19 October 2022

A Phantom SGM

How can we interpret the decision taken by the MCC Committee to cancel the SGM on 27 September 2022 at the last minute? To an intelligent observer there can only be one answer – the prospect of an overwhelming MCC Committee defeat! There have been several other SGM Committee defeats in the past but this is far and away the most damaging and significant. The classic ploy in the face of a defeat has been to address the problem by “negotiation” inviting the “rebel” Members to sit on a Working Party with a compliant Chairman and then a) dissolve the WP before any Report is compiled or b) ignore the findings. In this deceitful manner the status quo is carefully preserved within the MCC.

Surely, this has to be the latest and worst example of executive arrogance? The Committee in 1987 failed to consult Members over use of Lord’s by the TCCB and many more instances have occurred since then. This latest failure to understand why large numbers of Members wish to retain the MCC’s cultural heritage at Lord’s and be consulted on the matter, beggars belief. Perhaps it is a sign that the MCC no longer controls our own destiny at Lord’s and the hidden cracks in the false façade of the friendly face of a hostile ECB have now become patently obvious. Enough is enough and the time has arrived for action. The MCC is not any old Cricket Club but one charged with the guardianship of the best interests and finest traditions of the Game of English Cricket. It is not for any self-important MCC Executive or the Committee itself to consider the Club a personal fiefdom. The MCC has 18,000 Members who should be included as an important part of the decision-making processes. Presently the voice of anyone other than a privileged few, is unwelcome within the Committee Room at Lord’s.


8 August 2020

The West Indies have flagged up the importance of good governance and carried out a twelve month investigation into the problems that have dogged WI Cricket in recent years.

When will the MCC get the message and even follow suit to put into place one of the principle headline changes being sought by CWI?

“Comprehensive reform of the governance structure using key principles of modern governance to provide greater accountability and transparency.”

Go to :-


5 August 2020

An SGM Resolution has been finally agreed to counter the AGM Agenda Item 9) “Governance” removed from the published AGM business that will be resurrected as an SGM in a few months time.

“To consider and approve the following Resolution:
Throughout its history the MCC has been a Member-controlled Club, with the majority of the MCC Committee directly elected by Members.
The MCC Committee is now seeking to remove this control, using the mechanism of the NomCo selection process, as laid out by the Committee in Item 9 of the Agenda for the 2020 AGM.
In these circumstances, this meeting resolves:
(a) that MCC will, at all times, remain a Member-controlled Club with a clear majority of members of the MCC Committee directly elected by the membership as a whole.
(b) that the MCC Committee set up a Working Party comprising three MCC Committee members, three Members not at present on any committee, and an independent chairman who is not a member of a committee. This Working Party will have a six-month mandate to consider and recommend to Members governance changes that retain Members control over the affairs of the Club for adoption at the 2021 AGM.
(c) that if this Resolution is approved, the MCC Committee will implement it in full without delay.”

There can only be one game in Town where Governance is concerned that was published in the ISWP Report of July 2015.Peter Leaver was the Chairman and he is prepared to be nominated as Chairman of this new WP with the necessary support of the SGM Requisitionists. He is an elected Committee member with long experience of MCC affairs. In addition to being an experienced QC Arbitrator who is well respected internationally, Peter has significant commercial experience and an extensive knowledge of Cricket (MCC Playing Member) and Football (ex-CEO of the FA Premier League).  The Incorportaion and Structure WP (ISWP) was responsible for obtaining the grant of the MCC Royal Charter.Peter will be leaving the Committee at the end of September and freed from any conflict of interest.

To join the list of SGM Requisitionists go to

24 July 2020

The two central questions that require an immediate answer for MCC Members is

1) Does the Club have proper insurance protection in place to cover a catastrophic claim against the Members?

2) Have the necessary steps been taken to protect the future of Lord’s Cricket Ground ?

2018/19 Kent CCC A/c’s “In common with other First Class Counties who have like investments, these shares (Reigndei) are being held by England and Wales Cricket Board as Trustees for the Club. The fair value of this investment is deemed to be £Nil. ” This statement holds true for the MCC but if we look at the Derbyork Trustee Comapny who held the Shares in RD in Trust for the ECB,MCC and MCCA, it was disslved in january 2018. Waht happened to the 3 Shares in RD being held in Trust  with the name of the GEO ECB apperaing as a Director?

