...a website posting challenges the decision of the October AGM to restructure junior cricket. After all, the decision was unanimous, which was a rare mandate for any major change in NCU rules, but it was understandable given the Junior Task Force’s efforts in taking the issue to the clubs with a series of road-shows. All the contentious matters were debated at length and while agreement on every detail is virtually impossible, the end result was a series of proposals that addressed all the key issues and seemed a workable blueprint for the future. That optimism was endorsed at the AGM and while several delegates voiced concerns over minor points, they still backed the initiative and were prepared to give the new structure a chance. Everyone present agreed as there was a unanimous vote in favour, so the administrators were given a mandate to move forward with the restructuring.
So why are we still debating the details some six weeks later? Surely it is time to move on and accept the democratic process?
Like many observers I have great sympathy for the Junior Task Force committee and fully endorse the comments made by Ivan McCombe in a recent posting on this Forum. After all, only when we see the new structure in operation will we have a chance to identify problem areas and fine-tune to perfection. Rome wasn’t built in a day!
Since the AGM there has been a small number of postings challenging the decision to move to eight-team leagues and the restructuring of junior cricket. While the former was certainly a close call, the latter was an overwhelming mandate in favour of change. It begs the question as to who the dissenters represent, as it is obvious they don’t have club support as most operate behind pseudonyms and even some of the named individuals are clearly expressing personal views. There’s nothing wrong with the latter, as that’s the value of debate, but there comes a time when we have to accept the decisions of the majority vote and move forward. We certainly shouldn’t allow ‘the tail to wag the dog’ and we should always keep minority opinion in perspective, as most times those who speak the loudest are beating personal drums. Perhaps that’s why some posters hide behind the cloak of anonymity?
Over the past decade Forums have become an excellent platform to air issues that were often settled behind closed doors within union committees. For a time unions and indeed some clubs shied away from participation, but rest assured everybody reads the cricket forums. And there is no doubt that some posters include those same people who don’t wish to identify themselves as they belong to the “boycotters.” They have a prerogative to remain anonymous and we respect it, but in contrast let’s acknowledge the honesty and candidness of senior NCU officials like Roger Bell and Wylie McKinty who make regular contributions and always provide us with an informative NCU perspective. After all, the NCU committee comes from, and is elected by the clubs, so we are all on the same team promoting local cricket. And let’s bury that chestnut that the NCU is only interested in senior cricket and the top clubs. The NCU is a democratic body where one team has one vote and you don’t need to be Enstein to work out there are more teams in the junior ranks than the senior ranks at every club and by extension at the union when it comes to AGM and voting rights.
This has been the case since 1975 when the Junior Committee was amalgamated with the Senior Committee. However, while this may have seemed a good decision at the time, there is a strong case for bringing back the distinction within the NCU, as the two interests are poles apart, albeit operating under the same umbrella.
Perhaps we need a Senior Task Force committee going forward to look at such issues?
Clarence Hiles
Editor
