Members ballot

[quincy]

Just to add salt into the wounds, Surrey 2s are playing Hampshire 2s at New Malden next week and its open to anyone.

Interesting to see what happens at Garons the week after went Kent 2s visit, my guess is behind closed doors?

Surrey 2nds now behind closed doors. Something about protecting players??

[pablo]

As usual customer service at it's best. How difficult can it be to send out a blanket e-mail to those who have steadfastly supported the club financially in the most difficult of times?

[essexfan548]

As usual customer service at it's best. How difficult can it be to send out a blanket e-mail to those who have steadfastly supported the club financially in the most difficult of times?

Agreed - it's not very good is it?

[vim]

As Meteor Way is not available. As there are only 200, how about re allocating the Premier and Corporate spaces as these areas are closed. Also can the number of disabled spaces be re-allocated as there is now an over provision.

I doubt that anyone is capable of using their initiative to consider this.

[stewyww]

It's doubly annoying that the AGM seems not to be going to happen on Tuesday (else why have the accounts and reports not been sent out?) so the club can continue to hide away from criticism. There can't be any public health case for the 200 person limit for the CC so the club has to justify it in financial terms, and they have totally failed to do so.  To lose goodwill over a situation where the public understands that there are many things you can't do much about, by doing s*d all about the things you can, is a pretty spectacular piece of bad management.

Here in lies the issue for me. If the club just came out and publicly stated that due to the cost of doing so, they simply can't afford to allow anymore than 200 people in a day, spelled out the costs and explained the damage it would do to the club financially, then they'd get far more understanding and acceptance from members. A few groans as standard, but the vast majority would accept it.

Just be open and be honest. It screams lack of PR nous from the higher ups at the club.

They won't come out and justify it because they can't.
The ECB and Sports Ground Safety Authority review of the ground under Covid-19 restrictions stated that up to 600 spectators could be allowed into the ground. Not 200 or 300 or 400 or 500.
We paid our membership for precisely such a scenario this summer to occur.
No smoke and mirrors from the committee can change that statement.
Believe me, if this happened in the Premier League, where rather than 10,000 spectators for the final home game, a club said they could only afford to open it for 3,400 spectators, there would more than just groans, and rightly so.

[Postman]

As Meteor Way is not available. As there are only 200, how about re allocating the Premier and Corporate spaces as these areas are closed. Also can the number of disabled spaces be re-allocated as there is now an over provision.

I doubt that anyone is capable of using their initiative to consider this.

Someone who has got tickets in the ballot tells me he's been informed by the club that Meteor Way is available.  Not that we should place much reliance on that....

[essexfan548]

Yes - I'm sure the club said Meteor Way was going to be open.

[Markwhy]

Heard nothing.As others have said very disappointing that the club cannot be bothered to even inform us that sadly we will miss out.Oh well,off to the Oval on Saturday then,my risk in paying 15 quid justified 

[SirChef26]

It's doubly annoying that the AGM seems not to be going to happen on Tuesday (else why have the accounts and reports not been sent out?) so the club can continue to hide away from criticism. There can't be any public health case for the 200 person limit for the CC so the club has to justify it in financial terms, and they have totally failed to do so.  To lose goodwill over a situation where the public understands that there are many things you can't do much about, by doing s*d all about the things you can, is a pretty spectacular piece of bad management.

Here in lies the issue for me. If the club just came out and publicly stated that due to the cost of doing so, they simply can't afford to allow anymore than 200 people in a day, spelled out the costs and explained the damage it would do to the club financially, then they'd get far more understanding and acceptance from members. A few groans as standard, but the vast majority would accept it.

Just be open and be honest. It screams lack of PR nous from the higher ups at the club.

They won't come out and justify it because they can't.
The ECB and Sports Ground Safety Authority review of the ground under Covid-19 restrictions stated that up to 600 spectators could be allowed into the ground. Not 200 or 300 or 400 or 500.
We paid our membership for precisely such a scenario this summer to occur.
No smoke and mirrors from the committee can change that statement.
Believe me, if this happened in the Premier League, where rather than 10,000 spectators for the final home game, a club said they could only afford to open it for 3,400 spectators, there would more than just groans, and rightly so.

That's a far different situation and you know it. Premier League clubs are getting paid over 100 million quid a season through TV rights. They can afford to pay thousands of pounds for the stewarding etc needed to cater for a reduced capacity.

[Mick]

It's doubly annoying that the AGM seems not to be going to happen on Tuesday (else why have the accounts and reports not been sent out?) so the club can continue to hide away from criticism. There can't be any public health case for the 200 person limit for the CC so the club has to justify it in financial terms, and they have totally failed to do so.  To lose goodwill over a situation where the public understands that there are many things you can't do much about, by doing s*d all about the things you can, is a pretty spectacular piece of bad management.

Here in lies the issue for me. If the club just came out and publicly stated that due to the cost of doing so, they simply can't afford to allow anymore than 200 people in a day, spelled out the costs and explained the damage it would do to the club financially, then they'd get far more understanding and acceptance from members. A few groans as standard, but the vast majority would accept it.

Just be open and be honest. It screams lack of PR nous from the higher ups at the club.

