SURREY SENIOR CRICKETERS ASSOCIATION
From: The SSCA Management Committee
Replies to: Barry Hart, 60+ Captain and Chairman
7 Weald Close, Weald, Sevenoaks, Kent. TN14 6QH
Tel: 01732 463493 (h) 07770 884381 (m)
email:
2nd March, 2012
Dear CountyRepresentative,
If you have been observing the events surrounding Surrey’s suspension from the Spitfire O60s Championship from the sidelines we imagine you may have been somewhat puzzled as to what this is all about. Those of you who attended the Spitfire AGM in Leicester in November were probably taken aback, as we were, by the vehement attack on Surrey delivered by one of its own members – until recently the Spitfire Treasurer - Martin Couch. Following Roly Walton’s sterling defence of the Surrey position, a number of counties indicated that they were unhappy with the Spitfire Committee seemingly interfering in Surrey’s internal affairs, especially as meetings were due to take place the following day to allow members to air their grievances and vote on the way forward. As a result, the Spitfire Committee agreed to suspend its action and review Surrey’s suspension at the end of the year after the result of the Surrey SGM and AGM were known.
These meetings were duly held on 4th November. The resolution put before the membership by the dissident group of Surrey members was that all 60+/70+ affairs should be run by a new committee under the umbrella of the existing Surrey Seniors Cricket Association (SSCA) but entirely independent of any oversight by the SSCA management committee. It seemed to SSCA a rather strange arrangement that the new ‘club’ would remain under the auspices of SSCA who would nevertheless have no role in overseeing their activities on behalf of the Surrey Cricket Board (SCB). It was also felt that such a proposal was unnecessary as 60+ and 70+ affairs were already dealt with by a separate sub-committee comprising 60+ members. This was clearly about personnel, not structure.
At a well-attended meeting, the resolution was comfortably defeated and new committees/sub-committees to serve SSCA in 2012 were duly elected by the membership at the AGM which followed the SGM. Surrey’s Representative, Bill Munday, wrote to the Spitfire Organising Committee informing them of these decisions and hoping that a satisfactory way forward could be found. Surprisingly Spitfire did not wait until January 1st as they had said they would, or engage in any dialogue concerning the votes. Their response came in the form of another notice dated 15th December 2011 (copy attached) announcing that the suspension imposed on SSCA in October 2011 would stand permanently. It went on to say that Spitfire had already invited the as-yet-to-be-formed Surrey County Senior Cricketers Club to enter up to 6 teams in their 2012 competition.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of Spitfire’s decision (if you are not already aware) and to provide you with some of the background leading up to the current situation. This letter confines itself to the key points while further details are provided in an annex (attached). Although lengthy, we hope you will find the time to read at least some of the background material. As you will appreciate, it is necessary to go into some detail in order to understand the justification (or otherwise) of Spitfire’s actions. The names Martin Couch, Martin Pearse and Graeme Howgateare mentioned on more than one occasion. SSCA do not wish to personalise any differences they may have with Spitfire, despite some very personal attacks on SSCA officials in the opposite direction. However, it is fundamental to any understanding of the current situation to know something of these individuals’ roles in the affair.
SSCA are very clear that they have never been given any logical or coherent reasons for their suspension. The reasons that were given (see attached notice from the Spitfire Chairman) do not stand up under even the most superficial scrutiny. They are simply a pretext to try and justify actions that the Spitfire Committee had already decided to take for entirely different reasons. Spitfire has clearly not followed its own procedures for dealing with any alleged breach of rules.
On 4 November 2011 Martin Pearse wrote “The resolution of this problem is in the hands of the SCB”. The Surrey Cricket Board (SCB) has attempted to mediate a solution and tried independently to obtain coherent reasons from Spitfire for their actions. It should be noted that SCB continue to recognise the SSCA as their county representative for senior cricket in Surrey and not the new club – now coincidently and confusingly named “Surrey Senior Cricketers (SSC2)”, presumably to blur the distinction between the two organisations. Despite this, Spitfire rejected SCB’s request to end SSCA’s suspension and extended an invitation to the unauthorised new club to participate in the 2012 Championship. SCB have insisted that the new club remove the word ‘County’ from their name and they will not be allowed to wear official Surrey insignia on their clothing. You will notice that the Surrey emblem is no longer displayed on the Spitfire website. If you play against a ‘Surrey’ side in the Spitfire Championship in 2012, it will effectively be a club side with no status as SCB’s county representative.
It is SSCA’s contention that the Spitfire Organising Committee has allowed itself to be used in a bid by the former Spitfire Treasurer and a band of supportersto take control of 60+ cricket in Surrey. Whether or not you agree with SSCA’s interpretation of the facts presented, we hope you will agree that the Spitfire Committee’s actions have been reprehensible. They have become embroiled in the internal affairs of the SSCA, lending very active support to a group seeking to usurp the democratically elected committee of SSCA. We believe that the Spitfire Committee has shown by its actions to be unfit to organise a prestigious national competition such as the 60+ Championship and even less fit to be left in charge of arranging England’s representative side at 60+ level. It clearly acts as an autocracy with the right to invite anyone it chooses to play in its competition, or expel them at will. The committee has demonstrated that it is not willing to take the opinions of member counties into account, or to engage in dialogue with them over any disputes or explain the undemocratic actions it imposes. By actively involving itself in SSCA’s internal affairs, it has interfered in the democratic workings of a properly constituted cricket association. We believe that most other democratically run cricket associations will find such interference unacceptable.
As described above, there may be specific political reasons why Surrey has been singled out for treatment in this way. You may feel that in view of this, your organisation is very unlikely to receive similar treatment and that you would rather not get involved. On the other hand you may feel that Surrey hasnot done much wrong, certainly not enough to be excluded from the Spitfire Championship in this rather high-handed and draconian way. Are you confident that your efforts to promote ‘cricket-for-all’ are sufficient to guarantee you immunity from Spitfire’s summary justice? Are you happy that the body charged with organising 60+ cricket at county and international level conducts itself in this way? If not, we hope that you will support our efforts to ensure that national and county representative cricket at 60+ level is vested in a more competent, responsible, democratically accountable organisation or committee that does not involve itself in local politics. This would leave the current Spitfire Committee free to organise “cricket-for-all” which they are clearly so passionate about and which would appear from their actions to be their principal concern.
We would welcome any thoughts on this matter which would help us plan the way forward. If you would prefer, your feedback and views will be treated in the strictest confidence.
We would also welcome the offer of any friendly fixtures for the benefit of our loyal 60+ members (which includes most of last year’s 1st XI) now barred from playing in the Spitfire Championship. We trust you will reject any vindictive instructions from the Spitfire Committee to have nothing to do with SSCA, pleas described in the letter to Spitfire from the Chairman of the Surrey Cricket Board to be “completely out of order.”
Yours sincerely
The SSCA Management Committee
(address for any replies provided at top of letter)