#Minutes of the Annual General Meeting of Bath University Venturers Cricket Club, 2021.#

The Annual General Meeting of Bath University Venturers Cricket Club took place online, after nothing else workable could be found, at 20:00 on Wednesday 13th October 2021.

Present were: Simon, Imran, Jaideep, Gregory, Matt, Alex, Bruce and Saad, at least most of the time.

1. Captain’s report.

   It was wet, especially early in the season, and at one point we were in danger of playing even less cricket than last year. Four of the first five matches were rained off. In total, 23 matches were arranged but only twelve were played, and one of those was abandoned in the middle because of the weather. There were seven outright cancellations because of the weather, two more because we could not raise a team, one because our opponents could not raise a team and one because no ground was available.

   Of the eleven matches played to a conclusion, we won four and lost seven. In midweek (20-over) matches we were not competitive, winning only one and losing six. The bowling was adequate for the most part, but we had no T20-style batting. In longer matches at weekends we were much more successful, with three wins, one loss and one abandoned (in a curious state where we had taken no wickets at all in eighteen overs but our opponents’ position was nevertheless hopeless). We had plenty of sensible batting: from Ritvij, Jaideep, Farooq, Simon and some more occasional players, notably Toby and Yameen.

   Considering that we were essentially unable to recruit new players except by asking Ritvij, and had lost Ian Corrick and Jamie, this was not a bad set of results.

2. Treasurer’s report.

   We have a balance of £1296.49, which means that we made a worrying loss of £320. Gregory said that he owes the club £10, and there may be a few other match fees that will be paid later. This loss cancels out the surplus from last year (which was, of course, exceptional). It is not sustainable. The immediate cause is that the ground fees at Sulis are now very high. We discussed moving to a model where the costs of each match are shared between the teams rather than the home side paying the bulk of costs. This would not necessarily save us any money (nor should it, perhaps, if that simply passes costs onto our opponents) but it would be more transparent. In reality we have only four opponents whom we play twice, and of those BaNES already use the shared costs system.

   It was noted that in theory there were 132 match fees paid this year, but we occasionally played with only ten (almost always because of genuine last minute emergencies), we do not charge newcomers, and we cannot really charge people who have been lent to us or are otherwise deputising. So to balance the books on match fees alone we would need to charge something like £3 a match more than we currently do. It was agreed to raise the fees to £7 for midweek matches and £8 at weekends. Tea will be treated separately if and when the issue arises. Ideally match fees will be paid in cash, if anybody still has any of that. The system this year, of using bank transfers, was unwieldy, and although there are apps that handle this sort of thing (Broughton Gifford use one) the Treasurer expressed doubts about his own ability to cope with the technology. The apps also work much better if there is a large unchanging group of players who play most matches, which is not always the case for us.

   Access to the bank account is being made more difficult because HSBC seem to think that we are bankrolling the North Korean ball-tampering operation, or something. However, the bank official in charge of the verification of Bruce is a cricketer, which helps.

3. Fixtures

   In view of the costs and very limited facilities at Sulis we have been investigating alternatives. The KES ground at Bathampton is available at least some of the time, but the conditions of use on Sundays make it neither economic nor satisfactory from a cricket point of view. In any case we have few home weekend fixtures, precisely because of poor facilities. This year there were only two, one against a touring team and one against Bristol Venturers, who have no ground of their own. Both were badly affected by the weather. Using Bathampton for midweek matches is possible: it is slightly cheaper than Sulis, no harder to get to (and parking at Sulis may become a problem too) and in many ways pleasanter. However, Bathampton also use it so we would have another constraint on when we could play: this is manageable, but might be awkward sometimes. One option would be to try playing a few matches there next year as an experiment. That also requires care, because if our use of Sulis becomes too infrequent we shall become liable for VAT. We should also check our insurance position, which in any case should be looked at. We are covered by the university’s insurance, but we do not know exactly what that means any more. We also need to find out what the prices at Sulis next year are likely to be: they have risen sharply in recent years.

