Members Forum - 2 June

[stewyww]

They are putting it online 'today' - lots of talk about '200' and some explanation given.

Questions about contracts - 'some are on the table'

It was less antagonistic than I expected given the comments on here.

Good reason for that. I realised it wasn't worth taking part. As the questions are already filtered, the whole thing would be stage managed with lots of congratulatory slaps on the back for the committee and no opportunity to ask awkward questions on the night.
I emailed a question earlier in the day about why crowds would be reduced on days 2 and 3, and why no crowds on day 4; and I requested a reply by email. Surprise, surprise I have heard nothing.

[essexfan548]

They are putting it online 'today' - lots of talk about '200' and some explanation given.

Questions about contracts - 'some are on the table'

It was less antagonistic than I expected given the comments on here.

Good reason for that. I realised it wasn't worth taking part. As the questions are already filtered, the whole thing would be stage managed with lots of congratulatory slaps on the back for the committee and no opportunity to ask awkward questions on the night.
I emailed a question earlier in the day about why crowds would be reduced on days 2 and 3, and why no crowds on day 4; and I requested a reply by email. Surprise, surprise I have heard nothing.

They did give an 'answer' to that ...

[stewyww]

They are putting it online 'today' - lots of talk about '200' and some explanation given.

Questions about contracts - 'some are on the table'

It was less antagonistic than I expected given the comments on here.

Good reason for that. I realised it wasn't worth taking part. As the questions are already filtered, the whole thing would be stage managed with lots of congratulatory slaps on the back for the committee and no opportunity to ask awkward questions on the night.
I emailed a question earlier in the day about why crowds would be reduced on days 2 and 3, and why no crowds on day 4; and I requested a reply by email. Surprise, surprise I have heard nothing.

They did give an 'answer' to that ...

I take it 'answer' in quotation marks means it wasn't satisfactory?

[essexfan548]

That's down to an individual point of view - I certainly heard some things about the reports required on ground numbers that I did not know before.
Have a listen and see what you think.

[stewyww]

That's down to an individual point of view - I certainly heard some things about the reports required on ground numbers that I did not know before.
Have a listen and see what you think.

Do you have a link for this, please?
I could do with a laugh.

[essexfan548]

It's not online yet ...

[Postman]

More high octane Boris style bluster from our chairman, who took it on himself to say the club had done brilliantly re Covid. Others may disagree. However an appointment of the new CEO seems fairly imminent. If anyone could (a) hear or (b) understand the torrent of jargonised guff from Dan Feist re the 200/600 issue they were doing better than me, but it was designed to lay all the responsibility on the outside authorities rather than the club. I was so fed up by the end that I voted for Messrs Edwards, Solanki and Walters in the election purely to get some new blood in. Far chance I suspect.

[bwildered]

 Members forum now available on Essex website.
Felt like a episode of Line of Duty at times about ground requirements, but generally club has to adhere to authority local and government guidelines regards hosting games. They will not say it  directly, but really, we all have to like it or lump it regards the situation.
Those successful on one day of ballot are not submitted for the next, so giving others chance of success.
News on appointment of CEO very soon. Harmer contracted until end of next season and talks ongoing with Cook and RTD about futures.
Aaron Beard close to fitness, just needs build up some form.
Peter Northfield retires from deputy chairman duties  due to reaching ceiling age of 70 - Best Wishes .
Ravi only playing white ball for Sussex, no we not be resigning him !!

[essexfan548]

https://www.essexcricket.org.uk/2021/06/03/watch-june-members-forum/

Here's the link

[SirChef26]

Talks still ongoing with Cook and RTD? I was under the impression that Cook had been sorted at the start of the season? Doesn't bode well that, suspect he's keeping his options open with his mind on packing it in if we don't make it into Division One.

[stewyww]

Please don't ever again just blame politicians for not answering a straightforward question.
The Essex committee have also got this down to a fine art.
Having been told that my question would be answered at last week's Members Forum, I waited with baited breath.
But no, the years of studying "how to evade the issue" and "circumventing a direct question" have clearly paid off for our beloved committee.
Given my belief that people on this forum are more honourable and decent than those masquerading as officials of MY CRICKET CLUB, I will ask the same question here. It is in two parts and is really quite simple:-
A) Why after allowing 600 fans on day 1 of the Nottinghamshire game, did we then revert back to 200 for days 2 and 3?
B) What was the reasoning in not opening the ground for any spectators for day 4 of either the Warwickshire or Nottinghamshire games, when other counties did?
There, that wasn't too taxing, was it?

[nat]

Please don't ever again just blame politicians for not answering a straightforward question.
The Essex committee have also got this down to a fine art.
Having been told that my question would be answered at last week's Members Forum, I waited with baited breath.
But no, the years of studying "how to evade the issue" and "circumventing a direct question" have clearly paid off for our beloved committee.
Given my belief that people on this forum are more honourable and decent than those masquerading as officials of MY CRICKET CLUB, I will ask the same question here. It is in two parts and is really quite simple:-
A) Why after allowing 600 fans on day 1 of the Nottinghamshire game, did we then revert back to 200 for days 2 and 3?
B) What was the reasoning in not opening the ground for any spectators for day 4 of either the Warwickshire or Nottinghamshire games, when other counties did?
There, that wasn't too taxing, was it?

But you know the answer already.

[stewyww]

Please don't ever again just blame politicians for not answering a straightforward question.
The Essex committee have also got this down to a fine art.
Having been told that my question would be answered at last week's Members Forum, I waited with baited breath.
But no, the years of studying "how to evade the issue" and "circumventing a direct question" have clearly paid off for our beloved committee.
Given my belief that people on this forum are more honourable and decent than those masquerading as officials of MY CRICKET CLUB, I will ask the same question here. It is in two parts and is really quite simple:-
A) Why after allowing 600 fans on day 1 of the Nottinghamshire game, did we then revert back to 200 for days 2 and 3?
B) What was the reasoning in not opening the ground for any spectators for day 4 of either the Warwickshire or Nottinghamshire games, when other counties did?
There, that wasn't too taxing, was it?

But you know the answer already.

Not officially I don't. Only a personal email but not a club statement as such.