MCC members face potentially divisive vote on historic fixtures at AGM

SAM MORSHEAD: MCC made a proposal to stage the Varsity and Eton-Harrow games at Lord's every other year on rotation, with the final of open schools and open universities competitions taking place in the alternate years. It was rejected

The MCC's annual general meeting in May will feature a vote on the futures of certain historic matches at Lord's, after a survey found its members to be split on the topic.

A row erupted last year when MCC decided to remove the Varsity match between Oxford and Cambridge universities and the meeting between public schools Eton and Harrow from its fixture list. 

It subsequently had to back down, to avoid the prospect of an extraordinary general meeting, and subsequently asked its 23,000 full and associate members to have their say on the subject.

Less than half of the membership took part in the survey, but in a letter - seen by The Cricketer - the MCC claimed the responses "remained representative of the known profile of the membership".

Among those who did share their opinions, sentiment was split. 

Fifty-three per cent were in favour of retaining the Oxford-Cambridge match, with 36 per cent against. The divide amongst members over the Eton-Harrow game was even more acute, with 44 per cent in favour of keeping the fixture and 43 per cent against.

^{The Eton-Harrow fixture is at the centre of dividing opinions within the MCC membership [Getty Images]}

As a result, MCC made a proposal to stage the two games at Lord's every other year on rotation, with the final of open schools and open universities competitions taking place in the alternate years.

In a letter to the Historic Fixtures Group (the collective of members campaigning to keep the existing matches), MCC treasurer Tony Elgood - the chair of the club's working group on the matter - warned about the potential the issue has to drive a wedge within the famous institution.

"A vote on these matters at an AGM, whilst democratically attractive, may simply entrench this division for many years, with 'winners' and 'losers'," he wrote. "This is not healthy, or helpful, for us as a club and potentially creates significant risk of damage to the club's reputation."

The suggestion of biennial fixtures, however, was met with derision by the active element of the membership which is seeking to preserve both occasions at the home of cricket.

"We do not feel that your proposed compromise is satisfactory to either side," the Historic Fixtures Group wrote in a letter of response to Elgood. "Those wishing to see the matches reinstated will see this as half-baked. Those wishing to see them removed will not be happy either."

Furthermore, the group suggested a moratorium on further action over the historic fixtures for 10 years.

"[We - the Historic Fixtures Group] believe that the current regime at the MCC has lost the authority to voice any credible views on the future of the matches, or make any recommendations, and it should be left instead to the next generation to take the temperature at the appropriate time," part of the letter read.

^{Members will vote on the match's future at May's AGM [Getty Images]}

"If by then, after taking proper soundings and gaining insight into members' views, they detect that the mood of the club indicates a marked shift in the balance, then let them formally review the matter at that point."

The 10-year proposal was not countenanced by MCC, and the matter will now go to a members' vote at the club's AGM on May 3.

It is a delicate matter for MCC, at a time when the club is concerned about negative media attention and the imminent publication of the Independent Commission on Equity in Cricket (ICEC) report, which is expected to be damning about race, gender and class division and disparity within the game.

In correspondence to the members on Friday, seen by The Cricketer, MCC chief executive Guy Lavender wrote: "In a time of huge change within cricket and significant external scrutiny on the inclusivity of our sport, it is important that we pull together as a club.

"The arguments on both sides have now been well aired and we would hope to be able to turn our attention to the other pressing matters facing the club, until the AGM itself, when members will decide."