Go to https://www.mccmembers.co.uk/LettertotheCommittee1508.html

to read about the possible impact of no proper insurance being in place at Lord’s

4 July 2020

Go to https://www.mccmembers.co.uk/RESTRUCTURINGMCC1520.html

to read about a new structure and good governance

30 June 2020

Go to https://www.mccmembers.co.uk/STATUS-of-LORDS1533.html

to read about the Lord’s Ground Trust

27 June 1630 hrs

Go to https://www.mccmembers.co.uk/-A-BREACH-of-TRUST1531.html

19 JUNE 2020

1045 hrs

An important article has been published today concerning the failure of the MCC/ECB to provide the necessary insurance cover for the income lost from the interruption of their business activities.


MCC Members in particular will question why Annual Subscriptions are still being levied in respect of being able to watch Big Matches at Lord’s which cannot be staged? If Big Match Cricket is to be returned to Lord’s in the absence of public attendance, MCC Members will expect free to view facilities being made available.

15 JUNE 2020

E-mail sent 0722 hrs

Dear Guy,

My reason for being in touch with you again concerns the unprecedented virtual MCC AGM arrangements.


The MCC Rules dated 2019 refer at 24.3 to Postal Voting Regulations. My 2019 Regulations have pages 4&5 missing together with pages 48 & 49. I can find no reference to any Postal Voting Regulations that are applicable.Please be kind enough to provide an explanation.

As you will know I am deeply concerned by the Committee decision to include the controversial AGM Agenda Items 8) and 9) (now excluded) and  the online/offline polling arrangements are now unacceptable too.

Following the Webinar catastrophe, online votiing is far too risky (depending on a failsafe fully encrypted IT platform) and I am not even sure the money saved on 2nd Class Postal Voting is justifiable as in some areas even 1st Class Mail is taking several days for delivery.

I have mentioned the very simple and reliable AGM arrangements carried out by WPA (£100 million turnover) for their recent AGM that was completed without any hitch. I suggest the MCC should copy the same format.?

Another IT failure will prove exceptionally damaging to the MCC Committee and supporting executive. The flaws in MCC Governance continue to be very  evident and the reason the Committee appointed the ISWP 9 years ago – a pity no notice has been taken of our remedial proposals.

Thank you,



14 JUNE 2020

E-mail sent 0904 hrs

Dear Gerald,
Thank you for taking the trouble to respond to my latest e-mail. Establishing a dialogue (a discussion designed to resolve a problem) might help matters you know.
You may be aware there are some extremely angry Members baying for blood – you are so out of touch with the grass roots together with “the main committee, the president, the treasurer, the executive, …” . I suppose this is inevitable with the Club being so City centric and your domineering executive influence.
It was you who set your hand against much of our ISWP Report before it was ever made available to Members and you were supported by Colin Maynard who was  also opposed to change. Remember the row at our March 2015 ISWP Meeting when you rudely intervened and Oliver Stocken (Club Chairman) and Peter Leaver QC (ISWP Chairman) asked you to remain silent? Your “second chamber” remarks of course were never recorded but at this Meeting you made your views explicitly clear.
How strange the Committee at their Meeting of October 2014 (which I attended) supported so many of our ISWP proposals and even voted unanimously to reduce their number as our ISWP Report recommended. How odd that upon your arrival as Chairman everything was changed – I wonder why?
Perhaps you remain unaware of how unpopular you have become with your bombastic presence in the Committee Room and cannot hear or will not listen to the loud voices of opposition that you refer to as a rattle in the wind!
Perhaps I may be allowed to suggest that some heads should roll in respect of the “executive” being responsible for such an embarrassing debacle in front of 2,000 Members on Friday afternoon?  This associated with the incredible Rule changes published in support of Item 9) would suggest you might be tempted to sack the Club Solicitor for a start. You cannot continue to cover up and sweep under the carpet what amounts to sheer incompetence or even negligence.The Executive is paid handsomely to deliver services of peerless standards.to the Members  Believe me many Members are not happy about the loss of £4,5 million in respect of 6 GER, the incredible Pension Fund deficit and the mystery of why there is no insurance payment for the interruption of business at Lord’s as has happened at Wimbledon in order to compensate for the huge losses. How about a reduction in next year’s Subscriptions??.
I can only repeat my prediction that If the “virtual” AGM arrangements remain in place {now without Item 9)}  you will face the inevitable consequences of an SGM resulting from your stubborn intransigence. Believe me the hoarse voice of tumult will sound much less like a “rattle in the wind” if you and the “executive” blunder on regardless.


Nigel Knott;
You replied on 14/06/2020 9:04 AM.

