ICC to review 2014 changes

[Spikey]

ICC Media ‏@ICCMediaComms 9m9 minutes ago
ICC Board agrees to re-establish independent position of ICC Chairman and change ToRs of F&CA and ExCo ICC Under 19 Cricket World Cup 2016

ICC Media ‏@ICCMediaComms 9m9 minutes ago
ICC Board agrees to carry out a complete review of the 2014 resolutions and constitutional changes ICC Under 19 Cricket World Cup 2016

A Telegraph article from earlier this week gives a bit of back ground to this

Giles Clarke dealt blow in bid to become ICC chairman - Telegraph

 

[Spikey]

also: SLC lost its membership at some point?

ICC Media ‏@ICCMediaComms 3m3 minutes ago
SLC membership of the ICC reinstated. It is now entitled to full funding and attendance and voting rights at the Board and Full Council

 

[Spark]

Yeah IIRC the new BCCI head (I cannot for the life of me remember his name right now. Manosomething?) has said a few things along the lines of this being stuff that needs to be looked at, so I guess this is the result. CA et al are definitely just falling into line in that respect.

 

[91Jmay]

Hope they spread the funding evenly again, and ring-fence the Future Tour Programme.

 

[Attitude]

First of all Big three was a terrible idea, and well done Manohar for having gotten rid of it.

Cricket can only work if all members are equal, and in the big three that was definitely not happening.

Hopefully they can now find some structure in the FTP, and make the test rankings fairer, and more meaningful. Like right now India suddenly became #1 without having played a singe test, and can lose the #1 ranking without playing a single game if Aus win the series in NZ.

 

[indiaholic]

Lol **** the rankings. I just want all countries to be financially sustainable enough to play test cricket regularly.

 

[honestbharani]

False dawns guys... This Manohar was part of the group who threw out Dalmiya and created IPL etc etc. Lodha commission has kicked BCCI's ass and now these guys are trying to just divert attention with these reforms. Basically anyone who was playing ball with Srinivasan is being hit. The Big 3 came in under his supervision so they are being kicked out.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I understand that. And I am certainly more cynical about these matters now. I don't have very high expectations from any administration, so given that in mind, what impressed me about Shashank Manohar is that he actually mentioned the term 'conflict of interest' when talking about his roles as head of ICC and head of BCCI. This is something you would never hear from CA, or ECB or Srinivasan for years. They would never even acknowledge it, so it was never part of the conversation.

 

[YorksLanka]

Fantastic news IMO and about time..Good decision by the current president showing he has a love for the game rather than for his own wallet. The game is bigger than any individual and it cant be held hostage by anyone..
@spikey - yes we were suspended until after "free" elections took place in tersm of our board - not sure if that was the case but they have happened now so we have been reinstated apparently.

 

[YorksLanka]

Hope they spread the funding evenly again, and ring-fence the Future Tour Programme.

yes and no mate, I agree to a certain extent that India/Australia and England should get more as they contribute more. Also I cant speak in terms of other boards struggling finacially but it would also force boards like SL to manage their funds more appropriately and reduce the BS that goes on. I was amazed last time I was in SL and watching a match at the Premadasa at the number of S class Mercs in the board members car park ! I know a couple of domestic level cricketers there and the system is in chaos and they get paid a pittance in comparison..Hopefully our new board will think more about the game than themselves..

fully agree with you about the ring fenced FTP mate..

 

[91Jmay]

Yeah that is a very good point, hope there can be some type of corporate governance structure put in where an auditor has to sign off on individual boards accounts (same as any other corporation). Think there was something similar revealed in Death of a Gentleman by Jarrod Kimber + Sam Cook (which I'd advise you to watch) about Kenya or Zimbabwe's board doing the same with cars as well.

 

[Furball]

First of all Big three was a terrible idea, and well done Manohar for having gotten rid of it.

Cricket can only work if all members are equal, and in the big three that was definitely not happening.

Hopefully they can now find some structure in the FTP, and make the test rankings fairer, and more meaningful. Like right now India suddenly became #1 without having played a singe test, and can lose the #1 ranking without playing a single game if Aus win the series in NZ.

