MCC: the greatest anachronism of English cricket

There’s been an outbreak of egg-and-bacon-striped handbags at dawn. Sir John Major’s resignation from the Main Committee of the MCC, in a row about redevelopment plans at Lord’s, has triggered a furious war of words in St John’s Wood.

Put simply, the former prime minister took umbrage at the process by which the MCC decided to downgrade the project. He then claimed that Phillip Hodson, the club’s president, publicly misrepresented his reasons for resigning, and in response Sir John wrote an open letter to set the record straight, in scathing terms.

The saga has been all over the cricket press, and even beyond, in recent weeks – underlining the anomalously prominent role the MCC continues to maintain within the eccentric geography of English cricket.

To this observer it’s both puzzling and slightly troubling that the people who run cricket, and the mainstream media who report on it, remain so reverentially fascinated by an organisation whose function has so little resonance for the vast majority of people who follow the game in this country.

Virtually anything the Marylebone Cricket Club do or say is news – and more importantly, cricket’s opinion-formers and decision-makers attach great weight to its actions and utterances. Whenever Jonathan Agnew interviews an MCC bigwig during the TMS tea-break – which is often – you’d think from the style and manner of the questioning that he had the prime minister or Archbishop of Canterbury in the chair.

Too many people at the apex of cricket’s hierarchy buy unthinkingly into the mythology of the MCC. Their belief in it borders on the religious. A divine provenance and mystique are ascribed to everything symbolised by the red and yellow iconography.  The club’s leaders are regarded as high priests, their significance beyond question.

The reality is rather more prosaic. The MCC is a private club, and nothing more. It exists to cater for the wishes of its 18,000 members, which are twofold: to run Lord’s to their comfort and satisfaction, and to promote their influence within cricket both in England and abroad. The MCC retains several powerful roles in the game – of which more in a moment.

You can’t just walk up to the Grace Gates and join the MCC. Membership is an exclusive business. To be accepted, you must secure the endorsement of four existing members, of whom one must hold a senior rank, and then wait for twenty years. Only four hundred new members are admitted each year. But if you’re a VIP, or have influential friends in the right places, you can usually contrive to jump the queue.

Much of the MCC’s clout derives from its ownership of Lord’s, which the club incessantly proclaims to be ‘the home of cricket’. This assertion involves a distorting simplification of cricket’s early history. Lord’s was certainly one of the most important grounds in the development of cricket from rural pastime to national sport, but far from the only one. The vast majority of pioneering cricketers never played there – partly because only some of them were based in London.

Neither the first test match in England, not the first test match of all, were played at Lord’s. The latter distinction belongs to the MCG, which to my mind entitles it to an equal claim for history’s bragging rights.

The obsession with the status of Lord’s is rather unfair to England’s other long-established test grounds, all of whom have a rich heritage. If you were to list the most epic events of our nation’s test and county history, you’d find that only a few of them took place at Lord’s. Headingley provided the stage for the 1981 miracle, for Bradman in 1930, and many others beside. The Oval is where test series usually reach their climax. In 2005, Edgbaston witnessed the greatest match of all time.

Lord’s is only relevant if you are within easy reach of London. And personally, as a spectator, the place leaves me cold. I just don’t feel the magic. Lord’s is too corporate, too lacking in atmosphere, and too full of people who are there purely for the social scene, not to watch the cricket.

Nevertheless, Lord’s gives the MCC influence, which is manifested in two main ways. Firstly, the club has a permanent seat on the fourteen-member ECB Board – the most senior decision-making tier of English cricket. In other words, a private club – both unaccountable to, and exclusive from, the general cricketing public – has a direct say in the way our game is run. No other organisation of its kind enjoys this privilege. The MCC is not elected to this position – neither you nor I have any say in the matter – which it is free to use in furtherance of its own interests.

It was widely reported that, in April 2007, MCC’s then chief executive Keith Bradshaw played a leading part in the removal of Duncan Fletcher as England coach. If so, why? What business was it of his?

The MCC is cricket’s version of a hereditary peer – less an accident of history, but a convenient political arrangement between the elite powerbrokers of the English game. The reasoning goes like this: because once upon a time the MCC used to run everything, well, it wouldn’t really do to keep them out completely, would it? Especially as they’re such damn good chaps.

Why should the MCC alone enjoy so special a status, and no other of the thousands of cricket clubs in England? What’s so virtuous about it, compared to the club you or I belong to – which is almost certainly easier to join and more accessible.