They won't come out and justify it because they can't.
The ECB and Sports Ground Safety Authority review of the ground under Covid-19 restrictions stated that up to 600 spectators could be allowed into the ground. Not 200 or 300 or 400 or 500.
We paid our membership for precisely such a scenario this summer to occur.
No smoke and mirrors from the committee can change that statement.
Believe me, if this happened in the Premier League, where rather than 10,000 spectators for the final home game, a club said they could only afford to open it for 3,400 spectators, there would more than just groans, and rightly so.

That's a far different situation and you know it. Premier League clubs are getting paid over 100 million quid a season through TV rights. They can afford to pay thousands of pounds for the stewarding etc needed to cater for a reduced capacity.

Perhaps you could elaborate on what the "thousands of pounds" costs needed to cater for a reduced capacity are (over and above what it would normally cost for stewarding of an unlimited crowd). Thank you.

[essexfan548]

Copied from The Grockles forum:

"Yep. Anyone going in the May17 to Jun21 period needs to be prepared.

You will get to sit in a seat, alone, but thats about it.
No mixing. No wandering. No socialising. No sitting with friends.
Get wet if it rains, no diving in shop or bars for cover.
Any rule breachs the covid police officers will be on hand to reprimand.
You may get to watch some cricket but none of the other side many go for. "

[SirChef26]

It's doubly annoying that the AGM seems not to be going to happen on Tuesday (else why have the accounts and reports not been sent out?) so the club can continue to hide away from criticism. There can't be any public health case for the 200 person limit for the CC so the club has to justify it in financial terms, and they have totally failed to do so.  To lose goodwill over a situation where the public understands that there are many things you can't do much about, by doing s*d all about the things you can, is a pretty spectacular piece of bad management.

Here in lies the issue for me. If the club just came out and publicly stated that due to the cost of doing so, they simply can't afford to allow anymore than 200 people in a day, spelled out the costs and explained the damage it would do to the club financially, then they'd get far more understanding and acceptance from members. A few groans as standard, but the vast majority would accept it.

Just be open and be honest. It screams lack of PR nous from the higher ups at the club.

They won't come out and justify it because they can't.
The ECB and Sports Ground Safety Authority review of the ground under Covid-19 restrictions stated that up to 600 spectators could be allowed into the ground. Not 200 or 300 or 400 or 500.
We paid our membership for precisely such a scenario this summer to occur.
No smoke and mirrors from the committee can change that statement.
Believe me, if this happened in the Premier League, where rather than 10,000 spectators for the final home game, a club said they could only afford to open it for 3,400 spectators, there would more than just groans, and rightly so.

That's a far different situation and you know it. Premier League clubs are getting paid over 100 million quid a season through TV rights. They can afford to pay thousands of pounds for the stewarding etc needed to cater for a reduced capacity.

Perhaps you could elaborate on what the "thousands of pounds" costs needed to cater for a reduced capacity are (over and above what it would normally cost for stewarding of an unlimited crowd). Thank you.

Don’t ask me, ask the club. They’ve said it not me.

[stewyww]

It's doubly annoying that the AGM seems not to be going to happen on Tuesday (else why have the accounts and reports not been sent out?) so the club can continue to hide away from criticism. There can't be any public health case for the 200 person limit for the CC so the club has to justify it in financial terms, and they have totally failed to do so.  To lose goodwill over a situation where the public understands that there are many things you can't do much about, by doing s*d all about the things you can, is a pretty spectacular piece of bad management.

Here in lies the issue for me. If the club just came out and publicly stated that due to the cost of doing so, they simply can't afford to allow anymore than 200 people in a day, spelled out the costs and explained the damage it would do to the club financially, then they'd get far more understanding and acceptance from members. A few groans as standard, but the vast majority would accept it.

Just be open and be honest. It screams lack of PR nous from the higher ups at the club.

They won't come out and justify it because they can't.
The ECB and Sports Ground Safety Authority review of the ground under Covid-19 restrictions stated that up to 600 spectators could be allowed into the ground. Not 200 or 300 or 400 or 500.
We paid our membership for precisely such a scenario this summer to occur.
No smoke and mirrors from the committee can change that statement.
Believe me, if this happened in the Premier League, where rather than 10,000 spectators for the final home game, a club said they could only afford to open it for 3,400 spectators, there would more than just groans, and rightly so.

That's a far different situation and you know it. Premier League clubs are getting paid over 100 million quid a season through TV rights. They can afford to pay thousands of pounds for the stewarding etc needed to cater for a reduced capacity.

You're missing my point.
I am trying to emphasise the difference between the potential demographic of the two sets of supporters. It seems to me that the committee are assuming that our members are of an age where they would be too passive to protest about such a flagrant misuse of their powers.
If an increase from 200 to 600 members requires such an increase in costs to the club, then how about the committee paying it out of their salaries? No, they would rather deny 400 people their legal right to watch a product that they have paid for.
Scandalous doesn't even come close.

[Crisp]

All members are asking for is clarity to a product they paid for this season and last.
A simple email telling us that we have been unsuccessful would have been decent, after all they can bombard you with 20/20 adverts?
It also looks like the 200 per day will remain for Notts so based on last season, if this is so then, a further 3k members will fail to get a ticket for the game.
Also general public can obtain tickets for Northamptonshire v Lancashire on all 4 days and we are beginning to look totally out of kilter with everyone on the circuit.
You cannot tell me that NCCC are in a better financial state than us?
No communication about the AGM either, I presume its cancelled?

[Andy]

Of course if the relocated for the season to Garons Park, then the open (and very fresh)  air would be ideal. Joke.

Lanky are pushing their opening up to supporters now.