I must've imagined India thrashing South Africa.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Big Three structure meant a lot of different things and it will be interesting to see which ones change and which ones don't, but what I am most curious about is whether Furball's new found love for India (a post 2014 phenomena) lasts or not from here onwards.

 

[honestbharani]

I understand that. And I am certainly more cynical about these matters now. I don't have very high expectations from any administration, so given that in mind, what impressed me about Shashank Manohar is that he actually mentioned the term 'conflict of interest' when talking about his roles as head of ICC and head of BCCI. This is something you would never hear from CA, or ECB or Srinivasan for years. They would never even acknowledge it, so it was never part of the conversation.

Yeah but he is only using it when it is convenient. Remember he was the President who modified the law to allow Srinivasan to hold CSK and BCCI Office in the first place. As I said, it is just a case being seen to be doing the right things without actually doing anything. Watch them squirm and push off the Lodha recommendations or how Ganguly and his buddies are getting clout to understand that literally nothing has changed with BCCI, except that the president is more media friendly and much less arrogant. Doesn't really mean he is any less of a **** who just wants to make money out of the game though.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Hope they spread the funding evenly again, and ring-fence the Future Tour Programme.

A caveated yes to the FTP from me. I think there are a number of benefits to allowing scope for the arrangement of seperate bilateral tours outside of the FTP, but greater certainty and long term planning of the touring schedule would be useful.

 

[honestbharani]

Ideally ICC should respond to the T20 dilemma. That should be their #1 focus. Maybe limit all bilateral ODI and T20 series to 3 game events, to enable more time for tests and domestic T20 leagues?

 

[Black_Warrior]

I don't have a problem with the administration trying to make money. In fact they should by all means try to do so. The game won't survive without it. The problem is, a strategy that tries to look after the golden goose, feed it on time, look after it, study it, see if we can get it to reproduce more golden goose is infinitely better than stabbing it in the belly repeatedly to get all the golden eggs right now.

The game has to develop beyond the current nations for it to survive. This is where all strategies for the future have to start on.

 

[honestbharani]

I dunno BW... I just dont think cricket can conquer enough markets for that to be justifiable. What has indirectly helped cricket has been the rise of India's stature in the world economy. So today its a lot more common for the average American to have some idea of what cricket is than it was earlier. I mean, you got sitcoms and movies making fun of it, which while a little racist, at least shows there is better awareness of the game there. But which other country do you think the game can crack? I have heard about China conquering cricket and IT for the last 15 years without anything really happening and the ICC could care less about cricket being a part of the Olympics. I think ensuring sustainability is the most pragmatic aim they can have at the moment and buffoons can't even do that.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I guess we have to clear with our objectives. Cricket is not going to conquer in the same way that football (soccer) or baseball/basketball has conquered other markets. There was a time perhaps to look into other Asian markets like Japan but they have adopted baseball now, which has also made inroads into China now.

Cricket won't be number 1. Let's get that out of the way.

But let's try to be number 2 or 3. China has such a huge population. Even number 3 over there would be a sizeable market.

There is an evergrowing market of South Asian diaspora in USA and Canada. We can use them to create something there. Maybe have a WorldT20 in Canada. The Indian/Pakistani/Bangladesh community in Toronto and Vancouver is huge. This will slowly attract some local businesses.

My point is, it's not necessarily an all or nothing game. For years Apple survived playing 5th fiddle to Microsoft and Linux. Today Windows is a distant third to Android and Apple. But it's still surviving. It's still making some money. The market is big enough for third best to make money.

 

[Day Man]

I don't really think the game needs more countries to survive. Test cricket is almost a zero sum game. There are only so many series a nation can play per year, and the current schedule of a home and away series every 4 years seems to work. Teams cant cram in more Test series every year if more nations qualify for Test cricket, unless we go in for tiers, which would be unacceptable to the major nations with iconic series. Australia and England would fume if they couldn't play an Ashes because one of them slipped into the lower tier.