We HAD cricket till they interfered (From Gazette Series)

We HAD cricket till they interfered

SIR - Recently a statement made by Berkeley Town Council expressed their desire for cricket to be played at Berkeley this season, along with concern for the current state of the cricket square. These utterances stagger belief as the council know full well that the situation at Berkeley CC is due entirely to their actions - and their actions alone.

Let us take a moment to observe their actions since the end of August, 2003, all of which taken with no consultation with anybody except themselves.

1 Pavilion alterations: All of the cricket lockers (storing bats, pads, gloves, umpire jackets, wickets, bails, balls etc.) were destroyed with no replacement. Over 50 years worth of kit is now being stored at the secretary's house.

2 Outside Shed: The shed stored all of the maintenance equipment required to keep a cricket ground in pristine condition. Marking frames, lime, grass seed, loam, 4 mowers, rakes, spreaders, buckets, brushes were all kept inside, along with the club's scoreboard. In Autumn 2003 the shed, and much of its contents was destroyed. Once again, there was no replacement. The surviving equipment is currently being housed at a range of locations.

3 Rent changed to leasing: A 50-year-old rent agreement, shared by the football and cricket clubs, was altered with no prior consultation to £25 a match. A cricket club is a home with much baggage; it cannot be hired like a dance hall for a few hours. The square has to be attended every day and, as any cricketer knows, with continual repairs and practice sessions, this is a seven-day-a-week job.

4 Change of designation: The council decided to change the name of the field from Station Road Sports Field to Canon Park Recreation Ground. Absurdly, there appeared to be no consultation with the people of Berkeley, those of us whom the council supposedly represent. More importantly, they changed the designation of the venue from a 'sports field' to an open-house 'recreation ground' creating a host of new insurance matters for the club to deal with. A dictatorial-styled letter ordered us to remove our sightscreens from the 'recreation' field. Failure to comply would have led to the council ejecting the screens, then charging us the cost! Again, we obliged, dismantling our treasured sightscreens before spending much time, and money, transporting them to our neighbours Oldlands, a club who must take pleasure in playing on a field not run by a council.

Why all this interference? What was so dramatically wrong with an agreement that had lasted 50 years? Why was there such little respect shown for the club?

In accommodating Berkeley Youth Club the pavilion was, in essence, hijacked and the cricket club undermined. How can this council possibly say that they want to see cricket at Berkeley this summer? Have no illusions, it is they alone who have destroyed 100 years of cricket at Berkeley and with it ended one of the town's longest traditions.

Any inquiry to the chairman of the council is met with the standard reply of, 'We own it, we shall do what we like'. This is hardly a classic example of a modern-day democracy.

The cost of these new arrangements is the least of the club's worries. The overriding problem is that you cannot run a cricket club with nowhere to store both the playing and maintenance equipment. There is no doubt that had it not been for the interference and superciliousness of this council, Berkeley CC would now be preparing to play its first match of another new season at 'Station Road'.

Aly Phillips, Chairman, Berkeley Town Cricket Club