Weeks of bad blood and internal wrangling were apparently brought to a halt last night after the Bermuda Cricket Board’s executive committee overcame a vote of no confidence involving all-but one of the 16 affiliates.

The final vote of nine to six was hardly a ringing endorsement of the way in which cricket bosses have been operating, however, and president Reggie Pearman pledged afterwards to take heed of the concerns expressed during some occasionally heated exchanges at Devonshire Recreation Club.

His first move was to commit immediately to holding an Annual General Meeting no later than next month, where the Board’s audited financial statements from 2005 and 2006 will be made public.

Discontent among some of the affiliates first came to light late last month, when a letter from a rebel group spearheaded by Devonshire Rec’s Ellsworth Christopher demanded the Board call a special general meeting so that numerous grievances could be aired.

A lengthy list of issues — including concerns about the Board’s alleged lack of openness and communication, as well as a dispute over a series of amendments made to the Board’s constitution in March of last year, was eventually submitted to the Board and formed the basis for last night’s discussions.

BCB secretary Marc Wetherhill told The Royal Gazette last week that while he agreed they could have done better in terms of keeping the clubs more up to date on the latest initiatives, most of the issues raised by the rebels were “in some parts misleading and in other parts simply inaccurate and untrue.”

He pledged to vigorously fight efforts to unseat the current administration, stating that a victory for Christopher and his supporters would “set the development of cricket back considerably”.

For his part, Christopher insisted Wetherhill’s stance was a clear demonstration of the “disdain” he and the executive had for the will of the affiliates.

Such exchanges set the scene for what promised to be a fiery meeting in a steamy conference room at Devonshire Rec..

While no media were permitted inside the room, it is understood the evening began with a statement from Pearman, who attempted to clarify the Board’s thinking behind changes to the constitution.

There then followed over an hour of questions and debate, when people like Christopher, St. George’s’ Lewis Foggo and PHC’s Chris Furbert could be heard in animated discussion with members of the executive present.

Following the vote, meanwhile, a relaxed sounding Pearman admitted the Board “had made mistakes”, but said he would continue to work hard for the development of local cricket because it was “the love of his life”.

“All of us here tonight, no matter whether voting for or against us, were here because we care about the development of the game in Bermuda,” he said.

“We on the Board have made mistakes, I’m not going to sit here and deny that. The clubs have told us that we need to be more open with them and we will endeavour to make sure that happens. At the same time, I should stress that the clubs must take some of that responsibility themselves and the communication must be two ways.

“We’re an accountable administration and if they want to know something there is nothing to stop them calling us and we will answer whatever it is they want to know.

“But if we had lost tonight, I would have got up, said thank you very much and rode off into the sunset. But we’re still here and there’s a lot of work to be done still.

“I’m confident we can heal any wounds that remain and bring on board the clubs that voted against us tonight.”

Meanwhile, Christopher said that although he had expected to win the day, he was not disappointed and felt the executive had listened intently to the concerns raised.

“My main problem all along has been the issue of communication and hopefully they will have taken this on board and things will improve,” he said.

“I’m just grateful that at last some of the issues of the members have been heard.”

However, he did stress that he and some of the other dissenters present still did not accept the Board’s reasoning with regards to the amended constitution and that they would be writing to them requesting a “review” of the situation.