John Howard to head ICC?

[silentstriker]

I reckon the BCCI would have supported Howard's nomination if he had taken the State CA > CA > ICC route. Nobody likes an outsider to get a free ride to the top post.

What a view. Obviously makes sense in a meritocracy that is the BCCI.

I wonder how many positions in the BCCI, if an audit were done today, came via a gradual rise through the ranks based on performance?

 

[honestbharani]

What a view. Obviously makes sense in a meritocracy that is the BCCI.

I wonder how many positions in the BCCI, if an audit were done today, came via a gradual rise through the ranks based on performance?

No one said anything about BCCI being perfect or not being hypocritical.. But it just may have been the reason why they refused.


On my part, I still think they are just perhaps using this as some sort of bargaining tool with CA, though God knows for what they are bargaining for...

 

[Dissector]

It's not really him getting rejected that worries me. It's the double standards that do. Look at Sharad Pawar, he's a polly, so is Howard. Yet one gets accepted and the other one doesn't. Go figure.

Well, like I said I don't like Pawar heading the ICC either. If Cricket Australia could have stopped his candidacy I would have supported them all the way. However Howard, in addition to being a politician with no cricket experience, appears to be seriously disliked in a way that Pawar apparently isn't which makes him an even worse candidate.

 

[Jono]

A few people post that Howard has issues, but nobody knows what those issues are.

Okay. I will answer your question, and I hope to get a serious and respectful response from you.

I am a born and bred Australian, however I am not white. I am of Indian descent.

I have previously voted for Howard in an election in 2004, but did not do so in 2007. I am not a card-carrying Labor or Greens voter, nor am I a Liberal National Party hater.

I believe that despite being one of the best politicians in Australia's history, the man did many things to offend, alienate and frighten first generation and second generation immigrants. I believe at various times Howard has blatantly appealed to xenophobia and racism in this country to further his political career. I believe he intentionally ignored criticising Pauline Hanson to ensure that he would not lose potential preference votes from One Nation. And I believe if it were not for Peter Costello, One Nation would not have been the last preference for the Liberal Party in the 90s, but rather they would still have put Labor last. These things disturb me. Greatly disturb me.

I, and many other people like me, do not like Howard. But we also love the game of cricket. We do not want him leading the game, even as a figurehead.

Clearly, whether they have the guts to expressly state it or not, some of the international boards share similar views.

 

[G.I.Joe]

What a view. Obviously makes sense in a meritocracy that is the BCCI.

I wonder how many positions in the BCCI, if an audit were done today, came via a gradual rise through the ranks based on performance?

Meh. Pawar served in the MCA before taking over the BCCI and then the ICC. He didn't wake up one fine day with nothing on his plate, and decide to run for ICC president. I don't like the guy or his methods, but I'd take that package anyday over Johnny come lately.

 

[G.I.Joe]

No one said anything about BCCI being perfect or not being hypocritical.. But it just may have been the reason why they refused.


On my part, I still think they are just perhaps using this as some sort of bargaining tool with CA, though God knows for what they are bargaining for...

Nah, the BCCI are firm in their opposition on the basis that he has no cicket administration experience. Whether or not that's a valid basis for opposing his candidature is debateable, but it's clutching at straws trying to tie this up with the ascent of Pawar.

 

[Streetwise]

Okay. I will answer your question, and I hope to get a serious and respectful response from you.

I am a born and bred Australian, however I am not white. I am of Indian descent.

I have previously voted for Howard in an election in 2004, but did not do so in 2007. I am not a card-carrying Labor or Greens voter, nor am I a Liberal National Party hater.

I believe that despite being one of the best politicians in Australia's history, the man did many things to offend, alienate and frighten first generation and second generation immigrants. I believe at various times Howard has blatantly appealed to xenophobia and racism in this country to further his political career. I believe he intentionally ignored criticising Pauline Hanson to ensure that he would not lose potential preference votes from One Nation. And I believe if it were not for Peter Costello, One Nation would not have been the last preference for the Liberal Party in the 90s, but rather they would still have put Labor last. These things disturb me. Greatly disturb me.

I, and many other people like me, do not like Howard. But we also love the game of cricket. We do not want him leading the game, even as a figurehead.

Clearly, whether they have the guts to expressly state it or not, some of the international boards share similar views.

I'm sorry but I dont see any substance in your post, as this will get politcal and out of the subject matter you can have the last word.

 

[Top_Cat]

Frankly this seems to be a case of traditional powers like Australia outraged at the fact that they don't get their way all the time and acting like spoilt children. The way to defuse this situation is for Australia to nominate an experienced cricket administrator and move forward.

Here's the problem; no-one else wants such a pointless, clearly political position on their CV. Howard, sadly, is it as far as OZ goes.

 

[Dissector]

Sambit Bal's article says:

New Zealand wanted John Anderson, the former chairman of the New Zealand board and a proven cricket administrator; and most other members would have preferred him.

So there was/is at least one better alternative.

 

[Jono]

I'm sorry but I dont see any substance in your post, as this will get politcal and out of the subject matter you can have the last word.

Boards must be just taking the piss for fun then I guess hey?

It's like you're not willing to accept anyone's criticism for Howard. He's been rejected for political reasons. So saying it'll get political is kind of obvious.

Anyway agree to let it go then.

 

[pasag]

i have previously voted for howard in an election...

:-o


.

 

[Jono]

Latham

Plus, was always a fan of Costello. We were all led to believe he would take over

 

[Jono]

Do it Cricket Australia!

Rudd's not getting a spot on Gillard's cabinet. And foreign relations is his specialty!

 

[Top_Cat]

Sambit Bal's article says:

So there was/is at least one better alternative.

I said as far as OZ goes. Anderson was the NZ nomination. Even if Australia nominated another one, it would still have to be agreed upon by both countries, as Howard was.

 

[Xuhaib]

stop all this nonsense and just give it to Ijaz Butt.

 

[Streetwise]

I said as far as OZ goes. Anderson was the NZ nomination. Even if Australia nominated another one, it would still have to be agreed upon by both countries, as Howard was.

Who is OZ?.

 

[Top_Cat]

Who is Streetwise?

 

[Dissector]

From the article posted upthread:

But Anderson is a far better choice, a more natural fit.

Arguably no person in the game knows the ICC better than Anderson. He restructured the entire body and rewrote its articles and committee manual.

An accountant by profession, he was knighted in 1994 and is a former chief executive of the ANZ National Bank.

He spent 13 years on the ICC Board, a body full of all sorts of weird and whacky characters with bizarre agendas. Anderson knows these people, what they want from the game and what they truly deserve.

I would love to know how the "rigorous and orderly process" that Haigh waxes lyrical about decided that Howard was better than Anderson. It appears to be a simple case of Australia muscling New Zealand out even though the latter clearly had the better man.

 

[Johnners]

If they had at least given reasons for not voting, they might have at least come away with some credibility, but to just say "no" and not blatantly even respect the Aust/NZ boards is pathetic.

 

[G.I.Joe]

But the BCCI has given their reasons for rejecting him.