Angry county members' forums are not usually the focus of this column, but the pressure brought to bear last week on those running Worcestershire County Cricket Club raised some broader issues for the game. And in the week when the football transfer window ended, with all the attendant frenzied speculation and deal-making that went with it, it is as good a time as any to ask what kind of cricket do followers of the domestic game want to see.

Do they want to watch something that equates to football, where the size of the chequebook is the determining factor for success and where teams are bought rather than developed, or do they want to see a county stand or fall by the strength of their scouting, coaching and development structures? Do they want to be represented by players with little or no affinity to the county or do they want a team that are truly representative of their county?

Worcestershire have had a disappointing season without a doubt. Their yo-yoing between the first division of the LV County Championship and the second division is set to continue - three times they have been promoted in recent years only to go straight back down again. A glance at the table is a dispiriting one for their supporters, the club having a big fat zero in the win column, having secured only 67 points, a staggering 53 behind Sussex who are bottom but one.

There are mitigating factors, such as the injuries to Kabir Ali and Simon Jones, which have robbed the team of their firepower and wicket-taking ability. But beyond the details that have made this season so difficult, it is relevant, given their struggles to stay in the first division, to wonder how easy it is going to be for a club such as Worcestershire - with the second smallest population base and finances that are dwindling so much that the cricket budget for next year has had to be cut - to compete with the counties at Test match grounds.

Mark Newton, the chief executive of Worcestershire, is refreshingly candid, free from self-pity and aware that his club must improve their results and their ability to compete. He thinks that until now the smaller clubs have not been disadvantaged - and results would continue to suggest that, with the exception of Durham, the counties at Test match grounds have been underperforming - but Newton says that there is about to be a radical re-ordering of priorities on the basis of one club's desire to use their financial clout to attempt to buy success.

To use a football analogy again, Surrey (whom Newton did not name or blame), whose financial muscle dwarfs the rest, are in the process of doing a Manchester City. Worcestershire are feeling the brunt of this sudden wielding of financial power because they are about to lose Steven Davies, their promising wicketkeeper, and Gareth Batty, the off spinner, to the Brit Oval.

Sources suggest that Batty is going for about one-and-a-half times his salary at Worcestershire and Davies for about double his, making him one of the highest-paid players in the county game. Rumours abound about the other players - such as Robert Key, of Kent - in Surrey's sights.

Worcestershire, having invested a great deal of time, money and faith in Davies in particular, get scant compensation.

Players have always moved for a variety of reasons - opportunity, money, lifestyle, personality clashes, etc - but Newton believes that the pace of change is about to increase significantly, with disturbing consequences for clubs such as his. “There is a salary inflation right now which means that the culture of cricket is changing rapidly,” Newton said. “It is no longer a kind of gentlemanly game where you try your best within the resources at your disposal.”

Newton cites other reasons, apart from the Surrey-induced wage inflation, why smaller clubs will be challenged to compete. “Winning the County Championship used to cost clubs money, but that is not the case now that there are huge incentives to win,” he said.

“There is also a perception that you have to be in division one to play for England, even though the facts don't support that. Those two factors, along with the IPL effect, which encourages players to believe that riches are there for the taking after a couple of decent outings, mean that there will be a greater gravitational pull towards the bigger clubs.”

Does he think, then, that sides such as Worcestershire will become little more than feeder clubs for the counties at Test match grounds and, indeed, is there a desire within the ECB to see the number of teams reduced by stealth?

Newton balks at the idea that Worcestershire, who have always punched above their weight, should act as a mere feeder club but he recognises that they may have to change their strategy. “We have done incredibly well with the resources at our disposal,” he said. “Ten of our 20 contracted players have international or Lions experience, but it has not worked for us this year. We have to accept that we will be outmuscled financially and we will have to look for - and I hate this phrase - better value-for-money players.”

If the smaller clubs are to compete on better terms, what steps need to be taken? Newton believes that a transfer-fee system is an essential component in the fight against money-based dominance. “That way we can be compensated for our time and effort in producing players,” he said.

Neil Davidson, chairman of Leicestershire, another small club with an outstanding crop of young players who may be on the wish list of several financially powerful and success-starved counties, thinks a transfer system would only exacerbate the problem. “A transfer market would be the death of the game,” he said. “Clubs would just get themselves into financial trouble and would continue to put the emphasis on buying players in rather than developing their own talent.”

He wants to see a salary cap to protect the interests of the less financially powerful. “I know it is fraught with difficulty and that people cheat but it has worked well in the NFL, where it is an essential tool in recognising that the small clubs are an important part of the landscape,” Davidson said.

“Without it we will continue to promote a football mentality which is completely wrong for the game in this country.” A salary cap will be introduced next year, but at a level of £1.8million per club, which Davidson believes is too high to prevent chequebook vandalism of the system.

Surrey's members, tired of watching a giant club with pygmy performances, will no doubt welcome Chris Adams's wielding of the chequebook as the county's cricket manager tries to bring some short-term success while building a longer-lasting legacy of home-grown talent.

The game, though, is on the brink: do we want football-style dominance in the future by the four or five wealthiest clubs or, if an 18-county structure is sacrosanct, should the smaller clubs not be protected to give them all a fair chance of success?

Raining on the spectators' parade

Players bang on about being in the “entertainment business” so often it would be no surprise to see them appear one day in oversize trousers, billowing shirts, wigs and red noses. But, despite the rhetoric, it is difficult to think of a game that treats its supporters with greater disdain.

The farce at Old Trafford on Tuesday, where one damp patch was deemed dangerous enough to send thousands away from the cricket-starved North West disappointed and angry, was merely the latest in a long line of instances where player sensibilities and/or arcane regulations are deemed more important than the paying audience. Soon enough, the punters will take their money elsewhere and the players will have only a television audience to “entertain”.