ICC news July 30, 2010

Alan Isaac in line for ICC vice-presidency

52

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

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • 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.

  • 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!

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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...

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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!

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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...

  • 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.

  • voss on July 31, 2010, 8:55 GMT

    I am not sure why everyone is blaming india in this fiasco. It was nominated by Australia and opposed by zimbabwe and backed by South Africa. For some reason everyone is started to picking up BCCI and money power. Sure Asian block has the power to change the process. If they have supported Mr.Howard would have been on the ICC board. But I think the other block convinced Asian Block, better than Australian Block. This has been happening for a quite a while. Englad use to rule the cricket and Australia enjoyed the free run during that days. And then the ICC formed and equal membership is given to all the test playing nations. Now it is a democratic process, so whoever can convince the voters will win. Mr.Howard is master in that area at home but I think internationally he can't so. So stop blaming Asian block for not supporting Mr.Howard.

  • catalyst213 on July 31, 2010, 8:32 GMT

    ICC was sick by one corrupt Aussie namely Speed and ofcourse they dont need another bigger corrupt John Howard. Speed was sacked and Howard was not even was given the chance of Vote, his nomination itself was thrown out in a very insulting but right way. There's nobody more corrupt than the Poms and Aussies. Stop blaming other boards, and work on so many things that begs correction in your own CA.

  • on July 31, 2010, 8:31 GMT

    catalyst213 , your last comment was the best one!! cant stop laughing..

  • LALITHKURUWITA on July 31, 2010, 8:26 GMT

    @RobOfBruce, You better open your eyes. It is democratic process. Do you accept democratic process? There is a strong reason behind for 7 boards to reject it. Even BCCI supported him, if other 6 boads oppose, Coward would not be there. We all know that Coward is racist. If he comes to ICC, it would be finished. I can accept your argument if any board opposes MR ISAAC. Wait and see.

  • catalyst213 on July 31, 2010, 8:10 GMT

    If some (Aussies) say that "John Howard would have stood to the bullies of the ICC " and fight like a hero and all that, boys get real we've all seen him as a Puppy licking Bush's and Blair's bottoms during his time as PM. How could he stand up really to the so called bullies its not in his nature to do so. Sour Grapes, thats what it is now for the Aussies.

  • ntt12sym on July 31, 2010, 7:33 GMT

    Payback for pushing Pawar off the stage in India by the Australian team during prize ceremony? You never know!!

  • on July 31, 2010, 5:54 GMT

    He should never have been nominated, his human rights record is terrible, he refused to even apologise to his own indigenous. He kept whipping up racist policies to try and keep getting elected. The ICC was right not to back him, CA should have nominated someone else.

  • obstreperous on July 31, 2010, 5:37 GMT

    The only bleaters in this debate have been those apologists for India who have deluded themselves into thinking that a democratic process was properly followed. The truth is that the Asian bloc couldn't stomach the thought that someone who wasn't malleable and controllable might spend two years in charge of the ICC, a body that India regards as a rubber stamp for its economic hegemony in world cricket.

  • AndrewFromOz on July 31, 2010, 4:35 GMT

    Doesn't really matter all that much. ICC is now just a small branch office of BCCI. This controversy has proven who really "owns" cricket...

  • Jim1207 on July 31, 2010, 4:14 GMT

    I fully agree with mac1980. I do not know when people would start complaining about India, financial muscle, power,etc., Everyone uses power a bit when in hand, Had CA not overpowered NZ in the first place to nominate Howard in place of Anderson, CA can talk about India using or misusing the power. India or other countries have actually used this opportunity to empower the CA's decision and rightly has caused a Kiwi to get the top position. In this case, CA were misusing the power and it has all ended well. Even CA cant field another Aussie now as it would be an insult to their beloved Howard, so they have to give the position to a Kiwi with much regret. Live with this guys, very few times justice will be served. You have so many other times to enjoy the fruits of politics.

  • MrMickey on July 31, 2010, 3:34 GMT

    The ICC need to make a statement to CA and NZC as to why the John Howard nomination was rejected.If they continue to be quiet then the innuendo will continue.