What’s even more eccentric about the MCC’s place on the ECB board is that the entire county game only has three representatives. In the ECB’s reckoning, therefore, one private cricket club (which competes in no first-class competitions) deserves to have one-third of the power allocated to all eighteen counties and their supporters in their entirety.

The second stratum of MCC’s power lies in its role as custodian of the Laws of Cricket. The club decides – for the whole world – how the game shall be played, and what the rules are. From Dhaka to Bridgetown, every cricketer across the globe must conform to a code laid down in St John’s Wood, and – sorry to keep repeating this point, but it’s integral – by a private organisation in which they have no say.

Admittedly, the ICC is now also  involved in any revisions to the Laws, but the MCC have the final say, and own the copyright.

You could make a strong argument for the wisdom of delegating such a sensitive matter as cricket’s Laws to – in the form of MCC – a disinterested body with no sectional interests but the werewithal to muster huge expertise. That’s far better, the argument goes, than leaving it to the squabbling politicians of the ICC, who will act only in the selfish interests of their own nations.

But that said, the arrangement still feels peculiar, in an uncomfortable way. The ICC, and its constituent national boards, may be deeply flawed, but they are at least notionally accountable, and in some senses democratic. You could join a county club tomorrow and in theory rise up the ranks to ECB chairman. The ICC and the boards could be reformed without changing the concept underpinning their existence. None of these are true of the MCC.

Why does this one private club – and no others – enjoy such remarkable privileges? The answer lies in an interpretation of English cricket history which although blindly accepted by the establishment – and fed to us, almost as propaganda – is rather misleading.

History, as they often say, is written by the winners, and this is certainly true in cricket. From the early nineteenth century the MCC used its power, wealth and connections to take control of the game of cricket – first in England, and then the world. No one asked the club to do this, nor did they consult the public or hold a ballot. They simply, and unilaterally, assumed power, in the manner of an autocrat, and inspired by a similar sense of entitlement to that which built the British empire.

This private club, with its exclusive membership, ran test and domestic English cricket, almost on its own, until 1968. Then the Test and County Cricket Board was formed, in which the MCC maintained a hefty role until the creation of the ECB in 1997. The England team continued to play in MCC colours when overseas until the 1990s. Internationally, the MCC oversaw the ICC until as recently as 1993.

All through these near two centuries of quasi-monarchical rule, the MCC believed it was their divine right to govern. They knew best. Their role was entirely self-appointed, with the collusion of England’s social and political elite. At no stage did they claim to represent the general cricketing public, nor allow the public to participate in their processes.

The considerable authority the MCC still enjoys today derives not from its inherent virtues, or any popular mandate, but from its history. Because it has always had a leadership role, it will always be entitled to one.

The other bulwark of the MCC’s authority is predicated on the widespread assumption that the club virtually invented cricket, single-handedly. It was certainly one of the most influential clubs in the evolution of the game, and its codification in Victorian times, but far from the only one, and by no means the first. Neither did the MCC pioneer cricket’s Laws – their own first version was the fifth in all.

Hundreds of cricket clubs, across huge swathes of England, all contributed to the development of cricket into its modern form. The cast of cricket’s history is varied and complex – from the gambling aristocrats, to the wily promoters, the public schools, and the nascent county sides who invented the professional game as we know it now. Tens of thousands of individuals were involved, almost of all whom never went to Lord’s or had anything to thank the MCC for.

And that’s before you even start considering the countless Indians, West Indians, South Africans and especially Australians who all helped shape the dynamics, traditions and culture of our sport.

And yet it was the egg-and-bacon wearers who took all the credit. They appointed themselves leaders, and succeeded in doing so – due to the wealth, power and social connections of their membership. And because the winners write the history, the history says that MCC gave us cricket. It is this mythology which underpins their retention of power in the twenty first century.

Just to get things into perspective – I’m not suggesting we gather outside the Grace Gates at dawn, brandishing flaming torches. This is not an exhortation to storm the MCC’s ramparts and tear down the rose-red pavilion brick by brick until we secure the overthrow of these villainous tyrants.

In many ways the MCC is a force for good. It funds coaching and access schemes, gives aspiring young players opportunities on the ground staff, promotes the Spirit Of Cricket initiative, organises tours to remote cricketing nations, and engages in many charitable enterprises.

