0 Agenda
4.1FINANCE
As @ 31/3/06 we are reporting that we will exceed budget and post a surplus for 05/06. Debtors (as @ the above date) are a total of $141,084 (of which $89,819) is a sponsorship contracted amount - which has been indicated to us that it will be paid in the next fortnight. Creditors (as @ the above date) were $67,775 and were paid on 27/4/06. The NZC loan (revolving credit line), as indicated previously, has been re-paid & has not have to been activated this financial year.

Discussion
JD asked if anything in particular had led to this turn around? DS - nothing in particular, a number of factors.

4.2 CLUB CRICKET REVIEW Discussion
RR commented that four clubs, at this stage have entered, and he expected all entries by the 24th of May. RR commented on the criteria required, and he expected the first date set to be hit by all clubs.

MR asked what will happen if the criteria is not met? RR commented that the he would seek direction from the Chairman’s group on this. PC commented that it’s a valid point, and if a club fails to meet any one of the criteria, will this effect said club’s eligible to enter a Premier team. AJ commented, that it’s more the spirit of the ‘criteria’, and if any club is not meeting the criteria then they should seek assistance from the CCA. MP commented that the incorporated societies act maybe difficult from some clubs…RR commented that the timelines do reflect the nature of the criteria to be met. JD asked if the CCA confirm that a team manager can be someone from within the Premier Team? RR commented that the short answer is yes? JD asked – what is the intent of the manager? RR replied that the CCA wants team coaches to focus on cricket.

You will, by now, have received the memo in regard to the review conducted by the committee chaired by Brian Adams. I have included a copy in your papers.

In essence the main points are;

• Premier cricket will be an eight team competition for 06/07, 07/08 & 08/09
• Team entries are called for, closing date 24/5/06, confirmation of acceptance 7/6/06

ADMINISTRATION

06/07

• A set of administrative criteria, as per the attached memo

08/09

• A designated club administrator
• A club website

Discussion
PC asked if each club has to have a designated administration… RR commented that in the past the CCA has had to deal a number of people at clubs depending on the issue… and it would be far more effective from the CCA’s point of view if one person is designated as the administrator.

PLAYING

06/07

• A set of playing (administrative) criteria, as per the attached memo

08/09

• Have six men’s teams, defined as Premier, 2nd, 3rd & at least three other men’s teams in other grades
• Have @ least one women’s team

COACHING & DEVELOPMENT

06/07

• Have an appointed club coach

07/08

• Have a written (working) relationship with @ least two schools, one of which shall be a secondary school
• Have @ least one secondary school team in a youth competition
• Have @ least six teams entered in a CJCA (or like) competition

Discussion

RR commented that these teams maybe assigned to a school. RR commented that if any one needs a definition on any of the coaching and development requirements, then don’t hesitate to contact the CCA.

FACILITIES

06/07

• A set of facilities criteria, as per the attached memo

Discussion

RR commented that clubs need to work harder on providing food at clubrooms. BS commented that food at the club is generally a waste of money, as a lot is wasted and thrown out.

COMPETITION FORMATS

Two-Day Cricket

• One round of matches, which @ the completion of the round-robin the competition will be split into a top four & a bottom four
• The top four will carry their points through and the bottom four will start @ zero and effectively will play in a new competition

One-day Cricket

• One round of 50 over cricket. At this stage Canterbury Country have confirmed their entry, it is unlikely that there will be other Districts entered.
• Semi-finals e.g. 1st v 4th & 2nd v 3rd

Twenty/20

• Could you please come the meeting “armed” with your point of view as to how you would like this competition run.
• There is general agreement that it will continue all we have to do is to reach consensus on the format.

Discussion

• RR commented that there will be a growth of the Twenty20 competition at domestic level.

Round the group:

• MP – same format as last season would be good… a planned draw would suit... a mid-week draw as proposed by the CCA. Syd ‘s players liked the concept of setting the date with the opposition.
• PC – Playing a tournament of 2 Sundays. Prefer to see a draw. Could sell the competition if it’s a tournament.
• MS – happy with format – tournament, but opposed to Sunday play if this was a round robin... a tournament on Sunday would be okay.
• JD. Mid week okay. Sunday tournament okay. Not an ongoing Sunday tournament.
• AJ. Would prefer Tuesday night… not Wednesday. Happy to go either way. Draw in advance, and play the games early in the season – more players available, students in town, people keen. Try and keep the interest until the end, rather than a knockout tournament…
• BS. CCA to set draw. Tournament over the Sundays could be a good option… Sell it to players ho cant play on Saturdays.
• TL - maybe play over a weekend – move a Saturday round to a Sunday – Show weekend.
• JD commented that is the team expected to be a senior team? RR commented that it’s up to the clubs playing?

