MCC'S UNWELCOME FIXTURE
E. W. Swanton looks forward
to the settlement of a row which has divided cricket
SINCE Alan Gibson drew the attention of Spectator readers some weeks ago to cer- tain discordant noises emanating from a section of MCC members the President and Committee have decided to bring the matter to the test once for all. Having called a special general meeting at the Central Hall, Westminster on Thursday next, 30 July, in order to pass the report and accounts which had been rejected on a show of hands and after much emotive oratory at the AGM at Lord's in May, it has now sent to all 18,000 members a lengthy memorandum on the subject which has been built up by some into a burning issue, the relationship between MCC and the Test and County Cricket Board.
This was the body which the Club itself set up, back in 1968, in order to run the first-class game. When MCC, the private club with a public function, at that time decided to devolve into a democratic form its traditional paternalistic rule, its future contribution to the game that it had guided and nourished for all but two centuries seemed evident enough. It would give all encouragement and practical help, consis- tent with the interests of its membership, to the new bodies it had formed — there were also the Cricket Council to act as a sort of Upper House, and the National Cricket Association which was to run the recreational (amateur) game.
The Club would continue (with the co-operation of the various international bodies) to frame the laws of the game, as it had done since its first code of 1788. It would continue to supply, as it had always done, in its current president the chairman of the International Cricket Conference and also the secretariat. As the owner of Lord's Ground, the incomparable head- quarters of cricket, on which the TCCB would rely for a large part of its revenue, Marylebone Cricket Club could afford to regard the scene with, shall we say, a wary benevolence, looking after its great inheri- tance, and incidentally, continuing to send 200-odd of its teams to play against oppo- nents the length and breadth of the UK and on missionary tours overseas.
For a while this was the sort of pattern that emerged. But discord soon followed J. A. Bailey's appointment as MCC secret- ary following S. C. Griffith's retirement. Mr Bailey fastened upon what he took to be an erosion of MCC's authority, and the TCCB found him increasingly intractable. As a member of the MCC committee for the ten years following the secretary taking office in 1974 one lost count of the number of weary hours taken up with semantic points that could have been painlessly determined, granted a degree of flexibility and mutual goodwill. Much centred on just what comprised the 'ultimate responsibil- ity' for major matches. This authority the TCCB assumed in its original constitution, which MCC itself wrote and to which, as a constituent member of the Board along with the counties, it was both loyally and legally bound.
The five county-owning Test grounds accepted the 'ultimate responsibility' pro- viso without demur, and since MCC and these counties continue to undertake the administration of big occasions it is hard to envisage in practical working any profound difficulties. It was sad to see a man of Mr Bailey's obvious qualities taking such an uncompromising stance, even, according to the MCC memorandum, to the point along with the Treasurer, of thrice consulting counsel without the knowledge of the committee and without disclosing to them the advice given.
The TCCB at certain times reacted in kind to the posture of the MCC secretary. The uneasy tension lasted for a decade, during which successive committees might be censured for not effectively ensuring that he reflected its own general policy. President after president, annually appointed but limited to a few months of effective power, came near to initiating a termination of employment. When, finally, Colin Cowdrey, most reasonable and peaceful of men, decided that enough was enough, the committee decision to offer Mr Bailey early retirement was unanimous apart from the abstention of the treasurer, D. G. Clark. He took his lone support to the point of resignation, and it was the double departure which set alarm bells ringing.
The cry that 'we're being robbed of our rights' is always likely to have its appeal, and it is that which the memorandum seeks to refute. If anyone doubts, as they well may, that such a lengthy and detailed 16-page catalogue was necessary they may care to know that an inflammatory round- robin demanding 'full and frank disclosure' of the whole sorry saga has been circu- lated, by one individual representing a dissident group, to hundreds — maybe thousands — of members, some of whom have riposted to the intrusion with sadly rude replies. It seems that 200 signatures have been collected.
What sort of people, it may well be asked, run the TCCB? The answer is that, far from being a radical crew bent on putting the old Club in its place, they are chiefly men who have played with distinc- tion for England and proudly worn MCC's colours on overseas tours. Their successive chairmen have been Douglas Insole, George Mann, Charles Palmer and now Raman Subba Row. Donald Carr, until recently secretary, has been succeeded by Alan Smith as chief executive. These are men of integrity well able to absorb any conflict of interest within what — however cynics may sniff — I would still call the fellowship of cricket.
With the game in a bad way economical- ly in the 1960s the TCCB saw a primary duty as exploring fully the avenues of commercial patronage which, in cricket as in other sports, were just opening up. The following figures from the MCC memoran- dum indicate the measure of their success. The distributable surplus over 15 years rose as follows: 1970 1975 1980 1985 £64,807 £308,088 £1,496,105 £3,336,047 MCC's share of the take rose prop- ortionately from £5,319 in 1970 to £243,602 in 1985. In addition MCC's revenue from the major matches' peripheral income (boxes, advertising, parking, catering etc) in 1985 added up to £472,700.
The fact is that the TCCB have capital- ised for the good of all cricket the various sources of sponsorship, television fees and so on to a degree which MCC alone could not have matched. These funds also sup- port the Minor Counties and a thriving national coaching scheme as well as the Test ground owners and the other 12 major counties in due proportion. On the face of it the TCCB has done, and is doing, a pretty good job.
Colin Cowdrey's letter, requesting from the members the two-thirds majority re- quired according to rule for a postal vote says: 'I am pleased to say that a much improved working relationship now exists between MCC and TCCB, and I can assure members that our traditional rights and privileges will be fully protected.'
My conclusion is that, though it has been represented otherwise, this cloud over MCC's bicentenary year is much more a matter of personalities than of policies. It is inconceivable that the membership will not agree the passing of the report and accounts and so give the committee the vote of confidence it needs before the culminating events of the bicentenary, the great match between MCC and the Rest of the World (tickets for which are almost sold out) and the Guildhall dinner preced- ing it, Unhappily, however, they will not be presided over by Mr Cowdrey. He will be in the hands of surgeons for a serious operation, which may well be thought to have psychosomatic roots. What an un- comfortable thought to end on!
E. W. Swanton is the former cricket corres- pondent of the Daily Telegraph.
Previous page