Their members may wear hideous ties and blazers, and usually conform to their snobbish and fusty stereotype, but no harm comes of that. As a private club, the MCC can act as it pleases, and do whatever it wants with Lord’s, which is its property.

But the MCC should have no say or involvement whatsoever in the running of English cricket. The club’s powers were never justifiable in the first place, and certainly not in the year 2012. The club must lose its place on the ECB Board. That is beyond argument.

As for the Laws, the MCC should bring their expertise to bear as consultants. But surely now the ultimate decisions should rest with the ICC.

Unpalatable though it may seem to hand over something so precious to so Byzantine an organisation, it is no longer fair or logical to expect every cricketer from Mumbai to Harare to dance to a St John’s Wood tune. This is an age in which Ireland and Afghanistan are playing serious cricket, and even China are laying the foundations. The process must be transparent, global, and participatory.

Cricket is both the beneficiary and victim of its history. No other game has a richer or more fascinating heritage, and ours has bequeathed a value system, international context, cherished rivalries, and an endless source of intrigue and delight.

But history is to be selected from with care – you maintain the traditions which still have value and relevance, and update or discard those which don’t. The role of the MCC is the apotheosis of this principle within cricket. For this private and morally remote club to still wield power in 2012 is as anachronistic as two stumps, a curved bat, and underarm bowling.

Maxie Allen

16 comments

  • A few points:

    Major didn’t write an open letter. Quite the opposite. He wrote a letter which was only to be circulated among the committee, one of whom leaked it to the press.

    “The saga has been all over the cricket press, and even beyond, in recent weeks – underlining the anomalously prominent role the MCC continues to maintain within the eccentric geography of English cricket.”

    Well, no, it doesn’t. The issue has been exclusively about the redevelopment of Lord’s. It hasn’t had any implications for cricket beyond the walls of the ground. It underlines the interest in a former prime minister being involved in a row.

    “Virtually anything the Marylebone Cricket Club do or say is news”

    This is neither true, nor does it serve the point being made in the article. In fact, virtually everything that goes on at the MCC goes unreported and unexamined. Surely the more damning point is that a body which has so much influence goes largely unnoticed?

    “Too many people at the apex of cricket’s hierarchy buy unthinkingly into the mythology of the MCC. Their belief in it borders on the religious. A divine provenance and mystique are ascribed to everything symbolised by the red and yellow iconography. The club’s leaders are regarded as high priests, their significance beyond question.”

    Regarded by whom? What’s the evidence for any of this? It smacks of a sweeping assertion to support a point.

    “The reality is rather more prosaic. The MCC is a private club, and nothing more”

    This would be to ignore its major function – it is also a business of a significant size. To ignore that is to ignore its role of making money, and its motivation in many things.

    “Much of the MCC’s clout derives from its ownership of Lord’s, which the club incessantly proclaims to be ‘the home of cricket’. This assertion involves a distorting simplification of cricket’s early history.”

    It doesn’t call itself the birthplace of cricket, which is what you go on to disprove. The England team was selected in its committee room, the Laws were written there and, as you say yourself, the worldwide game of cricket was run from Lord’s for generations. That seems reasonable grounds for the term ‘home’.

    ” Firstly, the club has a permanent seat on the fourteen-member ECB Board – the most senior decision-making tier of English cricket. In other words, a private club – both unaccountable to, and exclusive from, the general cricketing public – has a direct say in the way our game is run. No other organisation of its kind enjoys this privilege”

    What say do we have in the ECB or the ICC? How are they accountable to us? As for ‘no other organization’, have you heard of the BCCI? The BCCI is a private club consortium. hardly open and transparent, and it is far and away the most powerful and influential body in cricket. Its secretary owns the Chennai Super Kings. He administers a sport he also has a financial stake in. It also, laughably, claims charitable status and pays hardly any tax, nor does it publish its accounts.

    “It was widely reported that, in April 2007, MCC’s then chief executive Keith Bradshaw played a leading part in the removal of Duncan Fletcher as England coach. If so, why? What business was it of his?”

    That’s a significant misrepresentation of your own source. As it says, the board was divided, and fell on the side of getting rid of Fletcher. The decision was taken by a vote of the board, not by Bradshaw alone. Even Fletcher’s own whiny account of his last year as coach suggests this was entirely the right decision.

