BCGBA v S.Yorkshire - can either win?

Bowling News

Yesterday I posted a statement issued by the BCGBA Chief Executive about a South Yorkshire CGBA posting regarding the future of the BCGBA. I am grateful to my anonymous correspondent for sending me a copy of the original South Yorkshire CGBA communication that prompted the response statement from the BCGBA. This is below in its entirety. I have included it without further comment at this time and am happy for people to add any views they have on either side of the fence.

Maybe it would be best to await the promised BCGBA webcast to be broadcast on Saturday 11 July and open to any viewer before stating your own views. The South Yorkshire response (below) is very damming of the BCGBA intent as well as being highly critical of the approach being taken and wary of the motives for this action. This appears to me to be an unprecedented war of words openly out in the public domain. Is this a taste of the future? Is this how major bodies are to conduct themselves in the future? From the sidelines, some will feel the conflict as providing entertainment whilst also leaving the parties open to ridicule. Which will be the next governance body to spout their version of this dispute? Is this really how we expect our ruling bodies to react? Obviously there is much more to follow and you can use the Comments facility at the foot of all the website postings to add your personal opinion to the debate at any time. Interesting times! Here is the public posted reaction from South Yorkshire CGBA to the BCGBA proposals although the BCGBA have already said that 'We recognise that some of the information being circulated is totally inaccurate or incomplete'.

Read on and as soon as details of the webinar are shared I hope to add them to the website so that any bowler can view at first hand what this is all about.

Keith Turton – South Yorkshire Crown Green Bowling Association Secretary

01/07/2026

To: All County Secretaries and Member Clubs

Subject: Urgent Notification: Major Constitutional Changes, Redundancies, and Restructuring of Competition Control

Dear Colleagues,

I am writing to formally inform you of a profound and critical shift in the governance structure of the British Crown Green Bowling Association (BCGBA).

The Board of the BCGBA has moved to dissolve the long-standing Bye-Laws and has completely rewritten the Articles of Association. This represents a fundamental overhaul of how our sport is governed, shifting the association from a representative body to one entirely centralized under its current Board.

The immediate consequences of this constitutional rewrite are stark and deeply concerning:

·        Removal of Democratic Voting Rights: Under the new Articles of Association, County Secretaries have had their voting rights completely stripped away. The traditional democratic system, which ensured that individual counties had a direct say in the association's direction, has been effectively abolished.

·        Unconsulted Corporate Restructuring on Companies House: In an astonishing move executed entirely behind closed doors, the Board has altered the association's corporate structure on Companies House. Without consulting or notifying anyone—including the County Secretaries—the original corporate entity has effectively been locked down/renamed to "BCGBA2 LTD", while a separate corporate entity has been established to list new directors. This bypasses all traditional transparency expected of a National Governing Body.

·        Centralized Board Control with No Chairman: The Board now holds absolute, unchecked control over all core aspects of the BCGBA, including full autonomy over all financial decisions and the management and structuring of all competitions. Compounding this risk is the fact that the Board currently has no appointed Chairman, leaving this newly consolidated power completely unstructured.

·        The Threat to Current Trust Funds: The current BCGBA trust funds hold a significant amount of money. The new Board is actively attempting to seize control of these funds. This aggressive move has forced the current Trustees to protect the association's assets by seeking formal legal advice to determine how to stop this takeover.

·        The Rendered-Obsolete £3 Yearbook Fee: Compounding the financial frustration is the question of accountability regarding the £3 yearbook fee that every club across every county has already paid. These yearbooks explicitly contain the very Bye-Laws that the Board has now unilaterally overruled and discarded, leaving clubs paying for a handbook of rules that are no longer being recognized

·        Forced Redundancies of Long-Serving Officers: As part of this overhaul, the Board has made Jim McGurk (National Administrator) and Graham Underhill (Financial Officer, after 16 years of service) redundant, effective as of 31st August.

·        Role Consolidation & Financial Uncertainty: As far as we are aware, the Board intends for a single individual to fully take over both of these massive administrative and financial roles. Furthermore, no clarity has been provided regarding where the funds for Jim and Graham's redundancy packages will come from—a massive question mark given the already tight finances of the sport.

·        Complete Lack of a Safeguarding Officer: In a highly alarming development for the welfare and safety of our members, the BCGBA currently has no safeguarding officer. For a National Governing Body to operate without this vital protection role is a severe failure of basic duty of care

·        Takeover of the Refereeing Structure: In line with taking total control over competitions, the Board is attempting to take over the refereeing structure at all BCGBA tournaments. Their proposed setup forces a single referee to manage an entire BCGBA competition alone, working demanding shifts of 10-plus hours in a single day without support.

In short, the counties no longer hold a mechanism for voting or direct oversight, and the day-to-day operations and safety structures of our major competitions are being fundamentally compromised.

We are currently reviewing the full legal and practical implications of these changes and what collective steps the counties can take next. Please share this information urgently with your respective management committees and member clubs.

Executive Summary

An analysis of the British Crown Green Bowling Association (BCGBA) Articles of Association reveals a fundamentally Board-centric governance model that disenfranchises its five constituent Regions. While the Regions legally "own" the Association, the Articles systematically strip them of oversight, centralize legislative authority within an unelected Board, and insulate executive leadership from democratic accountability. To protect regional autonomy and grassroots operations, a coordinated effort by the Regions is required to amend the Articles and restore a fair constitutional balance.

