Cricket teas vote re-run was the 'only option' says Sussex Cricket League chairman
Sussex Cricket League chairman Gary Stanley said the league was only doing what the clubs decided regarding the cricket teas saga.
At the league's AGM last Monday, a vote was passed to remove the obligation for teams to provide cricket teas. The news of this went viral with Piers Morgan and former England captain Michael Vaughan getting involved in the debate. It was also mentioned on Friday's Have I Got News for You.
Shock as Sussex Cricket League passes vote on no more cricket teas | Cricket teas aren't banned - but we have to move with the times | Cricket teas: Horsted Keynes CC vow to continue important tradition and other clubs join 'Rebel Teas' plan
And the decision caused a lot of unrest with teams across the county - mainly due to the way the vote was run.
The vote to remove the provision of teas was carried 114 to 89. However, it appeared as though those not present at the meeting were deemed to have voted FOR the motion. In an email to clubs on Friday the league conceded that they couldn’t be certain that there were no inaccuracies and agreed that the vote will be re run via email.
The new vote has been open since Friday and the deadline to vote is Tuesday night. The result will be known by Wednesday morning and the league will be writing to the clubs accordingly.
And league chairman Gary Stanley said this was the only option. He said: "The league had absolutely nothing to do with proposing the change, but it was properly proposed and seconded and therefore under the rules we were obliged to put it to the clubs.
"That is our job and is the beginning and end of our involvement. We do what the clubs decide they want.
"The re-vote is the result of an impossible task of trying to conduct a vote on a Zoom call with almost 200 attendees.
"This is open to all sorts of errors and, unfortunately, we concluded that a re-vote was the only fair option given the closeness of the original result. This is our only responsibility to the clubs, to get an accurate result. We understand all sides of the argument, but it is not our job to opine on what the outcome should be."