    “The MCC is cricket’s version of a hereditary peer – less an accident of history, but a convenient political arrangement between the elite powerbrokers of the English game. The reasoning goes like this: because once upon a time the MCC used to run everything, well, it wouldn’t really do to keep them out completely, would it? Especially as they’re such damn good chaps.”

    Your sneering about public school types, so often seen in articles about Cook (who proved you both very wrong, very often) has again blinded you to the truth. The MCC’s real equivalent is not the Old Boys’ network, but F1. In both cases they have given the illusion of running a sport for sport’s sake, when in fact they are running a brand, a business. F1 presents itself as the natural apex of motorsport, rather cleverly using its nomenclature to further the illusion, but ‘Formula 1’ is a brand name. Just like ‘the home of cricket’, it is the pinnacle of motorsport because it says it is. The MCC, in a previous era, did much the same. They ran cricket because it was their brand. Just as motor racing teams choose to join F1 rather than another brand of motor sport, cricket clubs chose to play the MCC’s brand of cricket. The MCC ran it because they owned it.

    “What’s even more eccentric about the MCC’s place on the ECB board is that the entire county game only has three representatives. In the ECB’s reckoning, therefore, one private cricket club (which competes in no first-class competitions) deserves to have one-third of the power allocated to all eighteen counties and their supporters in their entirety.”

    Their disinterest, as you suggested in regards to the Laws, may be their strength. The counties, sadly, always push whatever pays the bills this year. So Essex, for instance, always want about 4000 T20s, regardless of what it does to the game. The counties run the game for their own financial interest and are staggering in how contrary their actions often are to the good of both the England team and the game as a whole. The intransigence of the counties has held back English cricket for decades.

    “The second stratum of MCC’s power lies in its role as custodian of the Laws of Cricket. The club decides – for the whole world – how the game shall be played, and what the rules are. From Dhaka to Bridgetown, every cricketer across the globe must conform to a code laid down in St John’s Wood, and – sorry to keep repeating this point, but it’s integral – by a private organisation in which they have no say.

    Admittedly, the ICC is now also involved in any revisions to the Laws, but the MCC have the final say, and own the copyright.”

    Well, sort of, but not really any more. As the BCCI has proved time and again, the Laws will suit the most powerful teams or they will not be passed. Why are spinners now allowed to bend their arms so much? This was not for the benefit of John Emburey. The BCCI has insisted (and got) umpires removed from series, it unilaterally by-passes the Future Tours Programme, it decides what technology is used to officiate its games. It hardly seems to be at the whim of the MCC.

    “The ICC, and its constituent national boards, may be deeply flawed, but they are at least notionally accountable, and in some senses democratic”

    Oh please. Be serious.

    “Why does this one private club – and no others – enjoy such remarkable privileges? The answer lies in an interpretation of English cricket history which although blindly accepted by the establishment – and fed to us, almost as propaganda – is rather misleading.

    History, as they often say, is written by the winners, and this is certainly true in cricket. From the early nineteenth century the MCC used its power, wealth and connections to take control of the game of cricket – first in England, and then the world. No one asked the club to do this, nor did they consult the public or hold a ballot. They simply, and unilaterally, assumed power, in the manner of an autocrat, and inspired by a similar sense of entitlement to that which built the British empire.”

    This is itself misleading and a misrepresentation. The MCC didn’t usurp English cricket, nor international cricket. It ran it because it was responsible for creating it, to a great extent. When England first played India, it was actually the MCC versus the Calcutta Cricket Club. There was no English team until they created it. It was the MCC which organized the international meetings which created the international game. It was they who created the structure which dominates the international game to this day. It seems both strange and disingenuous to characterize this as akin to Imperialism. Without them, would the game have spread and developed as fast? If they were the winners, whom did they beat? Who else was doing these things? No one.

    “All through these near two centuries of quasi-monarchical rule, the MCC believed it was their divine right to govern”

    Says who?

    “The other bulwark of the MCC’s authority is predicated on the widespread assumption that the club virtually invented cricket, single-handedly”

    Another rather random and unfounded claim. I’ve never heard it suggested the MCC invented the game until I read this article.

    “Hundreds of cricket clubs, across huge swathes of England, all contributed to the development of cricket into its modern form. The cast of cricket’s history is varied and complex – from the gambling aristocrats, to the wily promoters, the public schools, and the nascent county sides who invented the professional game as we know it now. Tens of thousands of individuals were involved, almost of all whom never went to Lord’s or had anything to thank the MCC for.”

