|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 26, 2014 10:06:39 GMT
Do we really need Horsham and Arundel given the close proximity to one another? Horsham pays its way and creates exciting cricket that produces results Arundel does neither. I totally agree, CP - but Arundel has a high regard for itself (to use a polite expression) and all those involved think the sky would fall in if Arundel was ditched.  |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jul 26, 2014 17:33:55 GMT
Do we really need Horsham and Arundel given the close proximity to one another? Horsham pays its way and creates exciting cricket that produces results Arundel does neither. I totally agree, CP - but Arundel has a high regard for itself (to use a polite expression) and all those involved think the sky would fall in if Arundel was ditched. In short Arundel is up its own backside. The Committee won't move from there because they get a good spread at tea. However, I bet if you did a P&L (Profit and Loss) of both festivals Arundel would show a big loss whereas Horsham would make a profit. |
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Jul 26, 2014 17:50:44 GMT
Really? I thought that sponsorship was more evident at Arundel
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jul 27, 2014 11:01:55 GMT
What kills cricket? Pitches like Arundel. The members facilities at Arundel are rubbish and if it rains there is only a stinky beer tent for people to go into not a club house or members bar like Horsham.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Jul 27, 2014 11:22:34 GMT
You just get under a tree
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jul 27, 2014 11:24:40 GMT
You just get under a tree 3,000 people are not going to fit under a tree! |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 27, 2014 12:27:14 GMT
You just get under a tree 3,000 people are not going to fit under a tree! . . . and the rain drips through the leaves after a few minutes. CP is right - if we remove our Arundel tinted specs, the facilities there are terrible for us punters - especially compared with Horsham. |
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Jul 27, 2014 12:57:19 GMT
You just get under a tree 3,000 people are not going to fit under a tree! Ah yes, I now see the flaw in my argument |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 27, 2014 13:45:49 GMT
3,000 people are not going to fit under a tree! Ah yes, I now see the flaw in my argument But it's a very large tree - 2,000 maybe, but 3,000 is rather taking the mickey. |
|
