Keep the County Cricket members happy, or it might be Auf Wiedersehen, Pet

As interested parties attempt to thrash out some semblance of ­tolerable ­compromise in English domestic cricket’s latest review, Alan Higham, a life-long cricket lover turned county campaigner, recalls a scene from 1980s comedy Auf Wiedersehen, Pet.

“Everybody gets what nobody wants,” laments de facto leader Dennis after a vote to determine the colour of the group’s hut results in ­yellow ­topping the polls, despite no one having it as their first preference.

“That’s democracy, Dennis,” is vote organiser Barry’s brusque response.

Over the coming weeks, the future of England’s national summer sport should become clearer. The current review – the third of its kind over the past seven years – intends to resolve a domestic calendar widely ­considered unfit for a rapidly evolving game. On that, there is consensus. On what comes next, Higham, the founder of the County Cricket Members Group, suggests it may well be yellow paint all over again.

The scars from the governing body’s last failed attempt to alter the domestic cricket landscape remain sore. “An almost perfect model in how to bungle change,” was Sussex chairman Jon Filby’s verdict on the Andrew Strauss-led, ECB High-Performance Review of 2022, which was thrust upon counties from on high with minimal consultation.

Mistakes have been heeded, and it is hoped a collaborative approach will result in a more successful outcome from the follow-up incarnation.

For the past few months, those who hold county purse strings – along with various other stakeholders in the domestic game – have been ­assembling around the country to try to concoct a schedule that might be acceptable to all. It is no ­simple task.

As Rob Andrew, ECB managing director of the professional game, admitted at the start of the process: “We’ve got 18 counties that agree [the schedule] is not right, but 19 ­different versions of what the answer is.”

With an overwhelming ­majority of players and coaches insisting too much domestic cricket is being played, a reduction is inevitable. The number of County Championship and T20 Blast games is anticipated to drop from 14 apiece to, most likely, 12, although a ­number of other options remain on the table. England’s first-class competition might also shift to a structure that culminates in ­knockout play-offs and finals.

It is hoped a series of meetings with county chairs and chief executives starting next week will begin a path towards a resolution, ideally without need for a vote that would require 12 of the 18 first-class counties to agree for any motion to be passed. A late July deadline has been pencilled in, and a consensus would be far more ­palatable than a divided vote.

But for members – whose annual fees are supposed to bestow ownership rights to 15 of the 18 counties – the question of who determines their club’s standpoint remains. At Middlesex, members have forced a special general meeting for a binding vote on whether the club must oppose any reduction of county fixtures.

Other clubs are holding members’ forums to gauge views, although how much those will be taken into consideration is a contentious subject.

“Should members be making the decisions?” wonders Higham. “I’ve come to the conclusion that no, I don’t think members should be ­directing the boards in what to do. But if we have to make a tough decision that we don’t agree on, don’t rush it, don’t impose it, don’t do ­phoney consultations or make ­people feel they are ignored. That’s going to build on the already broken ­levels of trust and disconnect among county cricket fans.”

Universality is wholly absent. While one county boss described the latest review process as “refreshing”, adding “if it doesn’t deliver the results we want then we, the counties, have only got ourselves to blame”, another suggested it has “the feel of fait accompli”.

Fewer county matches should, necessarily, prompt lower membership fees with less cricket to watch. But if membership no longer provides the desired input into a club’s future direction, might spectators choose to relinquish their member status altogether and pay on the door instead?

Higham’s suggestion is for all parties to “meet in the middle”, ­proposing: “We should all compromise. We should all give a little and suffer a little bit of pain to make some obvious improvements.”

Whether that means anyone will be fully content with the outcome is unlikely. So long as everyone’s voices are heard. That’s democracy, Dennis.