Hi Nigel

Thank you for another blast from darkest Wiltshire .
We all apologise for the tech failures. These are not easy times . Our executive are doing an excellent job under difficult circumstances.
We all crave a return to normality and the ability to discuss things in a good way , and normally would of course defer the general meeting .
But we have to take the decision on the Compton and Edrich and whether to pause . Each month costs £2m. The committee wishes to press on with life memberships , rather than tip the club into debt at this moment of maximum risk and we must take a decision . We don’t have the luxury of time and the virus is a huge constraint .
We will be communicating shortly the way forwards .
You will always blame me for not forcing through the ISWP conclusions of five years ago when the main committee , the president, the treasurer, the executive and myself all disagreed with them, and your continual  request for my resignation will always rattle in the wind .
I will of course remain at my post while we work through these difficulties.
Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Jun 2020, at 12:28, Nigel Knott <njk@dentsure.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Gerald,

It is difficult to find a more embarrassing event than last afternoon’s Webinar, in my 56 years of Club Membership and in front of an audience of 2000 Members to boot!

If you are to last out your term of office as the non-executive Club Chairman you will need more than to treat recent events with just a nervous laugh. You should start with sacking the Deputy Secretary (Legal) and not just for this incredible AGM Rule disaster.

Only days ago before the Webinar I published on the internet the following question and answer:-

Will the internet platform or VPN be completely secure and failsafe ? I doubt it. This is a dangerous experiment designed to place vitally important matters such as Governance and  Club Finances under close scrutiny.


The virtual AGM should be restricted to simple tick box matters only to allow the Club to continue in business and any discussions or Special Resolutions such as Item 8) made the subject of a real SGM in due course together with Item 9) as in my letter to you dated 10 June 2020. Both matters are highly contentious and not appropriate matters for any virtual AGM Agenda. Neither is the separate provision of online polling acceptable in the light of yesterday’s debacle that has shattered our confidence in the MCC executive to guarantee the veracity of a digitised vote. You need to get back to reliable offline methods that carry Member confidence and trust. It is possible you may be faced with a poll defeat of Item 8) anyway and your resignation should follow immediately afterwards. Some sleepless nights perhaps and memories of your Chairmanship of Railtrack ending ignominiously might lie ahead?

May I suggest you remind yourself of the Minutes of the ISWP Meeting of March 2015 when you announced your intention of standing in the way of introducing democratic government within the MCC at Lord’s? At present the MCC is not fit to enjoy the grant of a Royal Charter and you yourself must carry part of the blame. It is entirely inappropriate for the MCC Committee to retain the entire powers of  arbitrary management of the day to day affairs a Lord’s. These powers may have been appropriate back in 1866 with Titans such as the Earl’s of Derby, Bessborough, Sefton, Suffield, Londesborough and many more members of the aristocracy and City Instiutions, but in 2020 with strict rules of accountability and transparency being the ordervof the day Rule 13.1 is not only inappropriate but unacceptable when placed against the highest standards of ethical behaviour expected from a Royal Charter Company.

I am happy to treat this correspondence in confidence for the next 72 hours but reserve my right to publish the contents if I have not had any constructive responses from you in the meantime. You cannot go on behaving like an Ostrich by burying your head in the sand. Our Club and the national game itself are presently in grave danger and threatened as never before. Having represented the Club on the field of play on a number of times and played at Lord’s, together with being appointed by the Committee to serve on 6 Special WP’ between 1992 and 2015 I do know what I am talking about.





11 JUNE 2020

Posted 1245 hrs https://www.cricketworld.com/ecb-ceo-tom-harrison-states-were-looking-at-the-most-significant-financial-crisis-in-ecb-history-we-ask-was-cricket-properly-insured-/63708.htm

Has the MCC made proper provision and insured against the business losses?


Posted 1200 hrs Letter to Chairman MCC + e-mail copy

Dear Gerald,

I am attaching a copy of my letter sent to you today at Lord’s via 1st Class Mail.
Suffice it to say in addition, your sponsorship of the extraordinary Resolution “That the changes to the Club Rules are made to effect governance changes in accordance with the Explanatory Note (Pages 10,11and 12) to Agenda Item 9.” in preference to the advice given by a number of senior MCC Members and well known City Consultants advising the ISWP on making the necessary governance changes 5 years ago, is an insult to the intelligence of MCC Members and a degradation of our Royal Charter status. I hope Members will exercise their sovereignty at an inevitable SGM to reject your absurd plans.
Nigel J Knott (Dr.)


