Is it time for Malcolm Speed to go ?

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

A few years too late.

 

[Langeveldt]

I remember Agnew absolutely grilling him on TMS, to the stage where he just said "This is all about money really isn't it Malcolm, cricket nowadays"

Get him out immediately

 

[PY]

I remember Agnew absolutely grilling him on TMS, to the stage where he just said "This is all about money really isn't it Malcolm, cricket nowadays"

Get him out immediately

Good ol' Aggers, taking to the heart of the matter and baring his cheeks to those in authority.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Like all politicians he's only interested in saving his own worthless backside.

Making the e-mails public knowledge doesn't reflect well on him, however daft Hair was to send them in the first place.

 

[Top_Cat]

So it's scapegoat hunting season again?

I'm no fan of Speed but seriously guys, look at who you're targeting and then look at who is really responsible. I'll even give you a clue; it's never one man alone, especially in an organisation where EVERYTHING is decided by committee.

 

[Langeveldt]

So it's scapegoat hunting season again?

I'm no fan of Speed but seriously guys, look at who you're targeting and then look at who is really responsible. I'll even give you a clue; it's never one man alone, especially in an organisation where EVERYTHING is decided by committee.

But surely the head of the organization has to carry the can for the people he represents and the policys said organization makes? Inzamam may be getting the ban for something which may not have even been his doing after all, just because he is captain

 

[BoyBrumby]

So it's scapegoat hunting season again?

I'm no fan of Speed but seriously guys, look at who you're targeting and then look at who is really responsible. I'll even give you a clue; it's never one man alone, especially in an organisation where EVERYTHING is decided by committee.

TBF T_C the buck has to stop somewhere. I think making private e-mails public property is pretty shoddy, there's clearly some efforts being made by the organisation that Speed heads to traduce Hair's integrity.

 

[Slow Love™]

So it's scapegoat hunting season again?

I'm no fan of Speed but seriously guys, look at who you're targeting and then look at who is really responsible. I'll even give you a clue; it's never one man alone, especially in an organisation where EVERYTHING is decided by committee.

You're being pretty generous. An individual can certainly be held responsible for their public comments, and it's not as if Speed (or the now departed Mani (his "Asia is the ICC" being a comment that's done a lot of damage)) has been short of them over time. And I think committees and the board reps are much more likely to be voting on matters of policy than on public commentary.

In addition, CEOs and Presidents are scapegoats. That's why they get paid such enormous figures (and receive such enormous severances) and get given the a$$ when things go bad on their watch. It's a responsibility of the position.

 

[Top_Cat]

But surely the head of the organization has to carry the can for the people he represents and the policys said organization makes? Inzamam may be getting the ban for something which may not have even been his doing after all, just because he is captain

Completely different. A captain has responsibility and power of veto over his players. A president, in the case of the ICC, does not. He has to live (and die, apparently) by the majority decision of the committee. He has no executive power over the constituent members of the ICC.

The ICC's standing in the last few years as been eroded in the eyes of many, especially on the issue of Zimbabwe. What's changed in that time? The president. Who HASN'T changed in that time? Many of the committee members representing the member countries.

For mine, it's an issue of perception; the president is the focal point of the organisation and is therefore the biggest target. I just don't think it's co-incidence that administrators who were universally considered to be outstanding in their home countries, Dalmiya and Speed, can be pillored as incompetant whilst presidents of the ICC and, in the case of Dalmiya, quit and suddenly his competance in the eyes of many is restored. Possible he never lost it perchance?

In addition, CEOs and Presidents are scapegoats. That's why they get paid such enormous figures (and receive such enormous severances) and get given the a$$ when things go bad on their watch. It's a responsibility of the position.

I'm well aware that's what happens in the corporate world. Doesn't make it any less stupid as a solution in isolation, especially for a non-executive. Sacking him will change NOTHING. Mark my words.

What could possibly be gained from sacking someone who is essentially a figurehead? Unless they're saying damaging comments, what difference will it make? As I said, I'm no fan of Speed but at worst, he's been ineffectual. Will painting over a termite-infested house eliminate the problems of the termites? Seriously guys, give me a constructive consequence of sacking the non-executive figurehead of an organisation because I am not seeing it. The ICC has far larger problems in the administration of the game and playing musical chairs with the president won't fix them.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The fact that the guy's still in charge of an organisation that has turned a blind eye to the Zimbabwe situation & fronted up personally to announce Hair's e-mail exchange means that he implictly supported both decisions, regardless of their actual provenance.

If he doesn't he had the choice to walk.

 

[Top_Cat]

Define 'turning a blind eye to the Zimbabwe situation'.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Define 'turning a blind eye to the Zimbabwe situation'.

Seriously?

Their non-exclusion from the international arena when it became apparent to even casual observers such as myself that the ZCB was being run by a corrupt & arguably murderous regime.