    This is just as I’ve always heard and understood it. This just reinforces that the previous comment was a straw-man.

    ” And because the winners write the history, the history says that MCC gave us cricket”

    Which would mean you could quote from this bit of history …?

    “Unpalatable though it may seem to hand over something so precious to so Byzantine an organisation, it is no longer fair or logical to expect every cricketer from Mumbai to Harare to dance to a St John’s Wood tune.”

    They don’t, they jump to the BCCI’s tune, and hasn’t that just worked out brilliantly?

    “In many ways the MCC is a force for good. It funds coaching and access schemes, gives aspiring young players opportunities on the ground staff, promotes the Spirit Of Cricket initiative, organises tours to remote cricketing nations, and engages in many charitable enterprises.”

    Quite. Also worth noting, despite your characterizations of the MCC as a collection of superannuated toffs in an ivory tower, that they still lead the way in many regards. Why is it that at Lord’s, the sanctified church of cricket, they can be back playing half an hour after a heavy storm, but at so many supposedly modern Test grounds around the world, unencumbered by tradition or heritage or listed buildings, rain often means the end of the day? It’s because Lord’s has the most advanced pitch, built, effective, on an enormous colander. They consistently push cricket forward, not just in England but around the world.

    • I agree with much of what you have written…MCC has the status it has by virtue of it’s early role in the game – it may well be partly historical accident that it has survived in it’s current form where other clubs have not. I am more inclined to let MCC carry on doing it’s thing than not too, though having been into the pavilion as a guest of an associate member (much shorter waiting list than a full member), it’s far less stuffy than it used to be.

    • I realise this is an old comment, but since people are commenting on this post now it is worth noting that this segment:

      ” It ran it because it was responsible for creating it, to a great extent. When England first played India, it was actually the MCC versus the Calcutta Cricket Club. There was no English team until they created it. It was the MCC which organized the international meetings which created the international game”

      Is completely wrong. The first MCC tour was not until 1903/04, some 27 years after the first “Test”. The MCC assumed control as part of a push to take over cricket from the players and promoters who had previously run the tours – the same happened in Australia culminating in the strike of 1912. To a degree it was popularly supported, at least in the press, who disapproved of the profit-seeking of the professional players. It was also, arguably, a golden era of administration at ICC level, with three new test teams in the 1930s, the likes of which we are unlikely to see again.

      But let’s not pretend the MCC created international cricket, unless you are referring to the Melbourne Cricket Club, who at least under-wrote some of those early tours from England.

      • Fair enough. Good knowledge. I was probably frothing at the mouth a bit by then…:)

  • I’d like to nominate this debate as the most highbrow debate in the history of this blog! Blimey. Please remember that this forum is a broad chruch, and articles are predominantly written to inspire debate, rather than grind any particular axe.

    Just for the record, my personal criticism of Cook a couple of years ago had nothing to do with his public school background; indeed, I owe my love of cricket to my own public school education (but please whisper this quietly!). I called for Cook to be dropped because his technique was shot and he hadn’t scored any runs for ages. I never advocated dropping him for good. Form is temporary and class is permanent. However, you shouldn’t just pick a side on reputation. Form is also important.

    Going back to the MCC, I really have no idea whether the MCC is a force for good in English cricket or not. I really can’t say – even though I’ve followed the sport passionately for many years. I think that this, in itself, illustrates Maxie’s point to a certain degree: ordinary cricket fans really don’t know what they do, how they work, whether they’re all masons ;-) or whether they meet in an underground lair to manipulate world events alongside the Gettys, the Rothschilds, the vatican and the knights templar.

    Apart from the fact they wear colourful blazers, and fall asleep after drinking too much Sauvignon Blanc at lunchtime (irrespective of the state of play), I know absolutely nothing about MCC members. I’d quite like to be one, though. Just so I can bring the system down from within of course ;-)

  • Hmmmm……… Interesting piece but shot through with too many sweeping assertions and convenient assumptions. As THA states, you challenge the “home of cricket” claim (which is, after all, nothing more than a marketing “puff”) and then go on to try to prove it was not the birthplace of cricket.

    My first thoughts were that the author clearly has an axe to grind – perhaps someone who failed to get in after playing their qualifiers to become a Playing Member? But then the overall tone of the piece is such that these must be prejudices that are of long standing and not simply generated as a result of rejection.

