In recent days in England, the temperature has reached a daytime high exceeding 30 C. Unfortunately, there has been little professional cricket for me to watch nearby.
This is a result of the current organization of the cricket calendar. Although the domestic T20 competition, The Blast, is underway, there is an interlude in the four-day county championship and the England’s women’s team has completed a three-match T20 series against New Zealand. In this hiatus, heat of a different kind has been generated within Lancashire County Cricket Club.
A group of former players have united to express their concerns about the way the club is being run. This was partly sparked by Lancashire’s declining fortunes on the field of play. Last year, the club suffered the indignity of relegation from Division One of the County Championship.
This competition, which dates back to 1890, remains the one all counties want to win. Lancashire has taken it outright on eight occasions; five of those titles were between 1926 and 1934, with a hat-trick from 1926-1928. Since then, there has only been a shared title in 1950 and an outright triumph in 2011. This record does not sit well in comparison with their arch-rivals, Yorkshire, who have won the title outright on 32 occasions. The next most successful counties are Surrey and Middlesex, with 22 and 11 titles, respectively.
Lancashire can also lay claim to being one of the most successful counties in the short forms of the game, especially during the late 1960s, early 1970s and throughout the 1990s. Since then, however, success has been elusive, with only the T20 Blast title in 2015 to show for their endeavors.
Patience amongst members has run thin, not just with the lack of silverware, but with the management and governance of the club. Lancashire is a member’s club, with its board tasked with running it for the benefit of members and others to enjoy cricket. This mutual model is adopted by all but three of the 18 counties. It is one that is under threat, as other boards are exploring demutualization. The argument in favor is based on the wish — others may say need — to attract significant external investment. This is required to redevelop stadiums, achieve financial stability and acquire or retain top talent.
Proposals for such a shift are controversial, with members fearing their interests will be marginalized, heritage destroyed, and that a loss of transparency over funding, management and operations will inevitably follow. It is no secret that the majority of county cricket clubs are struggling financially. In Lancashire’s case, one may be forgiven for assuming from the financial report for 2025 that it is not one of them. The accounts show a reported surplus before tax of £25.8m ($34.5m), total assets less current liabilities of £73.2m and net assets up from £7.6m to £33.4m.
Lancashire’s chief executive, Daniel Gidney, said: “Combined with the transformation of the Club’s core business over the past 14 years, Lancashire Cricket is now in a strong financial position and means that everything we generate as a club is reinvested back into cricket.”
The year is described as transformational, the balance sheet as the strongest in the Club’s history and the business as resilient. The reality is that the £29.2m windfall generated by the Hundred franchise sale disguises a different picture. In this, trading profit has fallen from around £5m in both 2023 and 2024 to £1.7m, whilst costs have increased more than six times faster than revenue. In 2026, income streams will be hit by the lack of a Test match.
Gidney was appointed in 2012 after Lancashire’s near brush with insolvency. His turnaround plan embraced the redevelopment of Old Trafford, the establishment of the Hilton hotel at the ground and the growth and success of women’s cricket. It is in the matters of governance where his critics focus their wrath. They have accused the board of being “largely anonymous,” “weak,” and “not understanding the club or Lancashire cricket.” Gidney further failed to endear himself to his opponents by referring to them last week as “old, entitled white men.”
Members say they have tried to get their voices heard for years but have been met by broken promises regarding member representation. They claim the board has handpicked member representatives, stifled debate and, most recently, attempted to censor member’s motions. Two Special General Meetings were held on April 9. The first was called by the board to propose rule changes which had to be adjourned because the wording of the proposed changes was unclear.
It was also deemed undemocratic by opponents, who had called the second SGM. This proposed an increase in the permitted number of former employees on the board from two to four. It narrowly failed to reach the two-thirds majority required, the board arguing that such an increase could jeopardize the safeguarding of independence, objectivity and diversity of perspective. In the wake of these SGMs, the board announced that the adjournment of April 9 would be permanent and that a governance review had been commissioned, to be completed by the end of 2026. On May 10, the opponents submitted a vote of no-confidence in the board. This requires another SGM, the fifth in nine months. It is set for Sunday, June 7 at 9.30 a.m.
Members were also upset at the sandwiching of the club’s Annual General Meeting on Monday, May 25 at 1.30 p.m. between Women’s and Men’s Vitality Blast fixtures at Old Trafford. It was reported that the meeting was scripted. However, the proposal to increase the permitted number of former employees on the board from two to four was passed this time. Club legend Clive Lloyd was elected president and another former player was elected to the board. This goes some way to addressing members’ concerns that the board does not possess enough people with cricketing knowledge.
However, what is effectively a civil war shows no immediate sign of resolution. On April 27, Gidney announced his intention to retire at the end of 2026. Last July, the chairman resigned and was replaced by the president, Dame Sarah Storey, on an interim basis. This is an unstable situation and an example of what happens when a traditional, historic model of operating and ownership is confronted by the need to survive and comply with contemporary regulations. Those tasked with the latter may judge success by commercial and regulatory performance. Members, coaches and players crave success on the field. The club is caught in a heated battle between the two camps. It is to be hoped the introduction of two board members with significant cricketing knowledge will reduce the temperature.
