M Fleming on the English PCA meeting: No skirting the main issues (16 May 1998)

16 May 1998

No skirting the main issues

By Matthew Fleming

THE Professional Cricketers' Association's annual meeting at Edgbaston on Monday was not an exercise in sabre-rattling and, contrary to the belief of some, I am not William Wallace, though there are a few in authority I would dearly love to raise my kilt to.

It was instead a meeting attended partly out of a sense of frustration, but mostly out of a deep sense of responsibility and desire to see our game and association flourish.

Throughout March and April David Graveney, our chief executive, visited each county to discuss the situation that we, and English cricket, are in. The players, therefore, were aware of the main points for discussion.

There were three areas on which we concentrated: the future of the County Championship and the desirability of a two-divisional format, the need to replace or adapt the current registration regulations and the PCA's requirement for greater funding.

The advance notice of the meeting carried a very balanced report prepared for the PCA on a divisional structure for first-class cricket. There were equally thorough documents for discussion covering the PCA's proposal to replace the List 1 and List 2 registration rules and the PCA's entitlement to a fair share of the game's revenue.

Some have questioned our right to hold this meeting, and/or discuss the format of the game that employs us as individuals and has created us as an association. To them I definitely grasp the hem of my kilt. We are not just pawns in this magnificent game, we are its main asset. We had thousands of hours of experience between us at Edgbaston and were united by a desire to improve English cricket.

We are determined that the players must have, and will have some constructive input into the game. We were consulted last year about Raising the Standard, a document that ultimately had little or no relevance to the format of the current County Championship and yet were not consulted about the proposal which was finally voted on by the counties. We tried to make the Murray Report work, and because we are professionals we will try to make the new format work. But please do not ignore or question the rights of an association of sportsmen who are asked to play in a system that the vast majority consider illogical and flawed.

Eighty-four per cent of the votes cast were in favour of a two-divisional structure, though we were undecided about its format. All we want is a system which gives us the best chance of playing the highest quality and most competitive cricket possible.

On the issue of List 1 and List 2 registration, 93 per cent of the votes were in favour of changing the system. The PCA's proposal, based on a loan system and the principle of freedom of movement at the end of a contract for those aged 25 and over (thus enabling the counties to invest in young players yet stopping the prospect of a restriction of trade), was deemed not to be the perfect solution, so we will go back to our members in the near future to find a better solution to this and the divisional structure.

Our desire to bring increased funding to the association received 100 per cent support from our members. There is so much we should be doing and can't. We should have been able to help immediately in the tragic cases of Jamie Hood and Winston Davies. The players' medical insurance, though vastly improved, is still inadequate. Our ability to train and educate players for a life after cricket is limited; it would cost us more than £300,000 to get everyone to an adequate level of computer literacy. We should be able to establish a hardship fund for those who may need it. There is more we should be doing in the community and in the schools.

We meet, not because we are irresponsible troublemakers, but because we care. It is because we care that we will continue to knock on those doors which have remained stubbornly closed until we can help to get English cricket back where it belongs.

Source :: Electronic Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk)