Essex Outfielder : The Unofficial Essex CCC Forum
Off-Topic => In The Hut => Topic started by: Observer on September 14, 2013, 11:49:51 AM
-
I am totally bemused at the closure of the official club forum, in my view, is just another poor decision made by the management of ECCC, the aim being (in my opinion) to silence criticism of the club by it's members, supporters and the public in general.
Looking back at the forum, historically, all was well until on-field performances started to attract serious adverse comment from persons who used this facility to express (or should we say vent) their views in a very direct way. I would suggest the worst of this occurred circa 18 months ago.
Some posters (there were many) started to attack the club, its structure, committee/management, coaches and even individual players. Some of these views have hence been supported by a number of media outlets/blogs (some links were posted)
The criticism led to a number of, what were deemed inappropriate posts being removed. It was then decided that every post needed to be approved by a moderator before publication, it was made pretty clear that the forum was not designed to comment on said individuals or certain management matters in a negative way.
The decision to approve every post (made by whom?) obviously put a considerable burden on the moderators. This burden was clearly way beyond their duties. I know of no other sports forum that every post has to be approved before it is published.
My view is pretty clear, someone inside the club took a dislike to the criticism made by the members/public at that time. It was then suggested every post had to be approved. From that time the forum was always doomed.
For the record I have attended a number of members forums in the past. They are always broadly the same, that is, we (the management) know best.
My view is that communication between club and it's long suffering members has been seriously diminished by this very short-sighted decision. ECCC has an excellent marketing team, it is rather a pity this excellence does not extend to the on-field decision makers.
-
It's hard to argue with that really.
All they have done now though is given someone else the opportunity to open another forum where views will be aired with no biased moderation from the club. The club, coach and players will still be criticised but now without any censorship from the previous moderators. Bad decision in my book.
The club is in a bad way both on and off of the field at the moment and with no limits to the criticism on the only forum for the club that is not going to improve people's views of the club at all.
-
for the club that is not going to improve people's views of the club at all.
Its not the club others have a poor view of, its the management and their policies.
I fully appreciate this is what you meant to state, but I guess you already knew I would get all pedantic on you after your cruel exposure of my ignorance on England's current one day itinerary. ;D ;)
-
[/quote]
Its not the club others have a poor view of, its the management and their policies.
I fully appreciate this is what you meant to state, but I guess you already knew I would get all pedantic on you after your cruel exposure of my ignorance on England's current one day itinery. ;D ;)
[/quote]
Well in my eyes the management are a large part of the club and therefore go hand in hand.
-
Duty of Care to it's employees was the reason given for the closure of the official forum.
In all fairness the club could have just closed the official forum without notification, so lets hope a good relationship will continue in future, and the club will respect the views of it's supporters.
-
I think off the field the club has declined since the untimely death of Mr Edwards. He was a conservative figure but he did seem to understand that county cricket was in its own right a spectator sport and I believe listened to the members, who after all, as the club is a members club, are its owners. I think he would have understood issues such as car parking and its importance to ensuring good attendances far better than the current regime. I recollect spending some time in his company at a game in Leeds in the mid 1990s (I was resident in Yorkshire at the time and my wide had bought me a day in the committee room as birthday present - Peter was there as a guest of the YCCC committee). He was quite critical of the ground at Ilford. He explained to Sir Laurence Byford that it was "a terrible ground but our members like going there so we have to keep using it".
In retrospect I found that quite a telling comment - we dropped Ilford soon after Mr Edwards' death and of course Southend has now gone too. I suspect most members value festival cricket and would want to see it continue.
I think the forum was uncomfortable for the club - as Gorbachev said you have to have glasnost to get perestroika......
-
The Club could do a lot worse than listen to the views of it's Members who, judging by what is put on the Forum & what they say whilst watching games, can see clearly what is wrong with the playing side anyway, some also will know about the internal workings of ECCC & clearly all is not well there either.
Those who run the Club cannot just blindly do so whilst ignoring the views of many Members plus also others including distinguished journalists etc , whilst we have done better than the last couple of years ie getting to T20 Finals day & second in a strong YB40 Group plus an improved LVCC campaign (albeit still not good enough), we are still not good enough & if we did get promotion this year we would come straight back down as our recruiting is not what is should be & we would probably not have Shah & Tendo until nearly June plus little of Ally & Ravi so would hardly ever if at all field our absolute strongest eleven which we would need to do consistently.
-
I can tell you that amongst the committee members, there was a view that the forum was not representative, as they thought it was just a handful of people posting. My argument was always that no matter how small a number of people were posting (and I disagree that it was only a handful) they were representative of what others were thinking.
