To be borne in mind is that six hits had yet to be introduced, so if the Bolton Evening News is to be believed, Bradshaw scored 178 runs in 75 minutes. The C & F.F. on the day states the Eagley innings closed at 5.20 and Bradshaw were 9 runs from the first six overs. With the game at this stage the report went to print.

Commenting on the match one week later the C & F.F. says Bradshaw scored the runs in little over 100 minutes, and shows Silcock's winning hit to have been a seven.

Which of the given times is correct? Well, matches at that time were played over 4½ hours plus a tea interval, and starts were at 2.30p.m.

Bradshaw bowled 61 overs at Eagley in 2 hours 50 minutes, well under 3 minutes an over. Eagley had bowled 32 overs when the game ended. If the same rate had been maintained the innings would have lasted 1½ hours, just halfway between the Bolton Evening News and the C & F.F.'s conflicting times.

In seeking a third opinion for the sake of accuracy, whilst favouring the C & F.F.'s 100 minutes as being more logical, The Bolton Chronicle's claim that there was still half an hour left for play when the match was won, supports the original commentary.

It was little over one month later that the cricket committee, no doubt acting in good faith (as all cricket committees do - in spite of opinions to the contrary) and with the interest of the club at heart made a calamitous decision that was to cause much anguish and recrimination. The committee were considering a change of professional, and at a special meeting it was agreed to ask Silcock his terms for cricket professional only, i.e. to dispense with his services as groundsman. At the same time an advertisement was to be placed in the Athletic and Yorkshire Post for a weekly and Saturday afternoon professional. At the ordinary meeting one week later on August 4th, applications were read from Ingleby, professional of Tyldesley, Bent of Halliwell and a professional from Somerset whose name is not minuted. Silcock's terms were £2.10.0d. for three days work, and he to give back 10/- for an assistant groundsman. Dickens, the Egerton professional, who presumably had been approached by the club, had asked £3.0.0d. plus a benefit.

Whether the question had been put incorrectly to Silcock, or whether his quote was in answer to the agreed proposal is not known. It was then decided to ignore the Somerset professional's application. Bent received no further mention, and Ingleby was to be written to for more information, and to ask his terms.

The justification for only having two resolutions before a meeting, reached by a process of elimination, can be seen in the final vote of 8 to Dickens, 6 to Silcock, the only democratic way to have arrived at a decision. But democratic or not the news was greeted with such discontent in the village, that a protest meeting was called by the members and held in the school on the Monday night.

At the time this meeting was being held, the chairman Mr. H. Miller had called the cricket committee to a meeting of their own at the cricket pavilion, where the 14 assembled, together with W. C. Dakeyne the club captain, who had been absent from the earlier deliberations, the business being "To discuss the position the club committee should take regarding the protest meeting called by the members of the club in regard to the committee signing Dickens as professional".

It was resolved that the committee stand by their decision and that no resolution passed at the protest meeting would have any effect. The secretary then asked if the committee would consent to meet a deputation from the protest meeting and it was agreed to do so.

At this stage in the proceedings a messenger arrived from the school requesting the committee to send a deputation to meet representatives of the public meeting the following night. The secretary and others promised to attend.

The outcome of the confrontation was reported later Tuesday night, by the deputation, to the full cricket committee. It transpired that during the meeting Mr. Miller had retired from, and Mr. Jethro Hamer had been elected to, the chair. The representatives of the protest meeting were to report to another full meeting of members on Thursday night but "That the committee still stood to their action."

At Thursday night's meeting Mr. F. Leigh was proposed to the chair and outlined the case, stating the result of the meeting with the cricket club deputation. Mr. Miller then reported on behalf of the committee. After considerable discussion, the committee retired, returning to say they were still of the same mind. More debate and the eight who had voted against Silcock's re-engagement retired. On their return Mr. Miller asked for a vote to be taken for or against Silcock's retention. The meeting by a large majority showed to be in Silcock's favour. Mr. Miller then announced the cricket committee's resignation. The six committee who had been in the minority were asked to stand again for election and agreed. Mr. Leigh then put a resolution before the meeting, "All those who were in favour of Mr. Silcock, and that the committee resign," against an amendment by two of the retained committee men, Mr. F. Wild and the secretary Mr. John Sofield, "That the matter be allowed to drop".

There was to be no reprieve, eight new committee members being elected to join the vindicated six.