AGM

Joined: 02 Jul 2014, 19:18

19 Mar 2017, 12:31 #71

Brilliantly summarised Brickyard.
I think the club is in very safe hands with our current chairman.
A question for those that went, did the agm change your view point on anything of note or did it reinforce your viewpoint?
Reply
Like

Joined: 07 Jan 2017, 09:51

19 Mar 2017, 13:01 #72

Brilliantly summarised Brickyard.
I think the club is in very safe hands with our current chairman.
sooty-yorkie1:

"A question for those that went, did the agm change your view point on anything of note or did it reinforce your viewpoint".

I am not a fan of T20 as many on this forum will be only too well aware. Consequently, before yesterday I was resistant to any further expansion. Particularly, I had seen it as a threat to what i call "real cricket".

After the meeting, I now understand the rationale behind the proposal; that an alternative income stream has to be identified and I am reasonably assured that the expansion is predicated on the basis of securing the future of all types of cricket. My antipathy has, as a result, been overcome and dependent upon the nature of the final deal, I would now support it. I guess that the journey which I have made replicates that taken by the YCCC Board.

With regard to the N/Stand development I now understand what is going on, and see no alternative to the direction which the Board is taking. I just hope that it is successful.

"The old order changeth, yielding place to new; and God fulfils in many ways lest one good custom should destroy the world". (Or something like that!)
Reply
Like

Joined: 20 Aug 2013, 11:26

19 Mar 2017, 13:11 #73

Brilliantly summarised Brickyard.
I think the club is in very safe hands with our current chairman.
In answer to Sootie-yorkies question.

It did not change my point of view at all. We should not, IMO, be going further in to debt and also still not convinced that crowds for the new tournament will be any greater than for the existing T20 comp. We do not need the new stand, crowds of 13500 (I think - the current capacity without the stand) will be the maximum we will get IF we get a franchise, which of course we will not if we do not find 16.5M from somewhere. Another factor is the tv rights. Yes it could be a fantastic income source, but conversely it will impact on live "crowds" and match day income streams, especially if it is on a non-subscription channel. It just might not be the "money-spinner" the ECB seem to think it will be.

The debate may all be pointless anyway, as the likely hood of us finding someone to lend us a further 16.5m is pretty remote.
Reply
Like

Joined: 02 Jul 2014, 19:18

19 Mar 2017, 13:17 #74

Brilliantly summarised Brickyard.
I think the club is in very safe hands with our current chairman.
Stu, i don't think that the franchise is dependant on the ground being upgraded, but test matches.

Do you not think there will be greater numbers watching on tv, if as above, if its put on domestic tv and that we'll get greater income from that?
Reply
Like

Joined: 20 Aug 2013, 11:26

19 Mar 2017, 13:23 #75

Brilliantly summarised Brickyard.
I think the club is in very safe hands with our current chairman.
Sootie Yorkie.

It was stated at the AGM, that we would not get a franchise or International matches without the new stand. Not quite sure how correct that is though.

TV rights could mean less attending the ground so less income on the day, but obviously more income from the tv deal, so maybe in the end about the same as now. Any tv deal would be a fixed amount, paid in advance and would not be dependant on the number watching at home, but could knock 3 or 4000 of the ground attendance.
Reply
Like

Joined: 02 Jul 2014, 19:18

19 Mar 2017, 15:24 #76

Brilliantly summarised Brickyard.
I think the club is in very safe hands with our current chairman.
Fair enough, i didn't go to the agm. Its just been stated as international cricket in the press.


t could be but then is aimed at those who more follow cricket than are big supporters. I think virtually all sports that have signed up to big TV deals have done better financially from it. This could bring in less, but i doubt it.
Reply
Like

Joined: 14 Aug 2007, 12:51

19 Mar 2017, 23:21 #77

Brilliantly summarised Brickyard.
I think the club is in very safe hands with our current chairman.
It sounds as if Mr.Denison has done a very efficient job of echoing the ECB position.
Reply
Like

Joined: 13 Jan 2015, 19:59

20 Mar 2017, 06:41 #78

Brilliantly summarised Brickyard.
I think the club is in very safe hands with our current chairman.
Unfortunately, I didn't attend the AGM. However, with the help of this forum, I do feel I've got a grasp of the issues.

When it boils down to it....

18 Cricket Clubs can't attract enough income from paying customers & media deals. So, they decide to create 8 more Cricket Clubs (to make 26) to solve the problem.

I just can't get behind that plan I'm afraid.

Phil
Reply
Like

Joined: 13 Jan 2015, 19:59

20 Mar 2017, 06:46 #79

Brilliantly summarised Brickyard.
I think the club is in very safe hands with our current chairman.
BrickyardBoy

Thanks for sharing the information about Michael's bequest to the Club. I worked with Michael from 1993 until he retired. I choked up when I read your report. What a thing for the Silly Old Goat to do. Salute.

Phil
Reply
Like

Joined: 30 Jun 2016, 07:30

20 Mar 2017, 10:08 #80

Brilliantly summarised Brickyard.
I think the club is in very safe hands with our current chairman.
Phil - come on, you know full well that's not the situation. 8 new teams playing in a completely new tournament. Do you honestly believe that won't attract further income?
Reply
Like