Jim Cumbes, the chief executive of Lancashire, has become the first casualty of the row over the controversial New Twenty20 document that goes before the ECB today. Cumbes resigned yesterday as chairman of the chief executives of the first-class counties after four of his colleagues from clubs without Test-match grounds complained that he had not been honest with them over Lancashire's involvement in the project, along with MCC, Surrey and Hampshire.

Cumbes, 64, a former Lancashire and Worcestershire seam bowler, said that he had seen the document only last Friday, two days after the chief executives met at Edgbaston. “I have received three or four e-mails from colleagues and friends who felt I had not been honest with them,” he said. “If they are going to question my integrity, it would be very difficult for me to continue in the chair. There has been a lot of panic and paranoia over this and I can understand the nervousness.

“There are some good chief executives in office and sometimes they are not listened to, but the document is worthy of consideration as there are funds out there for the game. It has been well thought through. I felt the leak last week was a tactical one to try to divide the counties and even if I had known about the details, I would have been bound by confidentiality. The person the ECB has consulted is not me but my chairman, Michael Cairns.”

Cumbes declined to name the counties who had objected to his conduct but said he would continue in his post at Lancashire. Among the most vociferous of his colleagues last week was Mark Newton, of Worcestershire. Neither Cumbes nor Cairns will be at the ECB meeting today, when the document, which details a nine-franchise Twenty20 competition that could start in 2010, will be discussed.

David Stewart, the chairman of Surrey, said that he would not be withdrawing his signature to the document and claimed that he was justified in raising it publicly through a press release. “I shall be telling the ECB that we received an unsolicited approach from an investor and that the code of practice for the conduct of ECB directors is only a guidance,” he said. “The competition we are proposing would be owned by all the 18 counties.”

Keith Bradshaw, the secretary of MCC, will not be withdrawing his name from the document, either, and Charles Fry, the club chairman who appointed him, said he had his full support despite appearing to distance himself from Bradshaw's stance. “This is an ECB matter and nothing to do with us,” he said. “Keith is doing a fine job.” Bradshaw had clear-the-air talks with the ECB at Lord's yesterday and said afterwards: “Giles Clarke [the ECB chairman] and I are very keen to ensure we have a good, open, sensible debate. I am very aware of my duties as an ECB director and would not act in any way that would breach those.”

Robert Griffiths, QC, an expert in sports law who sits on MCC's committee, defended the right of Bradshaw to exercise an independent judgment. “It is wholly wrong in law to maintain that the views of the secretary or of Stewart needed the approval of MCC or Surrey,” he said. “If they had done that, they would have been in breach of their fiduciary duties to the ECB. Both have acted entirely in accordance with their obligations as company directors of the ECB. They have acted in the best interests of the ECB. Their fellow directors are also required to exercise an independent judgment as ECB directors in considering the value of their presentation.”

Although MCC's committee was not informed of Bradshaw's paper, Griffiths believes he deserves the full backing of the club and will receive it from his fellow committee members.