So in order to ensure the sustainability of small clubs, with few volunteers, no feeder systems, grounds they don't own and clubs that struggle to put out eleven players, which is the majority of clubs in this country, what's the answer?
Do you throw money at them by way of grants or awards, which may keep them going for a year or two, or do you focus on educating clubs and helping them holistically to ensure sustainability? Because one thing's for certain. If you throw money at these clubs effectively as handouts and don't see increases in participation levels, or returns for your investment, you won''t see that funding going into developing the game in the first place. Cricket Development has no choice but to focus on the strong, sustainable clubs, because that guarantees them the best chance of future funding to support clubs. It's not fair at all, if our club didn't have sponsorship we'd be ruined, but you have to look high up in the ECB establishment to recognise the funding isn't trickling down - Development can only work with what they're given.
I meet with a lot of the ECB National Development staff and I promise you one thing - they are as frustrated as we are. They're trying to generate £5 out of £1 for clubs; savings on utility bills, smart groundwork, energy efficiency, educating clubs on player pathways, school-club links, coach education; make players better so they enjoy the game more. It isn't sexy, but sadly there isn't a bottomless pit of money to simply throw at clubs. Money is always wasted to a point, sports NGBs aren't the only organisations do that, it happens across every industry, but they are far smarter with it than they used to be.
Participation and engagement is another thing altogether, but with funding and participation issues, there is no singular reason or organisation to scapegoat.
Author
Topic: Article in the Guardian on clubs folding (Read 3391 times)