I have to be careful what I say as no doubt those who lurked on the official forum will be lurking on here too, but most of the complaints about the board came from one particular individual...although of course they won't be able to get stuff removed on here like they did on the official forum! ;)
-
No forum such as this is truly representative, since the contributors are self-selected. However, none of us can have any idea of how influential or otherwise it is, since the lurkers, by definition, don't contribute. There's also the view that only the discontented put fingers to keyboard! Often, anyway.
Surely Claire, it was easy to determine how many were signed up to the old board.
Take the point about the one individual. Maybe we were too near the truth when discussing something that individual has an interest in!
Take the point, too, about "duty of care" to employees but these employees are, professionally anyway, in the public eye. No-one, so far as I recall made any comment about members of staff's private lives except to express concern over what seemed to be unfortunate events.
-
Surely Claire, it was easy to determine how many were signed up to the old board.
Around 1400 I believe.
-
Surely Claire, it was easy to determine how many were signed up to the old board.
Around 1400 I believe.
One didn't have to be signed up to "read only", though! Anyone any idea of the number of lurkers? I realise that's an almost impossible question!
-
Surely Claire, it was easy to determine how many were signed up to the old board.
Around 1400 I believe.
One didn't have to be signed up to "read only", though! Anyone any idea of the number of lurkers? I realise that's an almost impossible question!
I've been informed that there was circa 1400 signed up members. I don't know if there is any record of "guests", although there was 3000 redirected hits from the ECCC website last month.
-
Actually, you did have to be a member to read the forum, following some unpleasantness a couple of years back. So there were 1400 members (a figure that was growing) and there was software to ensure people couldn't sign up more than once.
-
There's also the view that only the discontented put fingers to keyboard! Often, anyway.
That was definitely true on the old message board.
You could tell that by the number of posts after a bad performance/defeat compared to those after a good performance/win.
-
There's also the view that only the discontented put fingers to keyboard! Often, anyway.
That was definitely true on the old message board.
You could tell that by the number of posts after a bad performance/defeat compared to those after a good performance/win.
Some had actually been at the game, too!
-
I can tell you that amongst the committee members, there was a view that the forum was not representative,
I presume that what they meant was, the forum wasn't representative of their views.
but most of the complaints about the board came from one particular individual...
I don't suppose by any chance this particular individual happens to share the surname of a comedian from a 1970's sitcom.
NB. There's no prizes for guessing by my input to this forum that there isn't much transpiring in the cricket or antique world at the moment ;D
-
I don't suppose by any chance this particular individual happens to share the surname of a comedian from a 1970's sitcom.
It has to be said that the desire to close down the OMB can be traced back to the days of David East's tenure. However, the will to actualise that never transpired until the new broom was put in place.
-
the club were very accommodating in having a forum that allowed certain criticism to b fair. it was their forum after all, they could do what they wanted. however in going to the trouble of having a forum, it was annoying that it was undermined by it being heavily moderated and some subjects being never posted by certain people, and a distinct inconsistency in what was allowed and by which posters.
for example criticism of non playing nigel, and the fact his tenure has correlated with a malaise was never allowed. and highlighting the non playing staff costs at the club.
likewise the whole kaneria affair. i think i had to pm a member (galboy maybe?) with information on this (maybe under a previous guise, as the admin were often keen to find out who was who), as my post on the subject was either heavily edited or removed after posting, meaning a message stream made know sense...i was revealing why a certain player was released, yet it wasnt allowed on the board despite it being true, however i was vindicated by what was allowed to be aired in public eventually.
hopefully an unofficial forum will out the truth.
-
I can tell you that amongst the committee members, there was a view that the forum was not representative,
I presume that what they meant was, the forum wasn't representative of their views.
but most of the complaints about the board came from one particular individual...
I don't suppose by any chance this particular individual happens to share the surname of a comedian from a 1970's sitcom.
NB. There's no prizes for guessing by my input to this forum that there isn't much transpiring in the cricket or antique world at the moment ;D
Clearly the Committee both cricket and General wear seriously tinted spectacles. I, as you will probably have guessed, drink regularly in the orange tree. On any Froday night, there are between 5-20 members of ECCC in the pub. I speak to all of them regularly, and I can assure you, the forum was indeed representative of the general view. None of these other members posted on the old forum to my knowledge, yet they all shared the following opinions:
1. The committee was fairly clueless and the old CEO should have been sacked, not allowed to resign.
2. The coach had become stale and needed either replacing or some major assistance
3. Our player recruitment policy has been appalling in terms of both domestic and o'sea in recent years.
4. The beer at the ECG is also appalling and something needs to be done about it.
5. The price for membership was not VFM for working members
6. Fossie should be asked to relenquish one day captaincy and concentrate on being a world class keeper for the remainder of his career.
by closing the moderated forum, ECCC have uncovered the hornets nest.