The Constitutional Power Imbalance

The core vulnerability of the current structure is that elected Regional Directors are mathematically locked into a permanent minority.

Board Composition & Voting Power

Even if all 5 Regional Directors vote as a completely unified block, they can be systematically outvoted by appointed outsiders and executive staff:

Director Role	Count	Selection Method	Alignment Type
Regional Directors	5	Elected by the 5 Regions	Member Representatives
Independent Directors	3	Appointed by the Board	Independent Outsiders
The Chair	1	Appointed by the Board-led NomCom	Independent Outsiders
The Chief Executive (CEO)	1	Ex-officio (By virtue of employment)	Executive Management
Co-opted Directors	2	Appointed unilaterally by the Board	Board Nominees
Total Potential Board	12	—	7 Appointed/Executive vs. 5 Elected

The Structural Reality: Appointed and executive positions command a 58.3% voting majority (7 out of 12 votes). The Regions bear the operational and financial burdens of the sport, yet they lack the voting power to control its direction.

Key Governance Risks & Structural Flaws

1. Complete Loss of Member Control

• The Issue (Art. 22): The Board holds absolute management authority. Regions cannot direct national policy or block Board decisions, except through a 75% special resolution threshold that is structurally difficult to achieve.

• Impact: The organization is managed top-down rather than serving its member network.

2. Unilateral Rule-Making and "Taxation Without Representation"

• The Issue (Art. 23): The Board possesses sweeping powers to create, alter, or revoke rules, regulations, bye-laws, and financial policies without Member approval.

• Impact: Counties and Regions are legally forced to comply with—and fund—operational mandates, disciplinary frameworks, and compliance requirements they never voted on.

3. Total Absence of Board Accountability

• The Issue (Art. 9, 43): Members cannot elect the Chair, have no say in the appointment of Independent Directors, and cannot remove any Independent Director. Only the Board can remove a director via a 75% internal vote.

• Impact: The Board is entirely self-policing, self-perpetuating, and insulated from shareholder consequences if they act against the interests of the Regions.

4. Flawed Quorum and General Meeting Rules

• The Issue (Art. 58): The Articles state that "Two of the three members shall form a quorum." Given that there are actually five regional Members, this apparent drafting error creates severe legal risk.

• Impact: Critical, binding constitutional decisions could technically be passed at a poorly attended meeting with only two Regions present, severely undermining democratic legitimacy.

5. Blurred Lines Between Oversight and Management

• The Issue (Art. 13, 47, 75): The CEO is automatically handed a voting seat on the Board, meaning an employee has equal voting weight to an elected regional representative. Furthermore, Directors are indemnified against liabilities (except fraud) and can claim uncapped travel/accommodation expenses without Member oversight.

• Impact: Financial and operational risk is shifted entirely onto the Members, while the Executive branch enjoys maximum protection and minimal accountability.

🛠️ The Strategic Reform Roadmap (10 Proposed Amendments)

To rebalance the power dynamics, the Regions should jointly table the following amendments at a General Meeting.

Phase I: High-Priority Structural Reforms (Non-Negotiable)

• Amendment 1: Member-Ratified Independents. Require all Independent Director appointments to be approved by a majority vote of the Regions.

• Amendment 2: Right of Recall. Amend the Articles to grant Members the explicit power to remove any Director from office via an ordinary resolution (51%+).

• Amendment 3: End the Rule Monopoly. Strip the Board of its unilateral legislative power. Any changes to competition, financial, or disciplinary rules must be ratified by a majority of Regions at a General Meeting.

• Amendment 4: Remove the CEO’s Vote. Convert the Chief Executive into a non-voting ex-officio board attendee, properly separating executive execution from governance oversight.

Phase II: Operational & Transparency Adjustments

• Amendment 5: Elect the Chair. Transition the selection of the Chair from the Nominations Committee to a direct election by the 5 Regions.

• Amendment 6: Mandate Transparency. Require all Board minutes, voting records, and Director attendance logs to be published to the Regions within 14 days of any meeting.

• Amendment 7: Restrict Co-opted Seats. Limit co-opted Directors to strictly non-voting advisory roles for a maximum term of 6 months.

• Amendment 8: Cap Financial Expenses. Introduce an independent audit requirement and a strict cap on Board and executive expenses.

Phase III: Correcting Constitutional Errors

• Amendment 9: Fix the Quorum. Correct the drafting error in Article 58 to mandate a minimum quorum of four (4) Regions for General Meetings.

• Amendment 10: Lower the Voting Threshold. Reduce the special resolution threshold from 75% to 66% (a standard 2/3 majority), making it practical for a small 5-member voting body to function democratically.

📋 Recommended Action Plan for the Regions

Because amending the Articles requires a 75% special resolution vote under Article 56, the Regions must act in absolute lockstep.

[ Step 1: Secure the Regional Coalition ]

Build a 100% unified voting block among at least 4 out of the 5 Regions to guarantee the 75% threshold.

               │

               ▼

[ Step 2: Issue a Member Requisition ]

Legally compel the Board to call an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) to vote on constitutional updates.

               │

               ▼

[ Step 3: Present as a Professional Modernization Package ]

Frame the amendments as a necessary push for compliance with modern sports governance standards.

Conclusion: The current corporate framework leaves the Regions legally vulnerable and operationally voiceless. By passing these ten corrections, the grassroots game will successfully reclaim ownership and oversight of its national governing body.

Yours sincerely,

Keith Turton

South Yorkshire General Secretary