    Perhaps the strangest thing about this piece is that other organisations having a significant role within world cricket are, by implication, held to be models of probity and efficiency. BCCI?, ICC? And even the ECB. MCC recognised it was time to relinquish it’s overarching role within cricket through the creation of the ICC and, later the ECB because they believed it was the right thing to do for cricket. With the benefit of hindsight, it would be easy to argue that they made a mistake but that doesn’t alter the fact that it was done for the overall benefit of cricket.

    In many ways, this piece is written 10 to 20 years after the arguments advanced might have had some validity. Today, it just looks like a convenient rant.

  • Thanks for all your interesting comments, but I don’t think anyone has really refuted my central argument – as an unelected and self-appointed body, a private club, why should the MCC have a special say in the running of our game. Even if do have a chip on my shoulder, the point remains. Eggs and Bacon says: “MCC recognised it was time to relinquish it’s overarching role”. Are we supposed to be grateful for that? They shoudn’t have had that role in the first place!

    • I think so. Irrespective of whether they should not have had that role in the first instance, it was done and done for the good of cricket as a whole. The fact that their successors haven’t exactly covered themselves with glory is neither here nor there.

  • That sounds like an argument for a benign dictatorship – this is the very thinking which underpinned the MCC’s hegemony. “We know best”. The MCC have done many good things, and in some ways ran cricket well, but you can’t escape the fact that they never had any kind of public mandate.

    • It has no public mandate in the same way the R&A and the Jockey Club have no public mandate because it doesn’t need one. MCC came into being in the 18th century and just evolved but you are judging it by the sort of standards set for public bodies of today. It is a private club with a public function and that function is to promote the wonderful game of cricket throughout the world. It isn’t run by the aristocracy and membership is open to all. I got in because I could play cricket at a decent level not because I happened to be born with a silver spoon in some part of my anatomy (which I most certainly wasn’t). Benign, maybe but dictatorship – no longer.

  • It’s perfectly reasonable to judge MCC by the standards of today because it continues to have a seat at the top table, as I argue above, but remains a private club. Membership is open to all in the sense that race/gender/assets aren’t criteria but only a minuscule proportion of cricket fans will ever be able to join – and to become a member, you need to have the support of existing members.

    • Full Toss, you make a number of interesting points, but this article does read like you are on a crusade against the establishment of cricket. As someone who is currently on the waiting list for membership myself, I can tell you reliably that the club is open to anyone who would like to join, but admittedly it does depend on being proposed by 3 members and then attending a formal interview with a senior MCC member. To me its no different than applying for a job that you really want and doing the necessary preperation to give yourself the best chance of succeeding. From the outset I have found the MCC to be accommodating, inclusive and passionate about the game above all else. I find it very much a force for good and regardless of any historical issues, more fair and objective than the ICC or BCCI.

      Dont forget that the house of commons is theoretically a democratically elected body, but in all honesty its a private members club who ceased to be interested in the welfare of the public (as its main concern) long ago.

      The MCC may be unelected by the public, but I would argue they do far more for the welfare of their “public” as a body.

      I would also like to add that I am not just an establishment “stooge” !

  • Bernard – thanks for your very interesting and thoughtful comments.

    I have to confess that you haven’t quite convinced me. The MCC, as you acknowledge, is a private club. Anyone can *apply*, but the MCC itself ultimately chooses its own members, who in turn must pay reasonably substantial sums for the privilege.

    The MCC may think it acts in cricket’s best interests, and I’m sure the majority of its members mean well – but not only does that sound like a benign dictatorship, but their opinions are only one set of views, with which not all English cricket followers will agree.

  • Maxie, I have often thought of writing such a piece, but you’ve beaten me to it by miles. Well said indeed!

  • I know this article was written a little while ago but I only just stumbled across it.

    A bit of a rant there. It reads like someone has a chip to get off their shoulder – what a shame.

    In fact, the article was so tediously repetitive and boring that I almost fell asleep like the old boys do in the pavilion.

    I think we need to remember that this is a game to be loved and cherished – to start bickering about parts of it and a club that helped bring the game to where it is now seems a bit out of line.

    If you don’t like it then you could always take up another hobby like football – oh, I forgot how corrupt the organisations are behind that game.

    I think Maxie needs to be a bit more realistic. Keep grinding your axe though…

    Best wishes.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting