Sunday 12 February 2012

The truth about outgrounds

There's a fair few comments about outgrounds at the moment and the decision not to play at Leek this year has upset three people at least.

I can understand their feelings. I'll be honest and admit there is nothing like watching cricket in a different, more intimate environment. Over the years I have loved Chesterfield with a passion that Derby could never match, the first sight of the ground as you cross the bridge from the town still a thing that makes me catch my breath. I used to enjoy cricket in the rustic environs of the bowl at Buxton too, until the perennial issue of rain became too great an issue. Heanor had its merits, if being just a tad too bijou for serious regular cricket, while Ilkeston used to be, if not much else, a little different. I never deemed it a favourite, though my Dad used to love his outings to Burton, primarily because he was from Church Gresley, just down the road.

There's nothing like an outground and there isn't a big equivalent that can match, for all their facilities, the fact that you feel you are in the middle of the game. I always disliked Trent Bridge and felt that you needed binoculars to see the boundary fielders, while Old Trafford never held any charms for me either.

The fact is, however, that all county clubs, not just Derbyshire, have had to rationalise their use of outgrounds. This wasn't a conscious effort to annoy fans from the furthest environs of the counties, but a response to various external pressures. First was health and safety. Planks across beer barrels for seating and the rickety old stands at Chesterfield don't fit with 21st century legislation. Food preparation has to be more closely controlled, as does the use of glasses and the facilities to wash them thoroughly. Fans had a right to decent toilet facilities too, not just a portaloo, convenient bush or a running urinal  that endangers footwear. I still remember my Dad setting off for the toilets at pre-revamp Chesterfield. "Needing the toilet again, Dad?" I asked.

"No son, but by the time I get round there and have stood in the queue I will do" he replied.

Then there's the cost. First you have to ensure that the club groundsman is on top of pitch preparation in various locations, then you have to up sticks and take all kinds of paraphernalia with you to the outgrounds. Boundary advertising boards, additional covers, marquees and seating to name a few. Then there's security and policing arrangements, car parking, transport logistics and more. You may need to clear it with sponsors who want their adverts at the main ground seen and have paid accordingly. If the outground cannot accommodate it, you have another issue.

Most of all there's the development money from the ECB to bring grounds up to standard and improve facilities. They will give that money for your headquarters, but not for an outground, even one of aesthetic appeal and certainly not something ramshackle. Do we turn round and say "no thanks"?

I'm as passionate about it being Derbyshire COUNTY Cricket Club as the next man (or woman). The club are too and offer incentives to members who travel.  By the same token, it's Derby COUNTY Football Club and no one expects them to play at Heanor and Alfreton, do they?

I don't subscribe to the club view, as one correspondent suggests just because its the club line. I do so because their decision, in this case, is made on sound economic grounds. How can we play a Wednesday night game against Durham? There's no floodlights, the traffic would be awful, people could struggle to get there in time from work, to get parked and to get in. They could play it n the afternoon, but then there'd be moans about taking time off work. Yes, there might have been a full house - but there might just as well have been a shedload of problems and complaints. Guess who gets the blame then? I'll complain about unfairness with the best of you, but not when the argument simply doesn't hold weight. With Chesterfield and TV accounting for fixtures, they had no option.

In 2013 if there's a viable Sunday afternoon game to play they will return to Leek and have said so. The club are also committed to Chesterfield and rightly so; it is a highlight of the season. We'll never see a return to the others I mention, but there's no need.

Especially when we have a constantly improving facility at the County Ground.

6 comments:

  1. Come to Ilkeston now if it was a little different then the mind boggles what you'd you'd make of the dump now :-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. its a good point peakfan, but the football analogy doesnt work as football teams have no tradition of being nomadic.

    its always nice to play on different grounds (if they are reasonably nice) but cost is a serious factor, as long as derbyshire retain chesterfield and commit to a proper festival there thats fine, obviously the likes of leek for a one dayer or 2 would be good too but thats the way it is now in county cricket.

    my county, essex, has 1 festival now at the delightful castle park in colchester, this is proper festival cricket, pleasent surroundings, a nice ground, bumper crowd, and enabling those in the north of the county and those in east anglia a convenient location to watch. essex disposed of the traditional southend festival this season, to obvious dissapointment from those in the SE of the county, but not to the rest of the county as the ground used for the festival was literally a hell hole of a place and the antithsis to festival cricket. both festivals made a small profit but the southend one was a hard sell, and as it could not be returned to the popular southchurch park ground (near the sea front, pleasent surroundings, near the town) it was scrapped this year, leaving just colchester. sure the members would like a return to charachterful outgrounds such as ilford, brentwood and clacton, or the possibility of playing in suffolk, but its not cost effective (unless its a scarboroughesque holiday season one)and will never happen, and derbyshire should be glad they have chesterfield. some counties dont even bother anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  3. blimey peakfan its a while since you last went to Chessie (no beer barrels anymore) but its not the standards i disagree with you on it is mor economics. A full house at Chessie or Leek has to make us more than three quarters empty county ground and i dont get why Durham was the only 40 over game viable - but not going to change anything now - just very very disappointing

    ReplyDelete
  4. LOL Creweblade, the barrels was a reference to other places more specifically! Economic argument doesn't hold either mate. When you factor in the costs I referred to, its unlikely to be more profitable to have a full house elsewhere than simply play where you have the facilities. Better for the players, yes, but transport isn't cheap as I know from my job. Good point Anon re Essex and Chris - why, anyone would think you stayed there....(!)

    ReplyDelete
  5. If cost was the problem for not returning to Leek why don't the club publicly advertise for sponsors for the match? They could get plenty of free publicity in papers, radio, websites and tv for this. It seems it was easier to say no than to try and get funding!
    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  6. Essex anon, here.

    All festivals are significantly backed by local sponsors, id imagine its the same with Leek and derbyshire.

    Even with local sponsorship and indeed local borough council support, the 2 essex frestivals last season only made a small profit, despite the fact they probably had greater attendances over the mcourse of the week then a comparable fixtures at HQ.

    Again i imagine its a similar story for derbyshire and all other counties. it costs a hell of a lot to relcoate unless, unless, a lot of the infrastructure is in place already (eg like at scarborough.

    ReplyDelete

Please remember to add your name. Avoid personal comment at all times. Thanks!