To:                                         From: Knap Cottage Seend SN!2 6NN

Gerald Corbett

Chairman MCC

Lord’s Ground NW8 8QN

10 June 2020

Dear Gerald,

Reference MCC 2020 Annual General Meeting Report and A/c’s

I am writing to you as the non-executive MCC Chairman mandated with the responsibility of ensuring all business matters decided at MCC Committee meetings are lawful and obey the Club Rules.


The arrangements being made for the 2020 AGM are in breach of the traditional Agenda procedures being restricted to the Ordinary Business of the Club. The AGM “Explanatory Notes” make it very clear the traditional AGM arrangements are not possible in the present circumstances. Therefore, the Committee has put in place alternative plans to ensure the Ordinary Business Agenda executed at AGM is determined with temporary arrangements being in place to allow Members to “exercise their fundamental right of voting on business at the AGM” and no other extraordinary or special business must be determined at this AGM. Period.

There are two separate matters to consider a) the arrangements to hold an emergency “virtual AGM” and b) the ordinary business agenda items and the method of determination. It is the nature of the “business” being proposed at this virtual AGM and the emergency measures being employed that invite sanction.


Postal voting was introduced in 1999 for all Ordinary Business Items on the AGM Agenda for the first time in Club history. This year the Committee is allowing additional online voting to take place within a window of 4 hours and 29 minutes following the virtual AGM to allow Member access to the AGM proceedings before voting online. This online voting population therefore will be better informed and the two sets of voting patterns (offline/online) will differ.


There are however, two extraordinary business Items 8) Life Membership and 9) Governance that fall foul of the law as they cannot by any stretch of the imagination be classed as Ordinary Business Items.  These are matters of special or extraordinary interest to all MCC Members that must necessarily be the subject of Special or Extraordinary General Meeting arrangements called in the traditional manner with a quorum of 50 Members being present. The complex Rule changes required to implement these Extraordinary Resolutions require widespread Member consultation in advance of formal approval by a special majority at SGM. It is interesting to note the Club Rules of 1867 (Rule XV111) state only votes cast at SGM by those Members actually present at any SGM are valid. This Rule remained in principle until 2000.


Your highly contentious personal letter addressed to me dated 23 May 2020 breaches Club Rule 9 as you have trespassed within the rightful domain of the Secretary MCC and seek to influence the outcome of AGM Agenda Items 8) and 9) that must be expunged from the 2020 AGM Agenda being unlawfully included as Ordinary Business Items. Both Resolutions should await formal EGM/SGM determination by Members in less stressful times via offline methods.

By your latest actions you have failed in your duty of care as the Chairman of MCC Committee Meetings to guide the Committee in a direction that is in the best interests of the Club and all its Members.

Finally, a point of Order under what should be Agenda Item 2) “Matters arising from the 2019 Minutes” (Ref AGM Report p 59 paragraph 5). Mr. JB Mitchell (a lawyer) raised questions concerning the Royal Charter Incorporation and the status of Lord’s Cricket Ground. They remain unanswered and furthermore the proposed new Rule 19 retains the unnecessary appointment of a Custodian Trustee seven years after Royal Charter Incorporation took place!


I will be publishing the content of this letter to you at https://www.mccmembers.co.uk/StopPress1505.html  and trust you will respond constructively to my objections. Failing this I will join with other MCC Members in calling an urgent SGM to address matters.



Nigel J Knott (Dr.)

Elected Playing Member 1966

Appointed by the MCC Committee to 6 Special Working Parties

Letter sent 1st Class Mail and copy via e-mail



Copy of e-mail sent to Guy Lavender 0738 hrs

MCC Rules and Regulations

Dear Guy,

I trust you are keeping fit and healthy.

My reason for being in touch with you again concerns the unprecedented virtual MCC AGM arrangements.


The MCC Rules dated 2019 refer at 24.3 to Postal Voting Regulations. My 2019 Regulations have pages 4&5 missing together with pages 48 & 49. I can find no reference to any Postal Voting Regulations that are applicable.Please be kind enough to provide an explanation.

As you will know I am deeply concerned by the Committee decision to include the controversial AGM Agenda Items 8) and 9) in the online/offline poll arrangements.

I believe this Committee decision to be “repugnant or contrary to law or inconsistent with the provisions of the Royal Charter”.

In my opinion this MCC Committee action degrades and devalues the peerless standards of governace and behaviour expected from a Royal Charter Company. The MCC should be held in the highest public esteem and as a long serving MCC Member I am not proud of what is happening within the Grace Gates at this difficult time in our history.

