Could the cricket world turn their back on the ICC?

[silentstriker]

would giving power to the president work? Like say all the boards passed or said no to something and then the president overruled it and then it went back to the boards again to votes and if the boards agreed with like more than 75 % than it would go the boards way. Than a country(india in this case) wouldn't be so powerful even if they had the votes it would be up to the president who would decide the final thing.

'Cause Malcom Speed(Aus) and Percy Sonn (SA) aren't really biased toward to asian bloc.

Well kind of like how it works with our system.

No, because the position is too political. Malcom Speed and Sonn (who I have no real love for) are not biased toward the Asian bloc (quite the opposite IMO) but the next President (very good chance it could be......guess who? Sharad Pawar)...and him I don't really have the same feeling about.

The power should rest with the Test playing nations and the board, and for good reason. The problem only happens when one or two countries become too powerful and you don't really have a democracy anymore. Because there has never been a superpower in the history of the world that has been altruistic. The ideal scenario would be that all the Test playing nations generated a relatively similar amount of income (an impossible scenario), and only then could you really hope for decisions that would be truly democratic.

 

[LA ICE-E]

No, because the position is too political. Malcom Speed and Sonn (who I have no real love for) are not biased toward the Asian bloc (quite the opposite IMO) but the next President (very good chance it could be......guess who? Sharad Pawar)...and him I don't really have the same feeling about.

The power should rest with the Test playing nations and the board, and for good reason. The problem only happens when one or two countries become too powerful and you don't really have a democracy anymore. Because there has never been a superpower in the history of the world that has been altruistic. The ideal scenario would be that all the Test playing nations generated a relatively similar amount of income (an impossible scenario), and only then could you really hope for decisions that would be truly democratic.

Well there should be a rule chance for the qualification of presidents, which rules out political leaders like Sharad Pawar who is a minister or something in India isn't he? And the president would have to have served cricket for X many years.

And even if the president thinks one way, that would be the final word because it would go back to the boards and they would vote again but this time 75% of the votes would have to be it for it to pass. So that would mean that if the president is wrong at something than the boards could correct it while if vote gathering happens like now, than the president would be able to veto it.

 

[silentstriker]

Well there should be a rule chance for the qualification of presidents, which rules out political leaders like Sharad Pawar who is a minister or something in India isn't he? And the president would have to have served cricket for X many years.

So, he'll get his henchman Lalit Modi to run for him and control the things anyway.

And even if the president thinks one way, that would be the final word because it would go back to the boards and they would vote again but this time 75% of the votes would have to be it for it to pass. So that would mean that if the president is wrong at something than the boards could correct it while if vote gathering happens like now, than the president would be able to veto it.

Bad idea, you can't let one man control the livelihood of the game in ten completely different countries like that. That would definitely lead to a split.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Well, there's no other way than, keep it the way it is. But with that the one man would be voted by all the members. I think the next time they vote on a president, this needs to include all 97 members of the ICC not just the test nations because it affects the others too, and than there wouldn't be any vote gathering because it's not possible to gather 50 nations to be on your side so that would be more fair. And if a president was chosen like that it would be more fair than president being chosen by 10. Than all the boards would vote on a matter and than it would pass on to the president, if he vetoed than it would go back to the boards who would have to have a higher percentage to overrule the veto. So in a chance it's not all up one man. It's more of like the 3rd umpire thing. So if the president absolute disagrees with the boards only than he would veto while the rest of the time he would pass it. It's not up to one man because the boards would still be able to overrule the president.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Well, there's no other way than, keep it the way it is. But with that the one man would be voted by all the members. I think the next time they vote on a president, this needs to include all 97 members of the ICC not just the test nations because it affects the others too, and than there wouldn't be any vote gathering because it's not possible to gather 50 nations to be on your side so that would be more fair.

Ask Sepp Blatter about that. He's founded 10 years of FIFA rule on small islands in the Caribbean.