   We would like a few more weekend matches. Hillesley, whom we nearly played in September this year, are obvious opponents. Rowlands Castle, the tourists from this year, may well return, and it is quite likely that other touring teams will make enquiries. A Salford club is believed to exist, and a match against a suitable (emphasised) team of students would be a good thing. The window for that is rather narrow, though: it has to be after exams and before the students leave.

4. Elections

   We re-elected everybody, designating Imran as vice-captain because history suggests that he is better at captaincy than Gregory or Bruce. That means that Simon is captain, Bruce is treasurer, Gregory is secretary, Alex is in charge of the web page (nobody else knows how it works) and Matt is in charge of publicity, which was impossible this year. We hoped to be able to run some nets next year. Saad had actually experienced the indoor nets in the Founder’s Hall and reported that they were now in good working order. The STV is said to be more relaxed about our using them, because we don’t hit the ball hard enough to do much damage. Jaideep is also on the committee, with no specific responsibilities, and there was an inconclusive discussion about asking Farooq to join in a similar capacity. The committee may co-opt members anyway: it is the captain, treasurer and secretary who much be elected by the AGM.

5. Awards

   These are at the sole discretion of the captain, but nominations are encouraged.

   • Best batter: Despite hundreds from Ritvij and Toby, this went to Farooq for general reliability. His 89 on a slow pitch with a slower outfield would have been a hundred under most circumstances, and he played well in a variety of different conditions.

   • Best bowler: This was quite evidently CB, who had the best match figures (4-14) apart from the freak 4-3 taken by a ringer at Bathford, and by far the best economy rate among people who bowled more than once. Gregory had slightly more wickets at a slightly better strike rate, but was far more expensive: otherwise, only Bruce took significant numbers of wickets. CB bowled visibly better than either of them. (So did Imran, but to little effect.) He troubled good batsmen regularly.

   • Best fielder: There was some competition here. We did well in the field, at least on the ground: we effected a lot of run-outs. Among many good performances, though, Hugh’s enthusiasm stood out.

   • Most improved: The days when Chris Middup won this one in alternate years, deteriorating sharply in the others, are long gone. Most of us just carry on at the same level or, in many cases, decline gradually. The most prominent exception this year was Ritvij, whose batting had clearly moved up a notch and will shortly move out of our class altogether.

   • Best catch: There weren’t any good catches. We didn’t drop all that many, although Bruce had four put down in nine balls at one point, of varying difficulty. One of the easier ones he dropped himself, so he couldn’t complain too much. But pretty much everything we did catch was fairly straightforward. The award was therefore given to Gregory for the most amusing catch. It was an absolutely simple top edge, which he called for with great vehemence because in the previous over a wrong call had caused him to make no attempt to catch an almost identical one.

   • Champagne moment: Ritvij, needing one to win the match at Priston and being, though nobody knew it, 98 not out, ended things with a one-bounce four down the ground. This was his first hundred, and a fine way to get it.

   • Best dressed: CB’s headband won this one easily. The only competition came from CB’s helmet.

   • Duck of the Year: Jaideep, not listening to the umpire and not noticing where his partner was standing, expected the first ball of the innings to be left-arm over and got hopelessly bowled, with his feet in all the wrong places, when it arrived as announced from left-arm round.

   • Most IPL-like: As explained, we didn’t do that. Instead, we awarded ourselves a negative version for batting through twenty overs and making 46-7, needing 87 to win.

   • Best remark in a match report: Always Gregory, because nobody else writes them. (Matt has done, well, but he didn’t play.) This time Simon’s choice fell on the comparison of the structure of the season to the Janacek Sinfonietta, although the explanation of why Duncan was right to give Simon out LBW to a ball that could not have bowled him also attracted attention.

   • The A.J. Wolstenholme Prize for Running Between the Wickets: This premier award, given in the name of a long-serving opening batsman for the club who reliably scored three hundred runs a season and equally reliably ran himself out three times, went to Simon himself. Attempting what he thought was an easy second run, he was run out by half the length of the pitch, having failed to appreciate either the slowness of the Broughton Gifford outfield after heavy rain, or the throwing arm of Broughton Gifford’s best fielder.