Bailey’s Bay have sought legal counsel over a running dispute with the Bermuda Cricket Board. Bay remain at odds over the one-year suspension that the BCB imposed on Derrick Brangman for showing “serious dissent” at an umpire’s decision and bringing the game into disrepute.

The club believe that the Level Four charge Brangman faced was “excessive”.

“We feel the charge was excessive and if we felt he was wrong in any way then we would be the first ones to accept whatever was handed out,” Arrim Perinchief, the Bay president, said. “But we don’t agree with it, so we are going to do the best we can to try and find a resolution that’s fair to Derrick.

“We’ve been through the whole process. Following the hearing and him receiving the charges, we filed an appeal which was not upheld by the chairman of the appeal’s committee [Larry Scott] and we have some issues with his response.

“Following that, we met with the president of the Bermuda Cricket Board [Lloyd Smith] to request that he be an arbitrator in the matter and that request was denied. Now we are going to see what the next step we can do is and we do have a lawyer.

“We think that Derrick has been done wrong, so him being one of our players we are going to stand by him.”

Brangman forced a One 50 Overs Premier Division match against Western Stars to be abandoned after refusing to walk when he was controversially dismissed at St John’s Field on June 17. His suspension was announced by the BCB on July 1.

The player then announced on Facebook last week that he was quitting cricket.

Perinchief stands by his team’s and the umpire’s claims that the slow left-arm bowler, who is not eligible to resume playing until June 29, 2019, was never given out by the umpires.

“The reports that we read, which were submitted by the umpires, none of them say I gave Derrick out and asked him to leave,” Perinchief said. “None of the reports say that, so if none of your reports say I gave Derrick out and I asked him to leave then how could you say he is showing dissent?

“We don’t feel anything was wrong from the beginning, so he should not be banned period because you can’t show dissent if you were never really given out.

“Even the game being abandoned, there’s specific rules set out how it should be done and none of the those rules were followed. So if you’re charging him with bringing the game into disrepute or him causing the game to be abandoned, but none of the rules to officially abandon the game were followed, how can you hold that against him?”

Perinchief believes that having Stars player Nyon Steede, who is also a BCB first vice-president, directly involved in Brangman’s disciplinary proceedings may have been a conflict of interest.

“We are not comfortable with how certain things have gone down and believe there may be a few conflicts of interest with the people involved,” he said. “We get a report from a player [Steede] who is also involved with the cricket board who submitted what he believed happened. So is he a player or is he acting on behalf of the board? Because he is the only person in any of the reports that said Derrick said he is not leaving. None of the other reports spoke to that.

“We then asked the question did he [Steede] sit in the same capacity when the cricket board made the decision to award the points to Western Stars? Because that decision was made before Derrick even had his hearing. How could you decide that Bailey’s Bay were at fault if Derrick never even made it through his hearing?

“There are a lot of debatable topics when it comes to the reports. But that’s the decision the appeals committee came with and that’s why we are going to take it further because we can’t even figure out how they justify their decision.”