THE ECB’s management board, a 15-man committee that already has the power to change the structure of county cricket, meets today to start the process of planning for 2005 and beyond. A two-day discussion meeting of the First Class Forum (FCF) follows next Wednesday and Thursday, but no decisions will be made until further meetings of the two bodies in November and December and they are unlikely to be radical.

One overseas player rather than two per county from 2005, with less opportunity to replace him at the drop of a hat, is one certain change. Consensus will come only slowly, however, in response to the other perceived problems: too many players not qualified for England (29 last season) and what Duncan Fletcher, Michael Vaughan and others believe to be an excess of first-class and one-day matches, leading to injuries and poor preparation.

What ought to be done is to reduce the amount of international cricket, but the administrators have shown no inclination to reconsider the new programme of at least seven Tests and 13 one-day internationals each season (because of the ICC Champions Trophy, extra matches are to be staged in September 2004, although only two will definitely involve England). A decision on which three grounds will stage the Champions Trophy is imminent. They have to be commercially “clean” for the ICC to sell advertising rights to new sponsors. Two of the three grounds also have to be within an hour’s journey of each other. Trent Bridge and Edgbaston are two of the likely venues. The Oval (even though its official title is the AMP Oval) is also bidding.

It would take rare broadmindedness on the part of county chairmen and chief executives to force the management board to look at what Fletcher, the England coach, believes to be “too much cricket” from the international angle, knowing that less international cricket would reduce their own share of income from this area. Nor have the ECB’s leaders, David Morgan, the chairman, and Tim Lamb, the chief executive, shown any inclination to tackle this central issue.

The international programme is top-heavy because the ICC and the ECB are forever seeking more television income instead of cutting their coat to a sensible amount of cloth. The ECB accepted the Champions Trophy for political reasons, knowing that it would not make much money from it, but it will be fortunate if the weather in September 2004 is as benign as it was this year.

Incredibly, the ICC is proposing a “Super Series” between the Rest of the World and the present one-day and Test champions, loosely planned to take place in South Africa in 2005. This at a time when Malcolm Speed, the ICC chief executive, is chairing an inquiry into a volume of international cricket that he admits has “reached saturation point”.

The reality in England is that any changes will come to the county programme, not to the international one. Among the plans that will be considered during the next few weeks is a return to the idea of playing the championship in three groups, each county playing ten matches, followed by two play-off games each to settle final placings. This was the system proposed in Raising The Standard in 1997 and Lamb believes that it should be reconsidered. Morgan favours an 18-team tournament of three-day matches.

“Nothing will be done without consultation,” Lamb said. “Realistically, any changes are unlikely before 2006 because of existing arrangements with sponsors and television partners.”

The counties have already ceded powers to change the structure of the sport to the management board, provided that the board has a two-thirds majority for change among its 15 members. In practice, they would not try to force changes on the FCF. In addition, some things, including promotion and relegation for three teams each season, are enshrined in the ECB’s articles of association, so they could not be altered without the FCF’s agreement.

The problem of fewer England-qualified players in county cricket will also tax the management board. Morgan said last week that the ECB’s lawyers are working on a possible charter of agreement between the ECB and the 18 first-class counties. Intended to operate within the bounds of European laws that have enabled Australians and South Africans to masquerade as Englishmen, the charter would assure the counties of their future economic viability in return for their commitment to the development of young home-bred players. The implication, if not the legal necessity, would be that a sufficient number of England-qualified players would appear in every match.

Whether a charter would work in practice is debatable. For better or worse, we have two divisions. Vaughan wants “more competitive” young English players, but the jobs of county coaches depend on results, so they will always pick a cricketer with a proven track record overseas rather than an untested one who has come up through his county’s youth system.

It ought not to be beyond the wit and resolve of the management board to force counties to give priority to the England cause. One idea is that the more a county fields players eligible for England, the more money it will receive from the central distribution. It is a neat solution, especially if there are added rewards for counties who provide players for England, weighted fairly between clubs who nurtured them as youth cricketers and the clubs that now employ them.

• Tomorrow: CMJ makes his own proposals.