Squareleg will hopefully find willing volunteers to serve on the committee with the ability to bring about change, and now unmoderated anti club comments can be aired.
it's going to get very interesting.
-
"Squareleg will hopefully find willing volunteers to serve on the committee with the ability to bring about change, and now unmoderated anti club comments can be aired."
I'd be willing to stand for the committee but only if several other like minded (reform agenda) members did so too. We'd need a putsch of the committees to effect any change.
-
I'd be willing to stand for the committee but only if several other like minded (reform agenda) members did so too. We'd need a putsch of the committees to effect any change.
The problem of a committee all thinking alike is that outsiders ideas are quashed as they are not in line with committees thoughts.
-
I'd be willing to stand for the committee but only if several other like minded (reform agenda) members did so too. We'd need a putsch of the committees to effect any change.
The problem of a committee all thinking alike is that outsiders ideas are quashed as they are not in line with committees thoughts.
And the problem is ...?
That's why I have always favoured benevolent dictatorship.
-
"Squareleg will hopefully find willing volunteers to serve on the committee with the ability to bring about change, and now unmoderated anti club comments can be aired."
I'd be willing to stand for the committee but only if several other like minded (reform agenda) members did so too. We'd need a putsch of the committees to effect any change.
I don't think, from what I hear that EVERONE needs to go. In any event there are only three seats in any given year.
If anyone wants to volunteer, as last year I'm happy to collate details.. squarelegumpire@btinternet.com
Discretion assured.
-
There is a, now unofficial unofficial Essex CCC forum. It was created just after the 20 all out.
There is little traffic. The member who created it should not have almost exclusively tried to recruit the 45+ mummy boys who sit in the River Stand for LVCC matches.
-
...The member who created it should not have almost exclusively tried to recruit the 45+ mummy boys who sit in the River Stand for LVCC matches.
How do you know? Do they discuss Waltham Forest FC and the times of trains to Colchester?
-
"Squareleg will hopefully find willing volunteers to serve on the committee with the ability to bring about change, and now unmoderated anti club comments can be aired."
I'd be willing to stand for the committee but only if several other like minded (reform agenda) members did so too. We'd need a putsch of the committees to effect any change.
I don't think, from what I hear that EVERONE needs to go. In any event there are only three seats in any given year.
If anyone wants to volunteer, as last year I'm happy to collate details.. squarelegumpire@btinternet.com
Discretion assured.
Actually there are a total of 5 places each year (on a 3 year cycle). However this year NOBODY is due to retire...Graham Saville's birthday is after the cut off date and I believe he will stand for another term, so any candidate has to get enough support to unseat a sitting member...and two of the sitting committee members this year are former players who get elected come what may, even if they have presided over a season that featured 20 all out.
I'll confess to a vested interest, as if I decide to continue, I'm one of the 5 up for re-election this year...tbh I'm fed up that in the intervening years nobody stands, but every third year there's a ballot and I have to run the gauntlet...with 2 places guaranteed to go to Graham Saville and Ronnie Irani!
Next year however on my calculation there will be 2 vacancies. Undoubtedly some of the clique that exists on the committee will encourage their mates to stand, however, any new brooms would stand as good a chance as the chosen ones in an election.
What has been said by some, however is correct, once elected it isn't easy to effect change as there are 14 other people there who don't necessarily agree with each other, and the cricket committee (which is probably the one most people would like to see some change on) doesn't really answer to anyone.
-
Fascinating stuff. I always thought the club had a very short structure - basically the Captain, Manager and Chair ran the whole show. Has there always been such a morass of committees, or is there a causal link between bureaucratisation and the decline of the club?
-
Fascinating stuff. I always thought the club had a very short structure - basically the Captain, Manager and Chair ran the whole show. Has there always been such a morass of committees, or is there a causal link between bureaucratisation and the decline of the club?
Does that mean that there may be some sympathy forthcoming towards the restrictions that the coach, Grayson or otherwise, has to work under? I can't imagine that it would be easy for anyone with Irani poking his oar in.
-
Does that mean that there may be some sympathy forthcoming towards the restrictions that the coach, Grayson or otherwise, has to work under? I can't imagine that it would be easy for anyone with Irani poking his oar in.
Not easy, but that's no different from the lot of managers at the biggest Premier League clubs with their rich owners. Difference being, when the team doesn't perform the manager is asked to leave asap.
Believe it or not, I suggested Larry instead of Irani as skipper and suggested Larry needed a good couple of years to settle in as coach.