  • Clyde on July 31, 2010, 3:22 GMT

    Like a character actor, Howard was, over a long political career, very heavily associated with one side, and this side was a club to which many did not have entree. I was there when a large, angry crowd attempted to break through the front door of Parliament House after an election Howard won. Curious it was that even though democratically elected, for so many and so deeply, Howard was a very, very dismal prospect. Many, including me, just could not relate to his values, mostly because they were hidden. But I was, as a consultant to government, asked to participate in lying to the public to 'protect' a minister. I am still angry. Now, if Alan Isaac can project the values needed and which he no doubt has, then all is well.

  • Sumathin on July 31, 2010, 2:23 GMT

    I seem to agree with comments of mac1980 posted on 30th july Australians tend to believe that they are always correct even if the whole world believes that it is not correct a fine example is that Ross Emersion stil lbelieves that murali is a chucker no one alse believes so. Typical of Australians Any way this Howard issue has now got sorted out Nimal

  • shramiac1 on July 31, 2010, 0:39 GMT

    Lets be honest here, John Howard was rejected for one reason. The corrupt sub-continent powers that be, know that Howard can't be bribed!

  • MrKistic on July 31, 2010, 0:25 GMT

    Actually mac1980, there was no vote, which is the problem with the whole process. If you decide to create a system whereby every country gets a go at nominating somebody, and use it up until the point where certain countries (and yes, read that as India) decide they don't like the candidate and then scuttle the whole process, it no longer has credibility. And neither do the certain countries. I was against Howard as CA's candidate to start with, but if that's who was nominated that's who should have been appointed.

    All that we get out of this whole schemozzle is yet another indication that the ICC is a joke and that cricket is currently run by commercial interests only.

    Well, that and a proper candidate.

  • on July 30, 2010, 23:36 GMT

    As an Australian, I'm relieved that Howard has not been elected to the position. There is a strong scent of "born to rule" about this. Haven't Howard and CA heard that when you're given out, you leave the crease? He was a divisive PM and if I was an Asian cricket follower, I would be aware that he once headed a govt. that incited racist paranoia and wouldn't want him in the job either. Apart from anything else, he can't even play the game. You need to be more than just a "cricket tragic" to run world cricket and having "Ex-P.M." on your resume should not guarantee easy passage. He'll be busy enough sleeping on the boards of various grateful companies that flourished under his conservative rule and still get a good seat at Test matches.

  • Stevo_ on July 30, 2010, 23:08 GMT

    @Porterhouse . Good point I'm sure it won't be long, they pretty much have shelved the concept already by choosing not to accept CA's nomination.

    @samirhajarnis . It has always been a "rubber stamp" , it has never been a democratic process , it was a rotaional system until some nations decided to "throw their toys out of the cot"

  • on_the_level on July 30, 2010, 22:43 GMT

    The Aussies are rightly sore that Howard was rejected in a very un-Aussie way. Perhaps the disenting ICC members should have waited till he was installed, and then rolled him in a coup, a la Julia Gillard. Now, that's the Aussie way. Oh, and bring in Ireland to set right the balance of power! ROFL!!

  • on July 30, 2010, 22:32 GMT

    Cricket is in danger of disappearing up its own backside due to the number of meanngless bilateral ODI tournaments and the number of T20 games in international cricket. The focus should be on Test cricket, and Howard is a self-confessed cricket tragic who would have had the games' best interests at heart, unlike the current regime, who seem to be focussed on their own agendas. Pawar has a lot to answer for but unfortunately it appears he will never have his day in court. Herre's hoping that Alan Isaac will have enough backbone to stand up to the bullies currently involved in world cricket - I know Howard would have.

  • popcorn on July 30, 2010, 22:31 GMT

    I was hoping Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket would follow Malcolm Speed's suggestion of declining to put forth another candidate,and not vote when the next in rotation from Pakistan and Bangla Desh comes through.This would be an apt protest.Sharad Pawar has zero cricket administration background,and should not have been selected as ICC President - by the same token that John Howard was rejected. Now that Alan Isaac has been nominated,with strong credentials of governance, he will do exactly what John Howard would have done - set right the mess that is ICC.

  • tfjones1978 on July 30, 2010, 21:06 GMT

    I've said before and will say again, the system is currupted by having only 10% of countries get a vote. The ICC board needs to represent ALL 100 countries and give them ALL full status. This will resolve the problem of a small group of countries controlling the game. If the ICC expanded full members by the following votes would be: (1) Include top 6 assoc's. +4 europe, +1 asia, +1 other. (2) Include top 10 assoc's. +4 europe, +2 asia, +4 other. (3) Include all assoc's. +8 europe, +8 asia, +3 americas, +15 other. (4) Include all assoc's & affiliates. West block with more then Asian block.

