POINTS FROM THE CHAIRMAN'S SPEECH

Enclosed with the above letter was a copy of Mr. Miller's speech. It is a lengthy document, which we are unable to give verbatim, but we have carefully selected the salient points he advanced in support of the Committee's action. In stating their case, Mr. Millier said:-

On Thursday, July 28th the committee met to discuss the question of professional for season 1911. This being our first meeting on the question we devoted practically the whole time, viz. about two hours, to consider the advisability of re-signing Silcock. Each member of the Committee present was asked to state his views and any points he brought out as worthy of discussion and consideration was duly noted and afterwards taken separately and debated upon. The following were some of the points raised, viz:

1. Ground question. 2. Match wickets. 3. Assistance with ground. 4. His other business a hindrance. 5. Is he interested and keen; and also that there was a slackness in practice on part of the first team members, but as to the cause of this we could not state.

I will state briefly the nature of the debate on those points. I have already stated what the points raised by members of the Committee were. I summarise briefly the following points:-

1. Ground question. 2. Match wickets. 3. Assistance with ground. 4. His other business a hindrance.

You will observe that three of these refer to the ground. The other point "His other business" is, in the opinion of some, the root of the matter. As most of you are aware, Silcock has a business of his own, independent to his engagement as professional with the Bradshaw Cricket Club.

He is employed by the club, so states the agreement, "to play with the club when required, coach the players, and to keep the ground (i.e. the portion within the enclosure) in such order and condition as will prove satisfactory to the Committee of the said club".

The Committee, or rather, certain members of the Committee, contend that he does not keep the ground in such order and condition as is satisfactory to them, and, judging from debate, are of the opinion that the time he devotes to it is insufficient. The point then arises as to the cause if this insufficiency of time. It is the opinion of some that his other business undertaking is a handicap to him in successfully carrying out his agreement with this club, so far as the ground question is concerned, at any rate.

I myself have no fault to find with him having another business; in fact, I agree with him. He will not always be able to undertake the duties of a professional cricketer that will earn him a competency, and I admire him in looking at the years to come. The point, however, is, "can he successfully undertake to cope with both duties satisfactorily?" If he is able, well and good; I say continue to do so. But if, on the other hand, in the carrying out of one duty he encroaches on the time he should give to the other, it will eventually lead to this, viz. "that one will have to be given up".

There is one point more, "Is Silcock keen?" I mean is he as keen a cricketer as Bolton & District League cricket demands? League cricket, as you know, especially so when you are in the running, is very keen; in fact, it is its keenness which makes it distasteful to some. Now, I am not going to contend that what I now say is the opinion of the Committee; It may be, I do not know, but it is an opinion of my own formed from my own observations and backed up by others whose opinion is well worth considering. I have asked you "Is he keen?" Has he that keenness which this League demands? A winning team in this League has always to be in earnest, has always to be ready to force an advantage and maintain it. We will take this season as an example, although it is an opinion formed on more than one season's observations. I will take the Tonge match. Look at it what way you will. I say that Silcock that day excelled in every way. He set our lads a good example; his hard work in the field his jumping for catches and running in the field, in addition to his success with the ball were such as to encourage anyone who keenly follows our summer sport. In how many matches this season has such zest and earnestness been displayed? If it had been in evidence regularly I for one feel sure that the Bradshaw Cricket Club would have top place at the present time, as I am of the opinion that were this zest and earnestness or keenness the rule rather than the exception it would be the best tonic our players could have.

We have a young team, the youngest in the League, and being young they require encouragement in addition to having good examples shown them. A keen and earnest player at any time exerts an influence especially when that player is a player of more experience than themselves. We look to our other players being keen and in earnest; on this depends their position in the team, and I say surely it is not looking for too much for our professional to be keen and in earnest.

After spending some considerable time over the consideration of the points raised, the advisability of convening a meeting of players and committee or a general meeting of members to discuss certain points only not to vote was also debated, but as the Committee were not willing for various reasons to adopt either of these courses they were dropped, as was also a suggestion to circularise the players asking their opinion on certain points. We therefore decided to see if Silcock would be willing to accept a position as coach and Saturday professional and on what terms, and accordingly a deputation of two was appointed to see him on the subject.

