Accountability, transparency and governance

Three words keep recurring in many of your recent comments, phone calls, and emails about the current issues concerning Derbyshire cricket. Those words are ‘accountability’, ‘transparency’ and ‘governance’. 

There is widespread anxiety about the club’s current state. It is fuelled by recent dreadful results and performances, of course, but there seems to be a sense that poor performance on the pitch is closely connected with difficulties off it. We don’t know what is going on behind the scenes, and frankly we don’t need to. It has become abundantly clear that all is not well with Derbyshire cricket, and has not been for years. Since 2012, in fact, when the bright new dawn too quickly became a dark and threatening day.

At least we have a proposed new structure in place and there will soon be a new Head of Cricket who will, we all hope, galvanise our club. 

That's fine and dandy, but it’s vital to get this appointment right, and this again raises issues of who is responsible for that appointment, and the process that is followed. That process needs to be transparent and sound, taken by people who are accountable for the outcome. If it isn’t, my concern is that the problems we have been experiencing will soon recur.

There will be some very good people who apply for the role of Head of Cricket, yet frustratingly one of the best-qualified candidates, Kim Barnett, is not in the running.  

A look at the job description suggests that we MIGHT have things right this time, the successful applicant having budgetary responsibility, identification of new players and the sports science personnel under his umbrella. That pitch preparation is linked in is also a good idea. There are the requisite skills being demanded and responsibilities being pointed out, but I have a big concern here

Who is doing the interviewing?

When one is recruiting for a senior role, it is a major decision for any organisation. It is of paramount importance that we get this appointment right, because we appear to be on the verge of yet another period of instability. If the panel is to comprise current board members, there is only Colin Tunnicliffe on it with any experience of playing first class cricket. He could quite easily be outvoted on a decision by people with limited experience of the game at that level, who opt for an easy life or a popular choice. 

Contrast this with Leicestershire, a club with similarly limited resources that was a laughing stock not long ago. They are still not a major force, but unlike us, they seem to be making real progress. Can it be a coincidence that their Chief Executive was himself a first class cricketer, as well as someone with management expertise? Of course, we need board members with skills other than playing cricket, but if accountability and governance are to mean anything, then the present board HAS to be judged by results on the pitch, just as much as the players and the coach. And ever since we gained promotion in 2012, our results on the pitch have been largely dire.  

Whoever interviews for this crucial role, there should be more than a token representation from the cricket side. Could the Professional Cricketers Association, for example, be involved? I think this is at least worth considering, to ensure the 'transparency' I have mentioned before. An alternative would be to involve a working party of former players for the club who have its best interests at heart and who have a good understanding of what it takes to achieve success in first class cricket.

Because otherwise it seems likely that the outcome is already a foregone conclusion, and the job will go to one of two candidates, Mal Loye or Chris Adams.

Mal has done excellent work with the club's academy and a lot of talented young players are starting to emerge. An internal appointment may sometimes be the right one, as long as it is made with sufficient transparency and accountability. If it isn’t, it becomes not only the easy option, but an option that lacks credibility – and that would handicap, and do a disservice to, the man appointed.

Likewise Adams would be the romantic appointment, the local boy done good who comes home to lead us to the promised land, just like he did at Sussex. Intriguingly, he is gaining support on Twitter already. But how would it work in the long run – and how long would he stay with us?

Chris Adams was a terrific cricketer, a combative player who translated that into a competitive edge and used it to become a fine captain, then coach who pulled together a sleepy club at Sussex and made them a force to be reckoned with. But given the concerns that supporters are expressing about accountability and governance at the club, he may well struggle to repeat that fine achievement. He's a proud man, one of integrity and he will want to do things his way. Rightly so, if he is publicly accountable for the club's record and reputation. He is a good man and was a terrific player, but so were Karl Krikken, Graeme Welch and Kim Barnett and look how that ended.

This will be a massive winter for Derbyshire and it needs to be right, from the very top down to the bottom. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to work out from various comments in social media of late that things are awry. 

I want a Head of Cricket elected by transparent process that commands respect and confidence among the supporters. If this results in the appointment of Mal or Chris, fine. But an 'easy fix' simply won’t work. I want him selected and ultimately to be a part of a board that is fit for CRICKETING purpose and that understands the game is more than just pushing numbers around a spreadsheet. 

So I’d like to see a commitment on the part of board members to spend a specified minimum amount of the time watching our team. That way, they can see the performances for themselves, and also connect with supporters in a way that my postbag suggests simply isn’t happening at present.

There are eminently qualified, extremely able people who are steeped in Derbyshire cricket who can contribute a great deal to the club board. 

When the time for election comes in February, we need more of them involved.

What do you think?