    The criticism that the Western block lost control of ICC as Asian Block has more countries is only valid because of which countries are promoted. Based upon ability, I believe the top 6 associates should all be promoted immediately to full membership (giving 7 West, 5 Asia, 4 neutral) with all other associates promoted over next 10 years & all 100 countries promoted over next 20 years.

  • on July 30, 2010, 20:58 GMT

    I'd have preferred to see Aus and NZ refuse to to renominate. Putting up an alternate candidate just panders to the racists in the ICC and makes it appear that their actions are acceptable.

  • Tjoeps on July 30, 2010, 17:32 GMT

    Good stuff! Let cricket people manage cricket, we do not need career politicians to put their spin on on the game. My biggest worry is the big fat nail that the curator of the SSC has put in Test Cricket with that pitch, pleeease guys, this will kill our beautiful game....

  • z-kaleem on July 30, 2010, 16:56 GMT

    Amazing the Australians still can't see why Horward was rejected? Whatever the case for the sake of argument, Howard was opposed by 6 countries. So why should the Australians insist on questioning the majorty view on any subject? What happened to that famous spirit of democracy? That arrogance precisely is the reason why they ended up in this situation. Their continued arrogance will bring them more of the same. Howard was detested in all regions which voted against him for his Bush like political views and standing. He should never have entered the race. So get over it and try building some relations based on mutual respect for the future and by the way, I am not an Indian!!!!!

  • nav1181 on July 30, 2010, 16:19 GMT

    i would love to see zimbabwe put mugabe forward for icc president, lets see if the australians would react in the same manner as people are with howard, that would show their hypocracy

  • bobagorof on July 30, 2010, 15:30 GMT

    @mac1980: Perhaps the reason that "Howard continues to be the best candidate CA could nominate" is exactly the reason why Mark Taylor was not nominated - Taylor is too busy with other committments. Maybe there are better people with better credentials, but it sounds like they don't have the time available. On another point of this 'democratic process', when exactly was this vote taken that 6 ICC members voted against Howard - because from what I've heard, it never reached a vote and was thrown out before it got that far. Maybe CA needs to stop 'living in the past', but I would suggest that a few of the people who comment on these boards (complaining about 'colonial rule' back in the 50s and 60s) need to do the same...

  • LALITHKURUWITA on July 30, 2010, 14:30 GMT

    Fantastic news. Finally NZ won over AUS. I always respect KIWIS. They are not racist. Coward had always been a racist and continue to do so. He refused to give apology to stolen generation. The whole world know about it and I cannot undestand CA does not have sense to undestand it. CA still says Coward is the best from AUS. This is a good lesson for all countries. I am sure that MR ISAAC will be accepted by all ICC members and ICC is fortunate to utilise his 20 years experience for the development of cricket in developing countries such as Afghan, Nepal, Malaysia, Kenya, Bahamas, etc.

  • catalyst213 on July 30, 2010, 14:14 GMT

    John Howard as VP is similar to a monkey driving a fire-truck in peak hour traffic.

  • catalyst213 on July 30, 2010, 14:11 GMT

    Can't believe that CA's best candidate is still John Howard, what a shame really to hear that.

  • catalyst213 on July 30, 2010, 14:08 GMT

    Ah great !! Issac is a decent person and there is no reason why ICC or any cricket board may have a problem with his nomination, its great news for cricket if not the best. Hope the current VP Sharad Pawar is kicked out like John Howard and Speed were. Get someone decent and there is no reason for all this drama spiced up by idiots like Gideon Haigh.

  • Bang_La on July 30, 2010, 14:00 GMT

    To Porterhouse: What do you mean by saying "Now that India has tasted the power.."? Its India who has money and look how Aussies are crawling back to play there though the hypocrtites complained a few years back that they could not breath in Indian air. This is power of money, not the skin! Admit it and get on your knees. :)

  • Bang_La on July 30, 2010, 13:54 GMT

    @ Smithie? He is ONLY a vice president and can't do a thing other than carrying out instructions! Don't start blowing him out of proportion. I don't think Zimbabwe got any fund, because ICC is a big refugal for all bigots who would never forget the bootmarks on their butts that put by Zimbabwean people after hundreds of years of oppression and humiliation. ICC policy was to spread cricket globally and this bigot Speed stopped it so only few people looking like himself should limit cricket to themselves. I wish Dalmia was back as ICC president.

