ICC News

CA chairman Jack Clarke wary of India's clout

Peter English

June 30, 2010

Comments: 51 | Text size: A | A

Cricket Australia chairman Jack Clarke speaks at the Bradman Oration, Melbourne, November 19, 2009
Jack Clarke: "In any business model where a company has 75% of the income it is not ideal, but that's not India's fault" © Getty Images
Enlarge

Jack Clarke, Cricket Australia's chairman, will be more cautious in his dealings with India following its role in dismissing John Howard as the ICC's vice-presidential candidate in Singapore. Australia has developed an increasingly strong relationship with the BCCI, including developing the Champions League Twenty20, but the board was part of the group that blocked Howard's passage.

A frustrated Clarke said India wasn't the only country to oppose the joint recommendation of Australia and New Zealand at the meetings in Singapore over the past two days. However, the decision by the ICC's board to request another candidate has altered the environment.

"You hope it doesn't affect your relationship but it obviously puts a block there for a while and makes you wary, I suppose," he said. "But we have to deal with all the member countries of the ICC ... We'll have a board meeting in October and there's no point not rolling up."

Zimbabwe and South Africa were the original opponents to Howard's nomination, raising their protests outside an ICC meeting in Dubai in April, but a group of six members signed a letter on Tuesday night expressing their desire to veto the recommendation. The list didn't include Zimbabwe, but India's strength allowed them to bring Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh on board, highlighting a return to the days when the Asian and African countries voted en-masse.

Despite seeing Howard "knocked off" by the alliance, Clarke refused to say the enormous power of the bloc was unhealthy for the future of the game. "In any business model where a company has 75% of the income it is not an ideal model, but that's not India's fault they do that," he said. "With distributions that go to all the countries, [India] earn it and distribute it evenly among nine of the Test-playing countries and the Associates.

"It is a powerful bloc, it's a reality of life. But you've also got to remember that until 1992 Australia and England had a power of veto [in ICC meetings]."

There is a strong feeling that if India had supported Howard he would have had no problems in becoming the deputy to Sharad Pawar, the incoming ICC president. "I can't speculate about that," Clarke said. "I've been on the board for 18 months, been to seven meetings, I think the bloc vote that was once there before my time doesn't exist at the same level."

A BCCI source told AFP there was "nothing personal against Howard". "But we do accept the argument that only a man with previous experience in cricket administration should head the ICC. Howard was not involved with Cricket Australia at any time."

Peter English is the Australasia editor of Cricinfo

RSS Feeds: Peter English

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by catalyst213 on (July 5, 2010, 10:17 GMT)

Even if John Howard had been involved in Cricket Admin in CA, would it makes any difference. We all know although some may put a blind eye to it that this man is a racist, divisive war criminal. So forget it boys, join BCCI thats where the money is, you beat'em join'em, but ofcourse you will be like a second hand prince.

Posted by catalyst213 on (July 5, 2010, 10:01 GMT)

Whingers, Whingers, Whingers........Oi Oi Oi is all i can say about Aussies.

Posted by catalyst213 on (July 5, 2010, 5:06 GMT)

Aussies dont get tired in proving themselves as sore losers, i like the dedication.

Posted by Kewal999 on (July 3, 2010, 12:56 GMT)

John Howrd became the PM of Aus 'coz he was popular there, he lost in ICC because he wasn't popular enough among 7 of the 10 ICC member countries. Simple as that! Time to learn some POLITICS Mr. Howard. And c'mon Mr. Howard accept your defeat graciously. Time to learn some SPORTSMANSHIP too!

Posted by   on (July 2, 2010, 19:50 GMT)

Howard nomination was rejected by 7 countries.. not just India... Why did WI rejected it.. nobody is blaming them.. also it is highly unlikely that Srilanka would have supported him when he called Murli a "chucker".. so forget about India supporting the nomonation or not... Howard would have never got the desired 7 votes.. IT WAS A POOR NOMINATION.. DON'T PUT THE BLAME ON INDIA.. ACCPET iT CA

Posted by   on (July 2, 2010, 12:50 GMT)

lol im an indian and i am proud of the bcci. yes well let the bcci act as if the own cricket, because they do when it comes to money etc......... aussies hate losing being a kiwi in the fifa world cup because of new zealands success they came up with a way to merge both countries AUSTRALASIA. aussies just cant take the fact that they will lose... :)

Posted by   on (July 1, 2010, 10:42 GMT)

BCCI earn money and distribute it evenly.If CA does not like it don`t accept the money from BCCI.

Posted by   on (July 1, 2010, 7:09 GMT)

Mr. Howard need 7 votes for him he got only 3 means 7 against, Bloke get on with life, you aren't destined to be here. Secondly had BCCI ( a board which no Indian is proud off) tried to support Howard again ppl would have commented that they used money power to make SL, SA and Zim to change the decision.

BCCI earn a lot more than everybody else put together...if it is a problem for others please dont take the money from them.

Posted by Mahiru on (July 1, 2010, 4:21 GMT)

if Australia is so fond of Howard, why don't they first appoint him as the president of cricket australia..this is simply amusing to see how Australia can't bear up their nominee being knocked out.. quite hilarious..my suggestion, first let him lead CA and prove that he is capable of CRICKET administration

Posted by viks_j on (July 1, 2010, 3:56 GMT)

We have to understand that whatever happened it has done with consensus. No one want John Howard as he doesn't has any experience as cricket administrator. All test playing nations has rejected him and even New Zealand has some reservation about his appointment. First it is opposed by SA and ZIM then by ASIAN countries and after west indies. So it is wrong to blame any particular country especially India.

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Peter EnglishClose
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days
Sponsored Links

Why not you? Read and learn how!