ICC news July 2, 2010

Australia and New Zealand take time over next step


Cricket Australia is not rushing towards a decision on whether to re-nominate John Howard as ICC vice-president and will hold a special board meeting next week to determine its next move. Howard has gained support from the prime ministers of Australia and New Zealand following his rejection for the ICC job in Singapore on Wednesday, while senior cricket officials have been left without explanations of why the appointment was denied.

Both cricket boards, which provided Howard as their joint nomination, are frustrated by the decision but will now take their time over any new announcement. A Cricket Australia spokesman told Cricinfo its board would wait for reports from the chairman Jack Clarke and James Sutherland, the chief executive, on the events in Singapore before deciding what happens next.

Justin Vaughan, the New Zealand Cricket chief executive, has spoken about the need to "let the dust settle" while Clarke also acknowledged "there's some water to flow under the bridge" before the candidate was finalised. Under the ICC's guidelines, it was the turn of New Zealand and Australia to select the vice-president, who would then take the top job in 2012.

The process stalled when board members from Africa and Asia blocked Howard's elevation. Australia and New Zealand were given until August 31 to provide another option for the position as Sharad Pawar's deputy.

John Key, the New Zealand prime minister, called it a "shocking decision". "I saw John on TV saying he's going to hold his ground and I think he should," Key told New Zealand radio.

Julia Gillard, Australia's prime minister, said she shared some of the concerns Howard had voiced publicly since being shut out. "I'd be very happy to offer full support for John Howard to get this role," she said.

Howard remains committed to the position and Cricket Australia will stand by him at least until the board meeting next week. New Zealand had originally pushed for Sir John Anderson in the role, but Vaughan indicated the job had become less appealing after the events in Singapore.

Peter English is the Australasia editor of Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Siraj on July 8, 2010, 7:35 GMT

    CA and John Howard can even go lower than this, we may thin its too much but for them its just the beginning.

  • Dummy4 on July 6, 2010, 15:25 GMT

    Howard nomination was rejected by 7 countries.. not just India... Why did WI rejected it?? Srilanka had good enough reason to reject after Howard calling their national tresure,Murli a "chucker".. so forget about India's power or supporting the nomonation... Howard would have never got the desired 7 votes.. IT WAS A POOR NOMINATION.. DON'T PUT THE BLAME ON INDIA'S POWER.. ACCPET IT CA/NZ

  • Arshad on July 5, 2010, 21:19 GMT

    CA should be penalised for even nominating Howard. I can't myself much of a follower. I am just an ordinary fan. Even I have heard enough negative headlines from Howard in recent years.

  • Kannan on July 5, 2010, 7:35 GMT

    I now expect the Aussi media to blame the Indians for "casting a veto on Howard" as "political revenge" for: 1. Racist attacks on Indians in Aus. 2. Australia's consistent refusal to give uranium to India. 3. Aus and NZs action in repeatedly wanting India to sign the NPT and CTBT. And this is exactly the muck that cricket fans would have to deal with, if politicians were to get involved in cricket. How come the Aussies don't get this? :P

  • Kannan on July 5, 2010, 7:20 GMT

    I have the perfect solution to this insanity. Kylie Minogue would be the perfect Aussi nominee. She could be ICC's face bringing various cultures togther in the cricketing world as well as attracting the Europeans and Americas into cricket. She could do a lot more to cricket than Shakira has done to promote FIFA WC-SA! Cricket would be seen as glamorous and fashionable and show biz stuff...making it popular worldwide and bringing in tons of money, something that Modi's IPL managed to do...and why leave Modi out? He is an excellent organiser with enough talent/spunk to host a cricket WC in Brazil if need be! His recent fallout with the BCCI shd give him brownie points for an ICC job - he wd know how to rein in the BCCI! He wd bring life back to the Eng county system as well as to WI cricket? Who knows? The other board members can spend time, ensuring that all the deals are clean and inked with the the i's dotted and t's crossed. I vote for a Kylie-Modi partnership at the ICC!:P

  • Peter on July 3, 2010, 23:03 GMT

    All I have read toi date is speculation. At no time has the ICC memberrs stated the reason for their stance and that is all CA and NZ want. So what is the real reason guys? Come on, spit it out, what is it about Howard that is spooking you? Anywhere else in the civilized world, you get a reason for a rejected application, well, anywhere else in the developed world. As stated numerous times, there has not been a vote, just a rejection of the candidate so there needs to be a reason given. Both the boards of Australia and NZ deserve that. The ICC has set up a process that all countires not only voted on but endorsed, yet they don't follow their process they adopted? Hmmmmm, look at the facts, 3 countries out of 10 are represented without any issue of political corruption, human rights issues or corruption whereas 7 other countires have had a history of it. Guess which 7?

  • Sujith on July 3, 2010, 11:28 GMT

    England and Australia had veto power in the ICC till the mid-80s. I do not see any of the Toms, Johns and Mucks ever mentioning this in any of the comments. Not too long ago, IS Bindra was not allowed to become the ICC CEO because couple of years down the track Shard Pawar was to be the ICC president and thus it would lead 2 Indians holdingthe 2 of the highest posts of ICC simultaneously . At the same time, it was okay for 2 Australians to be the CEO and President of the ICC simultaneously. Hypocrisy has no end.

  • Sundeep on July 3, 2010, 7:07 GMT

    It is amusing to read the comments of the Australian and New Zealand Prime Ministers that they are still backing Mr. Howard for the post offering full support. Normally Australia champions democracy when applied to others and cuts off diplomatic relations with countries when there is a coup or disputed elections. How is it that now they do not want to accept the democratic verdict handed out by the ICC board members? Frankly, this appears to be symptomatic of a superiority attitude when they feel that they have a right to disregard the wishes of the majority.

  • arun on July 3, 2010, 6:59 GMT

    If you can't reject a candidate nominated by a bloc, why have a vote? Whatever, Mr Howard's talents it is clear he is a divisive character. The fact that from the very start four boards clearly opposed his candidacy andwhile three supported it, should have given CA a clear indication that pushing Howard's case was likely to cause ructions. According to Morgan, the three fence sitters - India, BD and WI chose to dump Howard in the final run up so don't blame India for having engineered this defeat.

    Continuing to push Howard for the VPs job is stupid. And why are the Australian and NZ PMs getting involved. Part of the problem was Howard speaking out of turn re Murali. Time the Aussies learnt they have no longer have a veto power in the ICC.

  • The on July 3, 2010, 5:53 GMT

    @raghavmadan, what precisely are these "comments against Mandela" that everyone seems to "know" about? Personally, as an Aussie I would have voted for the well credentialled Kiwi. I don't see how defending our borders (as does every country on earth) from pirates, terrorists and queue-jumpers, and leading us into the sub-prime crisis with a solvent banking system, zero net debt and (thereby sparing us from the GFC unlike countries without those advantages) qualifies him for cricket administration any more than Anderson would be qualified to be PM. And I certainly hope that the "no rubber stamp" precedent holds, and the world votes against the sort of clowns that have run the ICC in recent times. Presumably this isn't about Howard's nationality at all.

  • No featured comments at the moment.