  • Sussie on July 30, 2010, 13:53 GMT

    @mac1980 Utterly, totally, completely, 120% agree with every word you said. CA are a bunch of muppets. They thought this guy was the best nomination in Australasia?!?! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGqTayhu5QM

  • sundee on July 30, 2010, 12:50 GMT

    Australia and England enjoyed when they had Vetoeing powers over other countries but cry foul when democratically their candidate is thrown out on logical ( logical for countries who opposed Howard ) grounds .Still their mindset is of old colonial dominance. It is better they reconcile to this democratic setup and also accept the financial power of India without which ICC will perish.

  • RobOfBruce on July 30, 2010, 12:48 GMT

    The ICC has lost any skerrick of credibility that it might have once had in this drawn out 'John Howard' saga. CA pushed for (and in the end NZ accepted, to their credit) the promotion of Howard to the ICC post as a strong figure with enormous political nous, intellect, and managerial capability. It is obvious to all but the most irrational, that the ICC (read BCCI) were scared of someone with such clout coming into the organisation to shake things up. To say that this was just the result of a democratic process is a joke. DO you really think that Howard would have been voted out if the BCCI had supported him? Open your eyes people.

  • on July 30, 2010, 12:32 GMT

    I'm with mac1980 on this. CA created this whole mess by blocking Anderson in the first place. Now lets hope BCCI and its cohorts take the initiative in getting Issac confirmed at the earliest.

  • Januka on July 30, 2010, 12:25 GMT

    Finally NZ stood up for themselves. This is what should have had happened in the first place. Blaming India unreasonably for the mess created by CA is the strategy that CA employs to not admit the rediculous decision they made after surpressing the desires of NZC. Why is every Aussie who blames India for the democratic decision that the ICC made oblivious to the fact that the veto process was initiated and executed by Zim/SA/SL based on their past experience with the shabby candidate CA fielded?

  • samirhajarnis on July 30, 2010, 11:31 GMT

    Wiser sense prevails. Though I would like to take exception to your use of the phrase "rubber stamped as Sharad Pawar's deputy" You either have democracy or not.... Just like you can't be " a little pregnant" There is a process that was followed, Your guy was rejected, take it on the chin and move on.

  • Porterhouse on July 30, 2010, 10:24 GMT

    Now that India has tasted the power it currently wields, will it come out and reject the previous agreement for a rotation system and just demand ordinary elections every two years? Or will it wait until the FTP is locked in place?

  • Smithie on July 30, 2010, 10:15 GMT

    His first task being an ex KPMG man, should be to obtain, via his ex-work mates, the audit report carried out by KPMG on ICC funds distribution to Zimbabwe Cricket and make it public. Something that Speed wanted to do but got sacked for instead. Second task is to construct a funding model to ensure UDRS operates at all Tests and bring it in as soon as possible. The money squandered into the Mugabe slush fund could have been much better spent on UDRS. Third task is to bring Ireland to ICC Test membership thus equalising the ICC balance of power- no doubt Mr Pawar would be fully supportive ?????

  • mac1980 on July 30, 2010, 10:02 GMT

    I really wish the Aussies would stop constantly bleating about "their directors being very strongly of the view that Howard continues to be the best candidate CA could nominate"!!! Howard has been summarily rejected by a democratic process with 6 of the ICC members voting against him, its as simple as that!!! Its not as though he was ousted through some coup or anything like that! CA needs to stop living in the past and look forward. Maybe if the "so-called independent panel" had selected John Anderson as the best candidate for the role of ICC VP instead of John Howard then things wouldn't have come to this stage in the first place! Now we have a situation where John Anderson has rejected the offer to become that candidate and Mark Taylor cannot owing to his commercial commitments. Both are outstanding candidates and had either one accepted then cricket would have been much the richer for it! Thanks to the idiocy and pig-headedness of CA that we are in this position today!