Summary

• RR commented that the CCA will collect some information from ES and Ricc, and then advise clubs accordingly.
• RR commented that the clubs need to canvas players as to Sunday play – in the format of a Tournament?
• RR commented that the CCA would investigate show-weekend as an option, with a round robin format.
• RR competition winner to play in Mid-Canterbury Competition – group agreed that this is a good idea.

4.3 NEW GROUND

As indicated previously there has been progress on this front due to the signing of two agreements with Jade Stadium (JSL)

• One is a Memo of Understanding (MOU) which links JSL as an active partner into the CCA’s pursuit of an alternative venue. This MOU is primarily focused on the writing of a business plan which will then be jointly presented to the Christchurch City Council.
• The signing of a License Agreement which allows for the dissolution of the Victory Park Board (VPB) and clearly spells out the usage (playing, practise & venue hire) for the time prior to the completion of the new venue. This covers off both the CCA’s & NZC’s concerns.
• The process has begun in the writing of a business plan, in conjunction with JSL, this will then be presented to the appropriate parties.

Discussion

DS commented that once the new venue is completed, the CCA will still have rights to JADE, but just as a normal hirer. JADE will be preserved. DS commented that once the development plan is written between the two boards, then we will be in a position to advise stakeholders… it is likely this will not happen before the CCA AGM.

4.4 WOMEN’S CRICKET

Alan Jamieson has indicated that he has some issues with some parts of women’s cricket. Alan will talk to this at the meeting.

PC running age groups is detrimental to the expansion of clubs cricket… look at when club cricket is being played compared to women’s rep cricket.

PC look at a rule for player selection, so that players are not selected for more than one or two rep teams – as this is leading to player burn-out. RR commented that this will be followed-up by the CCA.

4.5 CCA ASSISTANCE TO CLUBS

Alan Jamieson has also raised this as to how/what the CCA may be able to assist the clubs with. Over the last couple of years we have assisted with cricket balls, ground charges (some clubs) & coaching grants.

It is unlikely that we will be able to assist with anything other than coaching grants but am happy to discuss this and see what the clubs points of view are.

Discussion

RR ground charges maybe – TBC. Collection information of information at present, in particular how the CCA operating budget maybe effected, as to what we can and can’t apply for. RR to send some information by the end of June – after the June Board Meeting. RR commented that the CCA would need to know what has been accessed, and from what trusts, so there is not any double dipping.
Balls – no
Coaching grants – Yes, information to be sent out.

MP commented that the CCA should be assisting Marist & BWU with player strength. i.e. allocation of Lincoln Scholars to Marist & BWU. Can the clubs forgo the call on these players, if they are allocated to BWU and Marist, rather than other clubs.

RR commented that Lincoln Scholars are now being selected locally rather than out of town players – they players are already aligned to local clubs.

MP suggested a cricket mentor scheme – assist a club, that may be struggling with administration. RR commented – BWU, Marist, player dept issues. MS commented that it will fall on the Club to find the players, and relying on Lincoln Scholars would not be a good option. MP commented that if you can induce out of town players to stay in Christchurch over the holidays by giving them a flat, etc, then the players will stay. JD – some clubs have better intelligence of players who are coming to town – a heads up would be of great assistance. Lincoln Scholarship would be of assistance. A transfer window in October may be of benefit.

RR commented that the possibility to extend the transfer window until 1 November rather than 1 October… would this solve the problem?? AJ commented that this could be the solution.. likes the idea.

4.6 E-MAIL COMMUNICATION (from CCA)

Peter Crowhen has raised this and will speak to it at the meeting.

Discussion

PC commented that if there is time specific, that the information should be sent as fast as possible. The group commented that generally the communication is excellent.

4.7 CRICKET BELOW PREMIER

It is the CCA’s point of view that there need to be uniformity with Premier Grade with 2nd & 3rd Grades.

In short this means an eight team competitions in these grades. This has significant upside with issues such as draws, grounds, transfers of players between grades, etc. Please can you give this some thought between now & the meeting as we will debate at the meeting.

Further to the above the CCA has significant issues with clubs entering teams in various grades and not being able to fulfil their obligation to playing in that grade. I am aware that LPW 3rd’s were significantly disadvantaged last season.

