KNCB faces pushback on domestic structure overhaul

Bertus de Jong 12/03/2025

The beleaguered KNCB board headed by Guido Landheer will face further tribulation tomorrow, as they look to face down opposition to the overhaul of the domestic one-day competition structure that was announced in January. A number of clubs from various divisions, including Sparta 1888, VRA, Dosti, Hercules, Rood en Wit, Salland CC, VVV, Quick 1888 and Qui Vive among others, moved last month to request a Bijzondere Algemene Ledenvergadering (Special General Members Meeting) to reconsider the proposed changes, and that meeting has been duly scheduled for tomorrow (March 13th).

Perhaps unsurprisingly Hoofdklasse clubs comprise a substantial proportion of the remonstrants, more than half the current competitors in the second division adding their voices to the call. Under the current proposal the Hoofdklasse will see fully half of the current field relegated at the end of the coming season, with five teams dropping down to an enlarged Eersteklasse for 2026, to make room for three relegated Topklasse teams and the promotion of the 2025 Eersteklasse champions.

Speaking on behalf of the clubs appellant, former national team captain and sometime KNCB vice chair Steven Lubbers stressed that the appeal for a BALV was a move of last resort, but the group saw no other option. Lubbers, who has long advocated a broader pyramid with expedited promotion especially at the lower end of the ladder, told TKcricket that the remonstrant clubs felt there were significant deficiencies both in the process and that led to the new structure revealed in January, as well as the outcome.

Lubbers argues that the relegation of half of the Hoofdklasse would leave those clubs in an appreciably weaker position vis-a-vis local councils and rival sports when it came to Topsport subsidies and competition for facilities. Lubbers also echoed an observation which several commentators have raised regarding the board’s proposed promotion/relegation scheme for 2025/26, namely that the absence of any relegation playoffs means that sides in lower divisions enjoy a perverse advantage in jockeying for position for 2026. A team now in the Eersteklasse, for example, need only win that division (effectively placing 21st on the ladder) to win promotion to the Hoofklasse for 2026 while a team starting in the Hoofdklasse would have to place in the top five (essentially 15th in the full rankings) to retain their place.

Lubbers had previously championed and alternate plan which had come to be known as Voorstel Salland, which envisioned broadening the pyramid structure substantially all the way up to the Hoofdklasse, which under the Salland plan would be split into two pools and expanded to 16 or more teams, while lower divisions would also be expanded and slip into more pools – a format which Lubbers argues would both alleviate competitive pressure on clubs while allowing for expedited promotion.

Former VRA chair John Wories, who has played a leading role in the opposition to the new structure, observed in a memo circulated to clubs early last month that “expanded relegation will increase the pressure on clubs for extra reinforcement with foreign players/coaches” further crowding out homegrown youth talent on the field while limiting other expenditure “if only because financial resources would be used for [overseas recruitment] rather than for improving facilities (including grass wickets), strengthening participation and developing (young) players.” Indeed while early indications suggest that we may be on course for record spending on overseas talent for the coming season, at least in the Hoofdklasse. That in and of itself may however generate resistance to the remonstrants’ proposals from clubs that have already invested heavily ahead of what is currently slated to be a cut-throat season.

The remonstrating clubs are arguing for a postponement of any substantial restructure, either maintaining the same format as 2024 for the coming season or, in deference to the difficulty of overhauling the calendar at this late stage, at least postponing the envisaged transition to the planned 2026 structure and the numerous relegations that it would entail. Pointing to perceived deficiencies in the consultative process followed by the KNCB, which saw a nine-member working group headed by Reinout Scholte and Adriaan van der Dries arrive at the current restructure plan, the dissenting clubs propose a new committee be set up to consider the question.

Scholte, KNCB board member with the High Performance portfolio who has acted as point-man for the board on the issue, stepped down last month citing in part the increasingly fractious nature of the controversy, but the board shows little sign of throwing in the towel. Regretting the departure of Scholte, KNCB chair Guido Lanheer said in a previous statement, “The reasons for his departure give rise to thought and reflection on the way we deal with each other within cricket Netherlands. Differences of opinion will always exist, but the way we currently deal with each other and with these differences of opinion does not lead to the best result for cricket Netherlands in our view.”

Speaking to TKcricket, Landheer defended the process that produced the restructure plan, which included wide consultation with clubs across various divisions. While conceding that it was regrettable that the subject could not be discussed at the December ALV (which was busy with other matters), an extra virtual meeting was scheduled in January to address the issue specifically. “There were 45 clubs represented at the January (8th) meeting, and all clubs were afforded the chance to comment up until January 24th.” Landheer said, observing that neither Salland nor VRA did so at the time.

Referring to the alternate proposals first tabled two years ago, Landheer insists they were not dismissed out of hand. “The so-called Voorstel Salland was considered in depth, and several aspects of it have been incorporated into the new structure.” Landheer told Tkcricket, “a broader pyramid, and regionalisation at lower levels, for example, the latter especially has been made easier by the new scheduling software.” Landheer explained. “We’ve sought to give more attention to T20 and recreational cricket, while providing for more predictable and stable scheduling compared to the previous system.” The board is not entirely blind to some of the problems the upheaval expected at the end of the 2025 season may throw up, and aspects of the “Big Bang” transformation are less than ideal as Landheer concedes. “Transition is difficult but it is a necessary investment in the future.”

Following several bruising meetings focusing on the KNCB’s now well-documented financial woes, the board may even be relieved to be back on the familiar ground of wrangling about domestic structures, and it has been noted that the ALV’s role in questions of domestic structure is, constitutionally speaking, purely advisory. Nonetheless it is doubtful that the board will be afforded an easy time of it tomorrow, though with the first ball of the season now just weeks away it is late in the day to be changing course…