  • Subra on July 30, 2010, 9:31 GMT

    Finally a solution to the impasse and cricket can breathe easy. It also stands to reason that the choice should be a New Zealander - let us hope that this would see in time a Sri Lankan, a Bangladeshi at the head of the ICC!

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Subra on July 30, 2010, 9:31 GMT

    Finally a solution to the impasse and cricket can breathe easy. It also stands to reason that the choice should be a New Zealander - let us hope that this would see in time a Sri Lankan, a Bangladeshi at the head of the ICC!

  • mac1980 on July 30, 2010, 10:02 GMT

    I really wish the Aussies would stop constantly bleating about "their directors being very strongly of the view that Howard continues to be the best candidate CA could nominate"!!! Howard has been summarily rejected by a democratic process with 6 of the ICC members voting against him, its as simple as that!!! Its not as though he was ousted through some coup or anything like that! CA needs to stop living in the past and look forward. Maybe if the "so-called independent panel" had selected John Anderson as the best candidate for the role of ICC VP instead of John Howard then things wouldn't have come to this stage in the first place! Now we have a situation where John Anderson has rejected the offer to become that candidate and Mark Taylor cannot owing to his commercial commitments. Both are outstanding candidates and had either one accepted then cricket would have been much the richer for it! Thanks to the idiocy and pig-headedness of CA that we are in this position today!

  • Smithie on July 30, 2010, 10:15 GMT

    His first task being an ex KPMG man, should be to obtain, via his ex-work mates, the audit report carried out by KPMG on ICC funds distribution to Zimbabwe Cricket and make it public. Something that Speed wanted to do but got sacked for instead. Second task is to construct a funding model to ensure UDRS operates at all Tests and bring it in as soon as possible. The money squandered into the Mugabe slush fund could have been much better spent on UDRS. Third task is to bring Ireland to ICC Test membership thus equalising the ICC balance of power- no doubt Mr Pawar would be fully supportive ?????

  • Porterhouse on July 30, 2010, 10:24 GMT

    Now that India has tasted the power it currently wields, will it come out and reject the previous agreement for a rotation system and just demand ordinary elections every two years? Or will it wait until the FTP is locked in place?

  • samirhajarnis on July 30, 2010, 11:31 GMT

    Wiser sense prevails. Though I would like to take exception to your use of the phrase "rubber stamped as Sharad Pawar's deputy" You either have democracy or not.... Just like you can't be " a little pregnant" There is a process that was followed, Your guy was rejected, take it on the chin and move on.

  • Januka on July 30, 2010, 12:25 GMT

    Finally NZ stood up for themselves. This is what should have had happened in the first place. Blaming India unreasonably for the mess created by CA is the strategy that CA employs to not admit the rediculous decision they made after surpressing the desires of NZC. Why is every Aussie who blames India for the democratic decision that the ICC made oblivious to the fact that the veto process was initiated and executed by Zim/SA/SL based on their past experience with the shabby candidate CA fielded?

  • on July 30, 2010, 12:32 GMT

    I'm with mac1980 on this. CA created this whole mess by blocking Anderson in the first place. Now lets hope BCCI and its cohorts take the initiative in getting Issac confirmed at the earliest.

  • RobOfBruce on July 30, 2010, 12:48 GMT

    The ICC has lost any skerrick of credibility that it might have once had in this drawn out 'John Howard' saga. CA pushed for (and in the end NZ accepted, to their credit) the promotion of Howard to the ICC post as a strong figure with enormous political nous, intellect, and managerial capability. It is obvious to all but the most irrational, that the ICC (read BCCI) were scared of someone with such clout coming into the organisation to shake things up. To say that this was just the result of a democratic process is a joke. DO you really think that Howard would have been voted out if the BCCI had supported him? Open your eyes people.

  • sundee on July 30, 2010, 12:50 GMT

    Australia and England enjoyed when they had Vetoeing powers over other countries but cry foul when democratically their candidate is thrown out on logical ( logical for countries who opposed Howard ) grounds .Still their mindset is of old colonial dominance. It is better they reconcile to this democratic setup and also accept the financial power of India without which ICC will perish.

  • Sussie on July 30, 2010, 13:53 GMT

    @mac1980 Utterly, totally, completely, 120% agree with every word you said. CA are a bunch of muppets. They thought this guy was the best nomination in Australasia?!?! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGqTayhu5QM