Thank you,



Dr Nigel Knott

10 JUNE 2020

Arrangements have been made for a virtual AGM to be staged at Lord’s Cricket Ground on 24th. June 2020 @1700hrs to formally approve the 2019 Report and A/c’s and determine the traditional Ordinary Business Agenda Items numbered 3-9. Two Items 8) and 9) are in fact Special or Extraordinary Business Items and therefore should not be included for determination on any AGM Agenda. These two Items should properly be made the subject of EGM/SGM arrangements in accordance with Club Rules. Any poll therefore on these items at AGM will be unlawful and the votes invalid.

It is in any event entirely unacceptable to determine matters of such importance with smart technology which will disadvantage a number of the more senior Members unfamiliar with a virtual environment. Will the internet platform or VPN be completely secure and failsafe ? I doubt it. This is a dangerous experiment designed to place vitally important matters such as Governance and  Club Finances under close scrutiny  – an example of the virtual truth that cunning times puts on to entrap the wisest. The lack of accountability and transparency associated with £ millions being written off in the Club A/c’s requires formal investigation. The Committee commissioned the ISWP to recommend restructuring and governance improvements which the Chairman MCC opposed personally and even chaired a Committee meeting that reversed the Committee decison taken in October 2014 to reduce the size of the MCC Committee. Extraordinary. We belong to a Royal Charter Company that is failing to implement peerless standards of governance that include transparency and accountability in all its business affairs.

A letter has been sent to the Chairman MCC and the contents will be published on this website @ Noon Thursday 11 June 2020.


Dr Nigel J Knott

Elected Playing Member MCC 1966

Appointed by MCC Committee to 6 Special WP’s 1992-2015




Another SGM held in the Long Room on 20 September 2007 concerning the contentious issue of Members paying to attend the 20/20 World Cup at Lord´s resulted in another embarrassing Committee defeat thus completing a hat trick! The Special Resolution required a two thirds majority and failed by more than 10%. The result confirmed a failure by the Committee to properly canvas Member views in advance.

The SGM held on 9 July 2007 resulted in defeat for the MCC Committee by 4167 votes in favour of the Resolution to 2741 against. This is the second defeat the Committee has suffered in the last two years where they have opposed special resolutions concerning the sale of debentures and the loss of terrestrial television coverage from Lord´s.

July 2007

An SGM is to be held at Lord´s on 9 July 2007 @1600 hrs (see SGM section) concerning the Debenture Scheme

March 2007

The details of a new Debenture Scheme have caused controversy and an SGM is being requisitioned by more than 200 signatories. The basic problem centres upon a shortage of seating space available for Members. The BSkyB deal has meant that more Members attend Lord´s as Test Matches can no longer be seen on terrestrial TV and the Debenture terms will mean that more outside commercial interests will further encroach on Member seating space.

June 2006

The MCC Committee has set up a Working Party to look into the broadcasting of Test Matches from Lord´s. The first meeting will take place on Thursday June 22nd and will be chaired by Peter Leaver QC.

4 May 2006

MCC Committee is defeated and a Resolution approved by the membership to set up a Working Party to investigate Test match cricket at Lords being available on terrestrial TV. Voting numbers:- For 2798 Against 1107. This is a historic landmark as it is the first time that the MCC Committee has been defeated with a postal ballot being employed to bolster the Committee opposition to the Resolution.

11 December 2005

22 Questions for the ECB to Answer

1) Where is the Trust document relating to the 585,000 partly paid Ordinary shares in Reigndei Ltd?

2) Why were the A/c’s of Derbeyork Trustees Ltd (DTL) for the period ended 31 December 2004 not filed at Companies House by 30 November 2005?

3) Why was the Annual Return of DTL for the period to 17 December 2004 not filed at Companies House until August 2005?

4) Why was the new Director appointed to DTL on 1 October 2004 not identified on this Annual Return?

5) Why was this new Director appointment not filed at Companies House until 29 July 2005?

6) Why is it necessary to hold in excess of 2.5 million cash in an offshore Company A/c in Guernsey?

7) Why are the figures shown in the ECB a/c´s for the years 2003-2004 different from the figures shown as the premiums receivable in the Reigndei a/c’s?

8) Why were the approved insurance claims of Reigndei not paid by the end of 2004?

9) Why were the 2004 wet weather insurance claims nearly 3X 2003?

10) Why were no Director emoluments shown in the ECB A/c´s for the year ended 31 December 2003?