However, I tend to judge Larry on what he says. Comments about the 'priorities' of the club don't help his cause.
-
Fascinating stuff. I always thought the club had a very short structure - basically the Captain, Manager and Chair ran the whole show. Has there always been such a morass of committees, or is there a causal link between bureaucratisation and the decline of the club?
There has indeed always been a morass of committees! Until a few years back the general committee consisted of 18 members plus treasurer, president and solicitor. Now it's 15 plus the President, no solicitor and the treasurer comes from within the 15 general committee members.
There are actually a couple less sub committees now as some were merged into the Membership sub committee. Most of what comes before the general committee is a fait accomplis from the "executive" committee.
The one thing that has been consitent throughout is that the cricket committee don't seem to answer to anyone!
-
The one thing that has been consitent throughout is that the cricket committee don't seem to answer to anyone!
I'm going to ask the obvious question; what is the role of the cricket committee?
Plus who makes up the cricket committee?
-
Fascinating stuff. I always thought the club had a very short structure - basically the Captain, Manager and Chair ran the whole show. Has there always been such a morass of committees, or is there a causal link between bureaucratisation and the decline of the club?
...
The one thing that has been consitent throughout is that the cricket committee don't seem to answer to anyone!
Well that settles it then ...the first item on the reform agenda is cricket committee governance.
-
Fascinating stuff. I always thought the club had a very short structure - basically the Captain, Manager and Chair ran the whole show. Has there always been such a morass of committees, or is there a causal link between bureaucratisation and the decline of the club?
Back in 50's the was a book by someoe who knew his way round management; Parkinson's Law, by a C Northcote Parkinson.. He was very hot on small committees, simple appointment systems, "work expanding to fill the time available" and such.
AFAIK it's still in print, and I would think the County Library has a few copies.
-
Back in 50's the was a book by someoe who knew his way round management; Parkinson's Law, by a C Northcote Parkinson.. He was very hot on small committees, simple appointment systems, "work expanding to fill the time available" and such.
AFAIK it's still in print, and I would think the County Library has a few copies.
I was thinking of Max Weber, but I certainly know what you mean. I teach this stuff, unfortunately the students aren't that keen on cricket - except for the IPL mad Indians.
-
Back in 50's the was a book by someoe who knew his way round management; Parkinson's Law, by a C Northcote Parkinson.. He was very hot on small committees, simple appointment systems, "work expanding to fill the time available" and such.
AFAIK it's still in print, and I would think the County Library has a few copies.
I was thinking of Max Weber, but I certainly know what you mean. I teach this stuff, unfortunately the students aren't that keen on cricket - except for the IPL mad Indians.
I take it you've read Nasser's book, as far as Essex management is concerned. Incidentally, if ever a man lived his father's dream.....
The "mansgement" structure at Essex would have fascinated Parkinson.
-
Yes I read Nassers book. I must say I agree with you, I also felt rather sorry for Nas in the end. I know sacrifices have to be made, but it seems he never got the pleasure out of playing the game that the less successful/gifted of us have done.
-
I wonder, Andy, whether Nasser's children will play cricket. Or indeed any sport professionally. AFAIK he's never seen around the County Ground these days, unless professionally with Sky.
I know when I became a father I reflected on my father's parenting methods and thought ......... no!
-
I wonder, Andy, whether Nasser's children will play cricket. Or indeed any sport professionally. AFAIK he's never seen around the County Ground these days, unless professionally with Sky.
The last time I saw Nass with two of his children was when Napier scored his 152 against Sussex. I think it may have been their introduction to cricket.
I've read somewhere him saying that if his kids show talent (in the sporting field) he'll give them nothing but encouragement - but otherwise won't push them. I get the idea from his book that his father certainly did (push) Nasser.
-
Wasn't his brother apparently more naturally gifted as a cricketer? I think I read somewhere that he was. The young Nasser of 1988-91 was a hell of good young player. I remember an early ton against Leicester which was full of shots
-
Wasn't his brother apparently more naturally gifted as a cricketer? I think I read somewhere that he was. The young Nasser of 1988-91 was a hell of good young player. I remember an early ton against Leicester which was full of shots
Even Nasser rates Mel a better player.
-
one point, the use of mods from the old forum on here, would be most unwelcome imo.
they ALL had an agenda to push, and didn't like certain home truths, be it because they were in the employ of the club or as they were part of the running of the club.
it would be a backward step by letting them mod here, and thus far it seems the self moderation on here is working well enough, if you can ignore some armchair warriors and old bores who constantly go off topic...
