1. The year 2007 has been a little disappointing in terms of cash reserves, though this (a) is not the only valid frame of reference, and (b) the money has transferred (mostly) into better kit. The end-of-year bank balance declined from GBP 1193.17 to GBP 924.27. The club has spent little on kit for some years, also picking up free (old) stuff from Mackay's (for example). Some bats bought have been quite low quality. The three new bats this year have been very good (and good value); when looked after they should last a long time. Decent willow also helps add some runs to our totals every week and probably enhances how we all feel about the club. Two new helmets have been bought and kept in good condition -- the previous stuff was dangerous, if better than nothing. New balls have been modestly better quality (GBP 5 per ball) to avoid damaging the bats. The kit is not insured, but a small outlay for duplicate keys to the Fitz ladies' changing room -- now kept locked -- keeps it more secure than previously. I store it in my house over winter. A proper checklist of kit is inside the lid of the kit box if anybody wants to fill it in at the end of a match!
Discussion point: we have, it seems to me, been running a policy of encouraging players to provide their own full kit (pads, gloves, bat, helmet), largely through letting club gear deteriorate, with the end result in mind that the club does not need to buy equipment at all, so that the subs be kept as low as possible. As far as I can see this policy has not worked, although the sub is indeed remarkably low. I propose that we recognize this more realistic position and provide a better standard of kit than previously, funding it through raised fees (match and/or sub) -- though not necessarily this year.
2. The nets in 2007 lost the club GBP 145, plus the usual quite heavy wear on bats. It seems that the session fee (GBP 1) was based on the idea that the cost for hire was GBP 5 or 6 per hour when it was actually GBP 18. At Fenner's this year the club is paying GBP 25 per hour, and the session fee is GBP 2.50. We are currently making a small surplus. This kind of amount seems reasonable for a high quality facility. The cost of a swim at Parkside is GBP 3.60, so the net fee looks OK value.
3. The number of cancellations (11) has been unusually high. Typically, GBP 30 income per match (2 student match fees GBP 1.50, 9 seniors GBP 3) covers our half of the GBP 40 pitch fee with a GBP 10 surplus; ergo a reduction in matches reduces our income. Cancellation of away matches where we have already paid the home pitch fee in full (Coton, also the Cavendish no show) further adds to costs -- although the Cavendish have agreed to play us at their ground without charge this year. In future we need to make sure we take payment for pitch fees even when we have a return fixture; we can ask Coton to let us off the fee when we play at their ground.
4. Detailed subs/match fee income, while very important, has previously never been quantified -- see the further analysis attached. For the purposes of future comparison I propose this should be an essential feature of the annual report and one of several indices for the well-being (or illness) of the club. Daniel's superb team stats are an excellent starting point. Records for 2007 show there were 28 full and 5 student subs paid out of a total pool of 57 players. Apart from 3 clubs officers/guest the non-subs-paying players (21) played a total of 26 games between them -- it was clearly not in their interest to pay a sub. George Speller, Phil Hastings and Stas Shabala were the subs payers who played the fewest games (4), apart from the statistical outlier that is Jim Schwabe, 0. There is therefore a variance of GBP 6.75 to GBP 3.71 per game between the senior members playing the least and most games. No system is perfect, but it seems clear that apart from Jim, no major injustice was done to club or player.
Discussion point: the balance of subs to match fee is clearly a matter of team culture; we might decide that we like our existing system, even though it is not clear over the summer whether some people will ever pay it, and even though it heavily subsidizes occasional players. I propose that we keep the existing sub at GBP 15 but increase the non-sub fee to GBP 5 (non-sub students at GBP 2.50). I propose that all senior players, until they have paid their sub, should pay at this rate. This will encourage people to pay promptly, reduce club stress generally, and also help people to feel good that they have paid their sub early. The various people collecting money can know who has paid or not if Danny can put an asterisk against people's names on the website.
5. Insurance fees came down in 2007 from GBP 256.12 to GBP 95 solely thanks to Andy Owen's recommendation of the Cambridgeshire Cricketing Association scheme. There was -- rightly or wrongly -- no personal accident insurance in place in 2007. For 2008 I have now paid a GBP 50 annual premium which gets -- with GBP 0 excess -- up to GBP 500 for dental treatment or spectacles repair or GBP 10 (!) per week loss of earnings cover. GBP 320 premium still only gets GBP 140 per week loss of earnings, which seemed like poor value for the club. GBP 50 seemed reasonable, but we could discontinue it next year if we so decide. The insurance claim for the broken window was settled reasonably quickly at no cost to the club. Rob's suggestion to the batsman that he pay his GBP 7.50 in order to be covered by the club's insurance resulted in the quickest payment of a sub ever recorded.
Just as a reality check, the cost of ten evenings of cricket with the Remnants is about the same as a meal for two with drinks at Pizza Express; the Comberton Meridian golf club weekday-only subs is GBP 517. Remnants cricket remains exceptionally good value for money.
David Williams, March 2008