Mark Baldwin discusses the repercussions with Surrey's Chief Executive, Paul Sheldon.

With the handing out of England contracts in 2000, Surrey are likely to feel the pinch more than most as they face a decimation of their playing resources, with possibly half of their side missing for 85 per cent of the county's programme. Mark Baldwin discusses the repercussions with Surrey's Chief Executive, Paul Sheldon.

Surrey, the great county of Hobbs, Bedser and May, the club who were champions seven years on the trot from 1952 to 1958, and who have grown increasingly agitated about winning it just once since, back in 1971, have a New Year's resolution that will surprise many in the game. Although they stand to lose more than most in the current big issue of England contracts, Surrey have a clear vision of their place in a brighter future for all. This is not a time to be one-eyed, and Surrey are claiming a leadership role at one of the most important moments in their long history.

Lord's-run contracts for leading England players are set, this spring, to win official backing from the counties. Complex proposals, the result of year-long deliberations by members of Don Trangmar's working group, will in the next few weeks be circulated confidentially to the 18 counties. There is detail still to be added, but a final blueprint for England contracts will be voted upon at either the late March or mid-May meetings of the First-Class Forum. Huge change in English domestic cricket is already upon us. The dying months of the old millennium are seeing the frantic sowing of seeds designed to produce new life hardy enough to be sustainable way beyond 2000.

There is already the prospect, after 1999, of two divisions in the Championship, of an enlarged international summer programme and increased floodlit cricket both at England and county level. The England and Wales Cricket Board, itself transformed in little more than a decade in terms of size and the range of its initiative and influence, is concentrating hard on development, on marketing and on winning improved revenues from television and sponsorship. Oh, and there's a World Cup to host in fewer than six months, with all its hoped-for spin-offs.

Yet in this giddy atmosphere of moving times nothing is more symbolic of change than the principle - already agreed by the vast majority of counties - that England's top players can no longer serve two masters.

Surrey chief executive Paul Sheldon, in particular, has found himself slap bang in the middle of an issue which he believes is the most important currently facing those who care about the future of English cricket. And, despite an unenviable personal conflict of interest, he retains an almost heroic clear-sightedness and determination to focus on the wood and ignore all the trees that currently sway and swish.

Sheldon is a member of Sussex chairman Trangmar's committee, is fiercely of the opinion that England contracts are essential for any truly significant improvement in the world standing of the national team, but must also do his very best for Surrey's members and supporters.

And, when anything from eight to 15 England contracts are handed out for 2000 (110 years after the first official Championship was fought, and won by Surrey) Sheldon is resigned to losing at least four of his club's best players for much of the county season.

It is conceivable, in fact, that Surrey could provide as many as six of the current Žlite band of players being considered for central contracts - England captain Alec Stewart, the country's most promising young fast bowler Alex Tudor, batsmen Graham Thorpe and Mark Butcher, and brother all-rounders Adam and Ben Hollioake. No other county is facing such a decimation of its playing resources, but Sheldon is quite clear about Surrey's responsibility as it stands in the front line of revolution.

'I think we have to realise that someone like Alec Stewart, for instance, might play very little Championship cricket at all in 2000,' he said. 'With seven Tests, One-Day Internationals in early May and then a triangular one-day tournament later in the summer, I don't think players selected for all England games will be able to fit in Championship cricket. But I would hope they would be available to play in one domestic competition - fitted into the schedule - because one vitally important aspect of the contracts issue is that every England player is able to maintain his links with his county.' ECB chairman Lord MacLaurin has estimated that a regular England player will in future take part in no more than 15 per cent of his county's programme, and Sheldon agrees with that.

Sheldon says the greater part of him would like Stewart, Thorpe, Tudor and Butcher to play more for Surrey, not England. But, involved as he has been in the wide consultative process carried out by the Trangmar committee, he is also passionate about a need to see the wider picture. In short, he and Surrey are about to stand up and be counted.

'It is a time to be totally positive and brave,' added Sheldon. 'Surrey have often been in a position of leadership in the English game and now we must do so again. We must not allow the many little issues surrounding this very complex subject to cloud the really big issue - the need to generate through the national side more money for everyone, in particular the grass roots, and the need for England to improve at world level. And those two things are of course linked.

'To achieve our world standing we must allow the England management to manage, and centrally controlled contracts mean there will be no grey areas. Those in charge must have authority, and be given everything they need to do that job. The blurring of those responsibilities has perhaps led to this decision being put off for too long. The current system has prevented the England team from being managed in a truly focused and professional manner. That's no criticism of managements of the recent past it's simply the fault of the system and structure.'

The journey towards central England contracts has been a tortuous one, if increasingly inevitable. The self-interest, which for so long blocked two divisions, is clearly not going to dissipate overnight - and it would be naive to expect counties not to think of their own well-being regarding any issue.

Sheldon's Surrey, though fully supportive of England contracts, will still fight its corner when administrators dot the 'i's and cross the 't's of the contracts blueprint now being finalised. Sheldon is adamant, for a start, that proper compensation must be paid to counties for supplying England cricketers, that registration rules have to be made far more flexible so that England players can be replaced by additional 'signings', and that the top players must be rewarded handsomely enough for an international contract to be seen as a significant career achievement. Currently, registration regulations are severe restricting movement of players between counties to either one per year or two in every five.

'We have been very conscious, while consulting county clubs, current and former players, and administrators from other countries, that we have to give players security and better remuneration, but also take clubs with us. I don't think, for instance, that rugby union in this country has been very successful in achieving dual contracts because of a conflict between the RFU and the clubs. 'You simply can't force Surrey, to use us as an example again, to allow five top players to be contracted by England and therefore lose their services for a whole year. You have to do it by offering proper compensation because there has to be incentive given to counties for producing Test-class players. Counties like Surrey should be rewarded for bringing through England players, not penalised.

'These monies should then be used to develop new talent, and that's an important focus for us at Surrey at the moment. A formula has to be agreed in the coming months - you can't, for instance, pull another Alex Tudor out of the hat just like that but Surrey will also be seeking assurances of more flexibility in registration of players. We have to be allowed to replace regular England players with other good players, because that's all part of the incentive issue regarding the producing of internationals.'

Actual figures involved - concerning what players might earn both from the ECB and their county, and what the counties ought to receive from central funds in compensation - are currently being kept confidential. An England squad 'salary' that is likely to stretch well into six figures on rolling, 12-month contracts is being speculated, but a large percentage of an England player's annual earnings could well come in the form of substantial success-related bonuses.

County benefits are another factor players will want taken into consideration before they sign themselves away to potentially long absences from their clubs but, overall, English cricket in all its many constituent forms must concentrate the collective mind on swimming away from the rocks now the raging torrent of change has broken around it.

'There are many questions being asked, and quite a few which none of us can answer,' said Sheldon. 'But we must be more businesslike in the way we view things. The World Cup will provide a very useful initial guideline in how England contracts might work, because the players will be away from their counties throughout the tournament. There are aspects of these proposals which might be sensibly left until after the World Cup has been looked at. I also think we have to be flexible on the whole issue in the near future, and be big enough to regard contracts as an evolving thing.

'But, when you talk about why England have not been that successful for more than a decade it is impossible to put your finger on just one thing which is wrong. The whole system needs attention, and it is the same with England contracts: you have to look at it in the round.

'I have a board hanging in my office at The Oval which says: The biggest risk in life is to take no risk at all. I think that's absolutely fundamental. No organisation stands still, which means you either go forwards or backwards. I think people are beginning to realise that we have been trying to stand still in this country. And everything flows from the success of the England team.'