-
one point, the use of mods from the old forum on here, would be most unwelcome imo.
they ALL had an agenda to push, and didn't like certain home truths, be it because they were in the employ of the club or as they were part of the running of the club.
it would be a backward step by letting them mod here, and thus far it seems the self moderation on here is working well enough, if you can ignore some armchair warriors and old bores who constantly go off topic...
Being that previous moderators on the OMB, along with all staff and players, have now been forbidden from posting on here - excepting Danny in response to issues raised on the Q&A sub-forum - it's highly unlikely that any of the previous moderators on the OMB will be helping with the running of this forum for the foreseeable future.
As for the self-moderation , to an extent that's true. Although you probably wouldn't have noticed , for instance, that some comments have been removed over the time it's been set up.
I'd say, that generally , this one is roughly the same regarding moderation as when I was a moderator on the OMB, i.e. before the Garon Park issue raised its head and, thereafter, things were tightened up to an almost suffocating degree.
But all in all, I'm pleased with the way that the forum is running itself I must say.
-
...
Being that previous moderators on the OMB, along with all staff and players, have now been forbidden from posting on here - excepting Danny in response to issues raised on the Q&A sub-forum - it's highly unlikely that any of the previous moderators on the OMB will be helping with the running of this forum for the foreseeable future.
...
Well we'll have to reply on ToppersSnr to relay any interesting information regarding the club!
-
...
Being that previous moderators on the OMB, along with all staff and players, have now been forbidden from posting on here - excepting Danny in response to issues raised on the Q&A sub-forum - it's highly unlikely that any of the previous moderators on the OMB will be helping with the running of this forum for the foreseeable future.
...
Well we'll have to reply on ToppersSnr to relay any interesting information regarding the club!
Albeit that Don himself would refer to his good self as being tantamount to persona non grata as far the Club are concerned (see the latest edition of 'Backspin') and would be loath to relay any information - even if known - from anybody closer to home.
So I'm afraid, it just means relying on the old rumour mill - which we do 99% of the time anyway.
-
the club were loath to allow any info out anyway that was of any interest anyway, so its no loss. it seemed the essex website was always the last to have news, after bbc, cricinfo etc.
id trust certain 'other' sources anyway rather than those with an agenda to spin that 99% of people at the club have.
-
I would hope ...... that's hope rather than expectation ..... that part of the Bowden reforms (if any) would be at leastbe a press release after each Committee meeting.
Incidentally, anyone going to the Lords Christmas Lunch? £192 per ticket! I don't somehow think that's aimed at the ordinary members. Certainly not the retired ones, if I'm any guide.
-
maybe the club will come to regret closing the official forum...they cannot drown out the increasing calls for change and attempts to organise them.
-
Incidentally, anyone going to the Lords Christmas Lunch? £192 per ticket!
I bought a pre 1940's, large taxidermy of a turtle earlier this wk. for less than that, including 21% buyers premium and it didn't end up in the sewage system the following day.
-
...I bought a pre 1940's, large taxidermy of a turtle earlier this wk...
Sounds like it might be a suitable candidate for membership of the Essex Cricket Committee. It would fit in well.
-
...I bought a pre 1940's, large taxidermy of a turtle earlier this wk...
Sounds like it might be a suitable candidate for membership of the Essex Cricket Committee. It would fit in well.
Alas, dear Fire, I fear his rapidity in progress might inhibit him from being a suitable candidate for the ECCC committee
(http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk141/Indigoia/6f4b667c-282e-4365-80dd-482b91c1f36b.jpg) (http://s279.photobucket.com/user/Indigoia/media/6f4b667c-282e-4365-80dd-482b91c1f36b.jpg.html)
-
I just happened to have noticed that the link to this new forum on the official ECCC site has been removed.
Further the new forum will not appear on Google for some time so new membership may diminish.
-
I just happened to have noticed that the link to this new forum on the official ECCC site has been removed.
Further the new forum will not appear on Google for some time so new membership may diminish.
This forum is on Google. Admittedly the new membership is down to a trickle at the moment , but given the time of year it's to be expected. Nonetheless, last month we had 1978 unique visitors, visiting a total of 5220 times. So it's not going too badly.
Also , having just checked , this forum is linked from the OWS - right top in red under forum as the OMB and now this one always were.
-
someone on here should volunteer to do, and have enough 'kudos' for them in speaking for the fans (ie a mod on the main esex forum) to do the county blogging bit for essex on cricinfo.
the current incumbent whilst in line with views here, only posted about twice all summer. by doing so the forum could/would be linked to many more people (well at least those who read the county blogs on cricinfo) as, for example, peak fan, a well known derbyshire blogger links his blog on his county blog on cricinfo.