11) Are any ECB Directors in receipt of emoluments from any company related to the ECB?

12) Where are the details of the reinsurance premiums of 211K paid by Reigndei Ltd in 2004?

13) Where are the details of the claims payable by Reigdei Ltd in respect of £1,476,123 in 2004?

14) Where is the management and control of Reigndei Ltd situated?

15) Who controls the monies held by Reigndei Ltd that have been transferred by the ECB?

16) Why is the ECB allowed to transfer money to an insurance company outside the regulatory supervision of the FSA?

17) Does Reigndei Ltd trade in Guernsey?

18) What are the reasons for Reigndei Ltd not being subject to UK Corporation Tax?

19) Who are the Directors DC Allen and RJ Gale of Reigndei Ltd., where are they resident, what are their duties and how are financial decisions made?

20) What are the duties and functions of the Directors of DTL?

21) Why are the standard contributions made to the pension scheme by the ECB 41.7% of salaries whilst there are no member contributions and special additional ECB contributions of £699,000 in 2004 and £500,000 in 2003?

22) Why is it necessary to create this arcane network of companies when it should be a simple matter for the ECB to arrange for wet weather indemnity directly through the London insurance market?


29 September 2005

Now we know the truth fresh from Westminster – the facts are these:-

Lord MacLaurin wrote as Chairman of the ECB to Chris Smith (Minister of Sport) in June 1998 requesting his authority to relax the rules governing A List Sports. This was done in order to attract more money into cricket from pay to view providers who were allowed to bid on the understanding that a substantial amount of live terrestrial broadcasting remained. The terms of the bids were sent to Chris Smith for approval before acceptance.

Lord MacLaurin made it clear to the new Chairman of the ECB David Morgan that the ECB had to gain approval from the Minister of Sport in advance of any new cricket contracts being signed and that subsatntial live terrrestrial coverage had to be guaranteed as a result of his negotiations with Chris Smith in 1998. This advice was ignored and the understanding dishonoured.

Tim Yeo asked the question “Is the ECB fit to be the governing authority of the game of cricket”? – from this evidence the answer has to be No.

The full unaudited transcript of the DCMS Select Committee Minutes from 29 November 2005 can be accessed here.

Here is an unaudited extract from the evidence given by Lord MacLaurin:-

Lord MacLaurin of Knebworth: I wrote to Chris on 23 June 1998 when it was agreed that Test cricket would go from the A list to the B list and on the second page of my letter to Chris, I said, “As you will recall, I have given my personal reassurances to you and the Prime Minister that in such an environment, the ECB would wish to keep a substantial amount of live coverage on the BBC”. We did not know that Channel 4 was going to get involved in those days and we were obviously talking to the BBC, so I am absolutely quite clear that in the deal that we did, Chris and I, we had to keep a substantial amount of cricket on free-to-air television.

From my point of view it is very clear indeed. I did the deal with Channel 4 and Sky and I had to confirm it with the Secretary of State before I was allowed to announce it. You could not have anything much clearer than that.

I think we can only surmise. I presume that the ECB was talking to the Department and getting clearance that they could deal with any broadcaster exclusively. I know that when the deal was going through I spoke to my successor, David Morgan, the Chairman of the ECB, and reminded him of our conversation and I reminded him of the deal that I had done, so he knew exactly what that was.

I had a conversation with Chris which was very clear; he would not allow me to announce anything until he was satisfied with the deal that was on the table. So I phoned Chris and said “This is the deal” and he said, “Okay, you can announce it.” In my letter it quite clearly says that a substantial amount of live coverage would be on free-to-air television. I do not have any doubt about that. I presume that happened, I do not know. Certainly David Morgan, the Chairman, knew of the deal. As to what has happened over the last negotiations, I really do not know.

The ECB/BSkyB deal is a hot topic that has caused a public outcry. The grass roots game will suffer and so will the pensioners and young aspiring Freddie Flintoff’s who cannot afford to pay for BSkyB. What are the ECB thinking about? Surely the greatest asset for the game is millions of fans having access to a variety of live broadcasts from free terrestrial TV and all other forms of new media coverage such as the Internet and Wi-Fi networks?

MCC Members can do their duty and protect our national game from exclusive commercial exploitation and ensure a balanced programme of broadcasting from Lord’s. Download the SGM Requisition Form (click on SGM) from this website, sign it and send it to Knap Cottage Seend SN12 6NN

The Financial Times on 5 November 2006 mentioned BT were going to launch a broadband television channel – will it be covering Test Match cricket live?