ICC news

Alan Isaac in line for ICC vice-presidency

Peter English

July 30, 2010

Comments: 52 | Text size: A | A

Jack Clarke, left, and Alan Isaac, centre, at an ICC board meeting in London, June 24, 2009
Alan Isaac, centre, has gained the support of Jack Clarke, left, for the position of ICC deputy © Getty Images
Enlarge

Alan Isaac, the New Zealand Cricket chairman, will replace John Howard as the ICC vice-presidency nomination following Cricket Australia's refusal to choose another candidate. Howard, the country's former prime minister, was blocked last month and even though CA's board remains convinced he is the best man for the job, it will support Isaac's elevation.

Isaac and Jack Clarke, CA's chairman, were furious with Howard's rejection during the ICC annual conference in Singapore, following an exhaustive selection process for an increasingly complicated role. After being told by the ICC board to find another option by August 31, New Zealand asked Sir John Anderson, the country's original recommendation, to reconsider. When Anderson refused Isaac, 58, stepped forward.

CA's board members met via teleconference on Friday and were loyal in their commitment to Howard. However, they accepted Isaac would become the joint-nomination for a job that includes a two-year term as ICC president from 2012.

"We are not prepared to suggest another candidate but given it is clear John Howard will not be supported, we clearly have to consider a new approach," Clarke said. "Accordingly, we are pleased to support New Zealand Cricket's suggestion that Alan Isaac be nominated for the role. Alan has a strong cricket and sporting administrative background, but the relevant benefit he brings to the table is his strong record as an expert practitioner and adviser in organisational governance and his business and financial acumen."

Isaac said he was honoured to be nominated but did not want to comment before the position was confirmed by the ICC. Justin Vaughan, the New Zealand Cricket chief executive, said Isaac was an outstanding choice. "The board of New Zealand Cricket is both proud to nominate its chairman for this global leadership role and confident in his ability to make a significant contribution to the sport," Vaughan said.

Isaac, who was a long-standing Wellington club batsman, succeeded Anderson as New Zealand Cricket chairman in 2008, a role he accepted after 35 years working for KPMG accountants. He has sat on a variety of sporting, business and community boards, and is currently involved with New Zealand's Red Cross and the country's fire service's auditing committee. If the nomination is accepted by the ICC he will have an important role in hosing down all sorts of problems.

Concerns over Howard's suitability for the job were raised as soon as his candidacy was revealed and they peaked when six ICC board members from Asia, Africa and the West Indies signed a letter in Singapore opposing the appointment. Under the ICC's regulations it was the turn of Australia and New Zealand to select someone who would be rubber-stamped as Sharad Pawar's deputy.

Clarke is still angry that Howard, who was asked by CA to nominate, was vetoed. "We still have been given no official reason why a strongly-credentialed candidate of Howard's qualifications, skill and stature was not supported," Clarke said. "Our directors were today very strongly of the view that Howard continues to be the best candidate CA could nominate."

Critics of Howard pointed to his political decisions and lack of experience in cricket administration as reasons for his blocking Isaac has none of those issues.

Peter English is the Australasia editor of Cricinfo

RSS Feeds: Peter English

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by   on (August 2, 2010, 0:25 GMT)

I, like many Australians, supported Howard for 10 years, and then voted for Kevin Rudd because Rudd sold himself very well, made many promises for change and he seemed very intelligent. However, in 2.5 years Rudd became so unpopular that he was ousted by his own party. I think Howard deserved more respect than this. The ICC refused to give their official reason because if they labelled Howard a racist, then he could have sued them for defamation. It is hard to face up to a Chinese Wall and address your accusers when they don't have the guts to meet him in a fair trial. This isn't democracy. Let Howard speak for himself and give him a voice.

Posted by G.Sinclair on (August 1, 2010, 0:41 GMT)

Doesent matter which way you try and rationlise it, this is a defeat for Aust & NZ cricket. It is also a defeat for rationalism, but just staying with cricket, CA should not have endorsed another candidate until Pawar made up his mind wherther he was going tio be involved with politics or cricket - one man cannot do a justice to both, that is just fantasy land - so CA should have made their withdrawal of Howard as nominee conditional on that issue being resolved, and to have had the intestinal fortitude to hold out in a stalemate if it was not.

They did not, and now the poker game is over and as usual the winner takes all. Hard to see the CA, NZ or UK having much say in the world game from here on in, which will undoubtedly make some happy, but the problem for the game is that it is those countries that normally supply the largest amount of rational decision making & other problem is this may eventually lead to a split in the world game.

It has not been cricket old chap!

Posted by Bang_La on (August 1, 2010, 0:22 GMT)

Funny is, the trio of global chaos, bush-blair-howard are now maintaining such low profile and probably hoping that the world will forget what they did to mankind for the interest of their masters, the big corporations. Howard (or rightly Coward as mentioned by a poster) was a test case for their reinstatation ended with a huge boot on his face. Had the Aussies not been bullying, Sir John Anderson, a perfect cricket choice, could be sailing jolly as the vice president to make the ICC President eventually.

Posted by SC79 on (July 31, 2010, 23:55 GMT)

An example of a democratic process was Howard being voted out of his own seat by constituents at the last Australian election. If someone can point me to where I vote for Australia's ICC representative (and where people in other countries vote for their representative) than I'll accept that is a democratice process too. The ICC board is not democratically elected, hence its decisions are not democratic. The majority of Australians (as demonstrated at the last election) do not like Howard, his politics or his legacy. However, nobody has any respect for the process that saw him knocked back by the ICC. If the ICC has any respect for cricket the game, not cricket the business, they can at least respect fans' intelligence by providing an official reason for knocking back the nomination.

Posted by PottedLambShanks on (July 31, 2010, 18:39 GMT)

Who cares, whoever gets it will be nothing more than puppet for the Asian bloc. ICC is pathetic and so are all the people who rolled over and let the Howard nomination be quoshed.

Posted by Jim1207 on (July 31, 2010, 17:09 GMT)

People say that there is no voting process in place and it was created out of nowhere to oust John Howard! But we need to think about why then Howard visited these countries (even Zimbabwe) to get support for his candidature. These countries told very clearly that they won't support, and they mentioned to him as well. CA and Howard should have thought pro-actively and acted accordingly and they paid the price for not doing so. Now it's been all well, so lets not fight over anything but just agree to the democratic agreement and forget about the differences for the sake of everybody.

Posted by Alexk400 on (July 31, 2010, 14:53 GMT)

John Howard is a racist. He will split ICC. He better not be in ICC at all. We do not want racist cowboys in ICC.

Posted by samirhajarnis on (July 31, 2010, 9:44 GMT)

@sfay : Rotational yes, Rubber stamp NO. as you guys found out. Anyway i think your egos are hurt more than your sense of propriety. Besides I do wish you guys stop these tantrums. The six countries were SA/WI/ZIM/SL/Pak/Ban. I assume these are all adults who can make their own decisions. Why/How is BCCI responsible?

Posted by Matt_in_London on (July 31, 2010, 9:40 GMT)

catalyst213: You do realise that your unsubstantiated claims of corruption by Speed and Howard could be regarded as defamation. I'd be surprised if your comment remains here. As for your claim that there's nobody more corrupt than Aussies or Poms: what is this based on, and how can this be true compared to other countries famous for corruption such as India, South Africa, Pakistan...

Posted by ozcric on (July 31, 2010, 9:24 GMT)

somebody wated a statement from ICC why Howard was refused. The amazing thing is he is from australia. We all living in OZ know what sort of a cheat and a racist he is. When you read most of these comments you don't need any more explanations for his refusal.

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