 

[Top_Cat]

Seriously?

Their non-exclusion from the international arena when it became apparent to even casual observers such as myself that the ZCB was being run by a corrupt & arguably murderous regime.

Exactly. Now explain to me how and why Malcolm Speed, who as an Australian administrator argued for exactly that solution, should be held solely responsible for that decision when he didn't make it himself yet those on the ICC executive committee should remain untouched. Then tell me how getting rid of Speed will change the ICC's position on the situation.

Come on, man; it's a Clayton's decision to sack Speed. Papering over the cracks, even. A decision to make those who do it feel better about having made a decision. It's like not classifying Pluto as a planet; WHAT CHANGES?

 

[PY]

Could you argue that Speed has been ineffectual at bringing about the changes required within the ICC?

I know it's difficult because as you say, everything is done by committee but things could be done about it and maybe his performance shows he may be thoroughly competent at running corporations but is he any good at instituting change?

PS I think you're thinking that most don't want the ICC committee to change as well. I certainly want the whole thing changed but Speed isn't bringing that about so he takes the brunt of the charges. Throw in the fact I don't like his demeanour and attitude when under scrutiny and you have a winner IMO.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Exactly. Now explain to me how and why Malcolm Speed, who as an Australian administrator argued for exactly that solution, should be held solely responsible for that decision when he didn't make it himself yet those on the ICC executive committee should remain untouched. Then tell me how getting rid of Speed will change the ICC's position on the situation.

Not the point I'm arguing, TBF. If he doesn't support it he should've resigned.

What's Edmund Burke's quote? All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing?

 

[Top_Cat]

Not the point I'm arguing, TBF. If he doesn't support it he should've resigned.

The fact he doesn't does't necessarily follow that he supported those decisions too.

What's Edmund Burke's quote? All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing?

Absolutely and you won't see me arguing that the ICC as a whole hasn't handled the situation in Zim poorly. So where's Speed's role in all this? He's the painted-on smile of the ICC, not a decision-maker. Influence them and change will occur. Speed has neither the mandate nor the clout to challenge them. Read the ICC's charter and power of committee members (it's all there on the website). Guys like Speed cannot be seen to contradict the ICC's member countries representatives because forget him quitting, they would have probably voted no-confidence ages ago. He's there to be the public front-end to the decisions, to listen to the concerns of other stakeholders, to represent the decisions made by those with executive power, etc. not to question them. Just like any non-executive president in any corporation. He HAS to publically advocate the decisions made by the representatives of the member countries.

I maintain, those who would advocate Speed's removal in isolation are going after the wrong target.

I was actually very surprised when Speed took on the ICC president's role; he had a lot more clout as ACB executive.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Again, as PY pointed out, just because people are advocating Speed's removal doesn't mean they don't want a major clear out of the ICC generally.

&, if Speed is just the grinning frontman, one could argue for his removal as he doesn't do anything anyway. I personally think being the chairman of an organisation means you carry some responsibility for said organisation's actions. You appear not to. Many people have resigned from office on matters of principle tho, the late Robin Cook stood down from the cabinet over here because he opposed the war in Iraq. For me, it's the old "not in my name" argument.

 

[Slow Love™]

I'm well aware that's what happens in the corporate world. Doesn't make it any less stupid as a solution in isolation, especially for a non-executive. Sacking him will change NOTHING. Mark my words.

What could possibly be gained from sacking someone who is essentially a figurehead? Unless they're saying damaging comments, what difference will it make? As I said, I'm no fan of Speed but at worst, he's been ineffectual.

Right. He makes damaging comments. As I said in my previous post:

"An individual can certainly be held responsible for their public comments, and it's not as if Speed (or the now departed Mani (his "Asia is the ICC" being a comment that's done a lot of damage)) has been short of them over time. And I think committees and the board reps are much more likely to be voting on matters of policy than on public commentary.

I really don't think that what Speed is being criticized for are matters that are decided by a committee. If Speed wants to present himself (as he DID and DOES) as the public face of the ICC and chooses to make opinionated comments, he can damn well be judged on that basis. The fact that the member boards don't vote to excise Zimbabwe from the competition doesn't give him a license to make opinionated statements to justify it (mainly because everybody knows the basis of most of those objections are either financial or fiercely anti-imperium). Presenting himself as the go-to person of the ICC when it came to the Zim player dispute, and not even bothering to meet with the players themselves, surely reflects on him, as does his caving in to the ZCU when they told him to sod off. And his release of Hair's correspondence was very likely not voted on by board members.

Basically though, you are arguing that we can't hold Speed to any standards on his public commentary.

 

[Dasa]

Am I the only person who thinks the ICC is doing a decent job?

 

[Slow Love™]

Am I the only person who thinks the ICC is doing a decent job?

Shut up.