Discussion

• BS. Can another team enter that is a non-premier club enter? Club selection policy lends itself to allowing when rep players move up.
• RR commented - Not at this stage.
• AJ. Commented that’s it is a great idea = 3x8. Allows an equalisation scheme with players.
• JD. Theory is great.. 3rd grade is a challenge.
• MS. Great.
• PC. Great. Would solve the problems with 3rd grade… defaults with two teams in the same grade.
• MP. Agree. Syd have had 2 3rd grade teams – re activating a after 2-day grade… any interest around the table? Start a 1pm - TL CB, schools with teams should play in 2nd grade, etc

It is incumbent on all clubs that should they enter a team in a competition that it is a commitment (not only to their own club but to all cricketers in Christchurch) and they should honour this commitment.

We will be sending out prior to the meeting (or tabling at the meeting) some information as to club defaults over the 05/06 season. This is not designed to embarrass clubs but simply to have the information available so that we can, as a group, make an informed decision.

The CCA will be looking hard at teams entered in lower grades and will seek clarification, should we think it is required, as to the legitimacy of some teams that are entered. Please can you ensure that should clubs be entering teams that they have enough players available to cover any eventuality.

Discussion

RR circulated a copy of defaults over the season. AJ commented that it is often the clubs that have pre-organised teams, rather than teams that are selected by the clubs.

RR players who want a game of cricket… website. Instituting penalties for defaults – Petersen Shield

Website Transfer

DM commented as to the website plan for the coming season. Players can log in and register if they are looking for a game in a particular weekend... Should be beneficial.

Penalties - Defaults

• MP – thinks monetary fines are a good option… maybe the fine is paid to the club defaulted to.
• PC – take points off the season team. Petersen Shield. Fine is $300. PC – three defaults and you are out!
• MS – Petersen Shield points… monetary fine… not convinced… how would it be collected – only after 12noon on a Friday.
• JD – afternoon – fine, top grades Petersen Shield. Deducting points off the senior side.
• AJ – no fine by mid-day on a Friday – monetary fine… lose points rather than not getting points. Don’t agree with the Petersen Shield.
• BS – nothing by mid-day on Friday – against a fine... movement of players need to be considered..

RR to circulate possible penalties to all concerned.

4.8 CCA CONTRACTED PLAYERS

Although the agreements between NZC, MA’S & the CPA have yet to be finalised I can report that it will be a stipulation, within the contract, that contracted domestic players will have to indicate by 1/9 (in any given year) what club and/or District they will be playing for.

I am happy to answer any questions that you may have at the meeting re these negotiations.

Discussion

• RR NZ contracts x 20 – 1 June
• CCA Contracts x 12 – 15 July

4.9 STATE CANTERBURY WIZARDS

Clearly we have had a reasonably successful year. I would be interested as to your perceptions of how Dave Nosworthy has related to clubs, and in particular with your club coaches.

• BS – Personally very good to deal with. Demands a professional approach. 2 wins is better than we have had for a while.
• AJ – Not a lot to do with Dave over the season. Very friendly, etc.
• JD – May not have appeared on his radar.
• MS – have not met the coach at this point.
• MP – can’t really comment – Mike Shrimpton is away at present.

DS – from the boards point of view – refreshing and very professional – very impressed.
CB – has a vision – which is excellent – great planning.

AJ commented that we maybe losing a number of experienced players over the next couple of season – what is the CCA solution to this? CB provinces have cycles... it will take a couple of seasons to build up – don’t want to buy players... it will be a young team for the next couple of seasons. There is a plan in place – DS – strategic plan over the next 5 years. DN is looking at all levels. Looking at the succession plan, etc

JD – is there any way the clubs can see a sanitised version of Dave’s plan – the naming of the wider squad… it would be good to get this information at this point. RR would the AGM be a good timeframe to get this information?? JD yes!

4.9.1 CCA AGM

The AGM is confirmed for 23/8/06. It will not be at the CCA offices and I will inform all as to where it will be held closer to the time. We will shortly be sending out a timeline which will cover off all issues to do with the AGM. During the week prior we will be holding our customary stakeholders meeting.

Discussion

AJ – has Brian term finished? DS yes. Is there a name? who is appropriate?? DS if anyone has any ideas, please forward to RR.

14. General Business

• 14.1 MP – CCAG? Club has got a serious problem… CCAG drawing to an end.
• 14.2 PC – Nil
• 14.3 MS – Nil
• 14.4 JD – Nil
• 14.5 AJ – OBC constitution AGM?
• 14.6 BS – Funding, any support would be appreciated. Telecom – free credit on phone line.
• 14.7 DM – Copy of points – Available – DM to circulate.

Start date of clubs cricket – Ultimately the CCAG will make this decision, but would appreciate feedback??? The group commented that Sunday 1 October would be the preferred day – MP commented that pitch preparations could be a concern for this early start date.

With no further business - meeting closed: 7:51pm