Latest Review into Australian Cricket

[Maximas]

Recommendation 43: timeouts be administrated to anyone who makes a post about the prime minister after this post

But will the CW administration accept responsibility on their end for creating an atmosphere the encouraged 'posting without counting the cost'?

 

[stephen]

But will the CW administration accept responsibility on their end for creating an atmosphere the encouraged 'posting without counting the cost'?

 

[NZTailender]

[/B]

lmao

this is about as useful as the Posters Union I dreamt up back in the day when Towns was running amok.

 

[stephen]

I think Peever is felling the heat after the review. Cricinfo is scathing in its commentary right now.

I wouldn't know the mood of the country though. Most cricket fans (not the casuals but the fans) want the players back.

And from a natural justice perspective, being banned for an entire year is worth how much money? It's effectively a multi million dollar fine to the players and nothing for the corporate culture than created the environment that precipitated the events.

It's like arresting a drug user but leaving the dealer alone.

 

[the big bambino]

I brought it up to demonstrate that there was significant public shock and anger at the revelation of the cheating, and particularly in wake of both Smith and Sutherland's lack of immediate action or remorse, it is also much more significant that a PM like Turnbull was saying this rather than a Howard type, who was actually interested. I made this point to try and demonstrate that such bans may seem excessive now but a lot of people felt it was needed at the time, and there was a lot of pressure on CA to hand down stiff punishments

Turnbull was Australia's most senior elected official, calling for action from a board that governs a cricket team which represents Australia on the world stage and receives tax breaks and possible subsidies from the Australian public (someone pls confirm, I'm sure i read this recently but unable to cite), so I think he has the right to comment on and encourage action in that situation

This simply didn't happen, CA came to the actual specifics of the decision without any consultation with the government and I never argued that it did, or that it would be justified, but as the leader of the country Turnbull had a stake in the behaviour of sportspeople representing Australia.

(sigh). I responded to your post containing the quote "... even the ****ing PM was calling for blood ..." with "If true ..." It was the first thing I said and apparently the first thing you ignored. You've subsequently misunderstood everything since. Which is how inappropriate it'd be for a PM to use his position to influence a Board in its deliberations on innocence, guilt and punishment.

If true ...

I'm taking the speculation for granted just to make that point, not to claim it happened. Though it may well have. As an aside, the idea we shouldn't be concerned about such influence being misused (if true ...) just because the PM hosts a game he gives sweet **** all about, is comically ludicrous in its negligent disregard such interference could have on people's livelihoods.

If true ...

 

[Maximas]

Ok, but I wasn't ever talking about that, my whole point was that he did comment, which is significant, and I felt he had a right to.

I'm not sure why you got the idea that I was in favour of this whole conspiracy theory where the PM uses his influence to ban the players, didn't mean to suggest that I thought that had actually happened, or that I felt it was appropriate.

 

[the big bambino]

Ok, but I wasn't ever talking about that, my whole point was that he did comment, which is significant, and I felt he had a right to.

I'm not sure why you got the idea that I was in favour of this whole conspiracy theory where the PM uses his influence to ban the players, didn't mean to suggest that I thought that had actually happened, or that I felt it was appropriate.

Not to go back again through our conversation, I think it may have morphed into something away from your original post and my first response. But anyway I've just googled and found where Turnbull did speak to Peever and made his displeasure known, or words like that. Yeah he can do that but should he? As a bystander I'd be concerned about a PM calling the Chairman. Its easy to understand how such a call could be influential on his thinking. You could speculate that because something has to explain the overreach of the penalties. Yes it could be sponsors, it could be the press, it could be the PM. Its fair to wonder. So as far as the PM is concerned he could get his message across publicly so that everyone knows what he said and just leave there and trust the Board to do its job.

 

[Maximas]

Wasn't aware of a private correspondence between the PM and CA, I'm less comfortable with that than a public statement as you say

 

[GotSpin]

I heard a rumour from a friend ago that Turnbull was having private words about the ban the length - Wasn't sure if he was talking garbage or not though

In other news, NSW doesn't seem happy with Peever. He really should just **** off. Yeah you don't want a bunch of idiotic former players running everything, but nor do you want guys from a purely ruthless corporate environment either

 

[Spikey]

you could argue that, at least until the start of this season, NSW's state selection policy has almost been the antithesis of what CA/Greg Chappell wants to see, so I suppose they don't mind going against the grain. might be unhappy their candidate didn't get the CEO job either

 

[Spikey]

Lalor saying that stuff is happening

https://twitter.com/plalor/status/1057845508545232901?s=19

 

[stephen]

Hopefully we can get rid of Peever, reduce the bans to 9 months and get rid of the bit about not playing state cricket or the big bash.

 

[Spikey]

Gone

 

[Starfighter]

Too late, but good.

 

[morgieb]

Thank **** for that!

 

[Daemon]

Yet another innocent man falls victim to this ball tampering 'scandal'

 

[jimmy101]

That was quick! Word on the street is Tubby Taylor is being groomed for the role.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That was quick! Word on the street is Tubby Taylor is being groomed for the role.

CA making sure they have top notch office air conditioning looking to the future

 

[straw man]

But anyway I've just googled and found where Turnbull did speak to Peever and made his displeasure known, or words like that. Yeah he can do that but should he?

just sharing some helpful tips on how to go about things once you're catapulted out of a job

Peever's revenge in 12 months?

 

[quincywagstaff]

On a broader level, it’s funny how much the ideology has changed around Australian cricket in less than decade.

Especially after Australia’s home 10/11 Ashes loss, all the media talk seemed to me about how outmoded Australia’s cricket structures of the power based around the state cricketing bodies was, how Australian cricket needed to ‘modernise’ its management style (i.e. become corporate). This seemed to be one of the main drivers behind the Argus review and the changes that did occur in admin to become more ruthless.

Several years on, as the old saying goes be careful what you wish for. In all aspects David Peever seemed totally ill-suited to running Australian cricket and his seeming belief that it should be treated like an accounting firm. I’m surprised he managed to last this long.

But Peever isn’t the real culprit; it’s those who wanted Cricket Australia to become modern and corporate at the start of the decade and are now pretending to be aghast at getting the changes they wanted.