1,000 rupees per nation and India have pretty much secured the vote of everyone. It's a LOT simpler to buy an associate than a full member.

 

[LA ICE-E]

well buying/briving for votes should be illegal too and if it goes unheard of atleast the associates would get something out of that. Also they wouldn't just vote for them if it wouldn't help the associates.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Ian Chappell wants it back to impartial Board running international cricket.

I don't think I agree with much of what he says though, I don't usually most of the time anyway.

1 point is he wants cricket to ran by the players. It might be good/bad I don't know. Not all good players will be good at running the game so I disagree and I don't think the players can run the sport any better 'cause running the game isn't not the same thing playing the game. Although I do think some players who are qualified at being a admin should be invovled and some ex players like Sunil Gavasker etc are already so I don't know what he's talking about.

 

[Richard]

In other words it suits you to discount them and just look at the final result as a defeat, because you have decided they're not good enough, but when other sides have a similarly bad record, you look at individual games...

No, I've looked at the things that are applicable and decided who's good enough and who's not.

true

No, not so, and it's very lame to just quote someone who happens to say the same thing that you relentlessly bash on about and write "true".

 

[Richard]

well buying/briving for votes should be illegal too and if it goes unheard of atleast the associates would get something out of that. Also they wouldn't just vote for them if it wouldn't help the associates.

Haha, it's sooooooo naive to think that's remotely possible. It's hardly "buying votes" in any case to simply promise money to the associates.

 

[howardj]

With the Australia / Zimbabwe tour issue becoming a bigger issue day by day, what could/would happen if the ICC end up fineing the Australia Cricket Board US$2 million and the ACB refuse to pay?

There's no way the ICC would have the guts to take major action against Australia, and along with the Asian nations having had issues with the ICC over the past couple of years, could we end up seeing countries break away from the ICC?

Is there a future for the ICC in its current state?

Do people even know who comprises the ICC? It's not, as most journalists and punters seem to think, some unelected group of ICC faceless nobodies who are unconnected to the respective countries who play cricket. Rather, it comprises the Presidents and Chairmen of the ICC's 10 Full Member countries, plus three representatives from Associate Member countries.

So, the countries themselves are the decision makers, it's not some independent, self-appointed separate body of bureaucrats.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Haha, it's sooooooo naive to think that's remotely possible. It's hardly "buying votes" in any case to simply promise money to the associates.

At least than the associates get something out of it which is better than now where they don't get anything out of it and india just have to pursue Windies and Zimbabwe to vote for them. And it's not like say England and Australia couldn't promise the same thing to the associates too, so at worse it would be the same thing but at least the associates would get something out of it.

 

[LA ICE-E]

No, not so, and it's very lame to just quote someone who happens to say the same thing that you relentlessly bash on about and write "true".

So I can't say I agree with him?

 

[silentstriker]

At least than the associates get something out of it which is better than now where they don't get anything out of it and india just have to pursue Windies and Zimbabwe to vote for them. And it's not like say England and Australia couldn't promise the same thing to the associates too, so at worse it would be the same thing but at least the associates would get something out of it.

Its uneforcable because its not a 'check'. It's basically a promise to play a certain number of ODIs at a certain place and time. The only way you can prevent it is to tell the board of a country that they cannot play a specific opponent, which obviously they cannot do.

 

[Richard]

At least than the associates get something out of it which is better than now where they don't get anything out of it and india just have to pursue Windies and Zimbabwe to vote for them. And it's not like say England and Australia couldn't promise the same thing to the associates too, so at worse it would be the same thing but at least the associates would get something out of it.

England certainly couldn't, The BCCI's coffers are the stuff of dreams to The ECB. And CA are nothing close to as rich, either.

Votes for the associates is a very, very bad idea, because they are easily bought.

 

[Richard]

So I can't say I agree with him?

You can, of course, I'm simply pointing-out that when someone says something someone else bashes-on non-stop about, for that someone else to post immidiately after that someone saying "I agree" or something is very, very predictable and very, very lame.