We of course were still willing to consider his claims for the possition he at present occupies. We also decided to see if there was any truth in the rumour that Dickens desired to come to Bradshaw, and another deputation of two went to see him on the point, and it was also decided to advertise to see if there were any good and capable men in the market.

At this stage the meeting was adjurned to meet again a week later to further discuss the question.

The second meeting was held on Thursday, August 4th at which the report of the previous week's meeting was briefly stated and the replies to advertisements read, and the reports of the respective deputations received. Silcock was willing, so stated the deputation, to come down Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday - and play Saturday afternoon for the remuneration of £2.10s per week, out of which he was prepared to pay 10s per week towards the expenses of an independent groundsman, he to supervise. It afterwards transpired after an argument between two members of the Committee, that his offer and terms were to be the groundsman and professional to the club; he would come down Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, more if possible, and play Saturday afternoon for the sum of £2.10s per week out of which he was willing to refund 10s towards the expences of an assistant or under-groundsman.

Dickens (so reported the deputation) was willing to come for £3 and a benefit. The replies to advertisements were one from a person named Morgan (at present with Somerset County), one from Ingleby (The present Tyldesly professional) who, however, wanted to know the nature and length of engagement, salary prepared to pay, and what talent money was given for batting and bowling.

The Secretary had received an application from Bent (the Halliwell professional). Silcock's offer was again discussed, as was also Dickens's offer. The two replies to advertisements were considered, and it was decided that Morgan's application be left on the table as unsuitable, whilst Ingleby's case was favourably received. It was secided that we could only offer him £3 and a benefit at the utmost, and of course, in regard to the rest, tell him the state of things that existed.

On the suggestion being made that the final decision be made by ballot, I replied that I must have a clean show of hands, and the question was accordingly put, with the result you all have known long ago, viz. 8-6 in favour of Dickens. A query was put as to whether he ought or ought not to have a small allowance made to him in case he wished to employ an assistant hand at intervals, on being put was decided in the negative. The Secretary was empowered to see Dickens and to ratify the Committee's decision by signed agreement, which action was duly carried out. The outcome of it has been, as you know, that an indignation or protest meeting was called at a day's notice, and the Committee criticised for their absence at the beginning of the proceedings at any rate.

I was the cause of their absence, I strongly disagree with the action taken in calling this public meeting, for such it was, without first of all ascertaining the actual facts of the Committee's case and action. I was the cause of the Committee's absence, in as much as I convened the meeting of the Committee to decide how to act and the result of that meeting was that we - the eight who voted against Silcock, along with the Captain - stand by our decision. The Committee, however were willing as you know, to receive a deputation from the meeting, and on a question being put by the Secretary as to what step we should take if we were asked by this public meeting to resign, we stated that if asked to resign we would do so.

Of Tuesday's meeting I desire to say but little. I duly reported first of all the result of our weekly meetings, and here we attempted to discuss the debateable points in the Committee's deliberations. We were calmly told that we had no case against Silcock; but we were eventually allowed to try and prove our case. One of the eight who voted against Silcock first of all brought up the question of the practice pitch for discussion, and was promptly told on three or four sides that the state of the practice pitch is not Silcock's fault, but arises out of his inability to put this elsewhere owing to lack of room. The next point brought up for consideration is the match pitches, but we were again told that we should take no notice of a losing team's complaints, which I may say had been made.

At this stage of the proceedings one member of the deputation rose and stated that what they had come there for was to know whether we were prepared to reinstate Silcock or still stand to our decision, and outlined the probable state of things that would exist if we abided by our decision. I thereupon stated to the meeting that it was quite evident from what the last speaker had said that we were condemned before our case was heard and this I still maintain, for although we were allowed to go on with our case, anything we brought forward was brushed aside practically without discussion. What the result of the meeting on Tuesday was the Chairman will tell you. It is for you to decide the position.

I merely say this, that we as a committee elected to look after the interests of the club, considered this question deliberately and carefully. I do not think any one of us denies Silcock's capabilities or disposition; but we as a Committee must look at the question from a business point of view and not from a personal point of view. The point then arises "Are we getting the best services we can for the club?" If we think not then it is for us to endevour to secure the best we can. After our deliberations, which, I again maintain have been most careful and minute, we, that is the majority of us, at any rate, have decided on a change. I ask you as men not to condemn before trial."