ICC news October 17, 2013

BCCI, ECB against ICC chairman's role


The BCCI and the ECB are in agreement over the dilution of power to be exercised by the new ICC chairman and would like the role to be reduced from head of executive office in the ICC to that of a convenor. The BCCI president N Srinivasan and ECB chairman Giles Clarke met on Wednesday in London and one of the developments from that meeting is expected to be a proposal to re-examine the powers and responsibilities of the first ICC chairman, a position expected to come into being as of 2014.

Srinivasan and Clarke's discussions took place on the eve of a two-day ICC Executive Board meeting which began in London on Thursday. An official privy to their talks told ESPNcricinfo that Srinivasan and Clarke, "agreed that there is no role for the chairman in the ICC. It is just an additional layer of bureaucracy which they believe is not necessary. So they are proposing the role of the chairman as a meeting convenor or facilitator on a rotational basis."

It is understood that the central reason behind this turnaround of opinion rests on the fact that one of the most powerful committees on the ICC is the Finance and Commercial Affairs committee, chaired by Clarke and of which Srinivasan is a member. It is possible that the prospect of control over this committee being reduced with the arrival of a chairman with greater powers may have played a part in what, if it transpires, will be a change of heart around the new position.

Until Wednesday, both Srinivasan and Clarke were the frontrunners in assuming the role of the chairman which had been recommended by the ICC Board in 2012, in which both Clarke and Srinivasan are members. The move to introduce a chairman in 2012 was taken in order amend the ICC constitution and turn the role of the ICC president into a ceremonial one, while vesting executive powers in a new chairman.

At the time the Board had said then that the creation of the post of chairman was "consistent with recommendations in the Woolf Report." Lord Woolf, leading the ICC's independent governance review, had submitted a 60-page report last year wherein he made 65 radical recommendations around the governance of the ICC. One of his recommendations was a complete revamp of the ICC's executive structure, while another suggested a decline in the role of Full Members and the handover of powers to independent directors. Of all the Woolf recommendations, the creation of the post of chairman was being taken on by the ICC's executive board with alacrity, but may be curtailed even before it begins.

Nagraj Gollapudi is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Jeegar on October 21, 2013, 2:34 GMT

    Wow!!! The BCCI and the ECB agreeing on something. This must be in the best interests of cricket then, coz these two boards are not selfish at all.

  • c on October 19, 2013, 13:44 GMT

    BCCI and ECB agreeing on something, then it must be something serious. Or is it formation of new alliance?

  • david on October 19, 2013, 10:54 GMT

    not sure the reason the ecb and the bcci are agreeing to be as 1. but i have no problems that the ecb in general have in the last couple of decades been more for the good of cricket than the bcci who for me only care for themselves

  • Dummy4 on October 18, 2013, 21:52 GMT

    agree 100% with zahid sultan

  • Michael on October 18, 2013, 21:43 GMT

    ICC! This council needs to vote itself out and be replaced by a couple of more robust able and cricket oriented bodies, and also get away from being in any nation's pocket. ICC does vague lipservice to Tests, and it would seem their future tours programme is not adhered to. I would have 1 body totally concerned with Tests with enough clout and nous to be able to run the game in a way which maintains the actual primacy of Tests, and not just pay lipservice to it,like ICC. It would also have a strong interest in 1st class cricket globally. A second body would be formed to look after limited overs games and fit in generally with the requirements and schedules of the first body. Above all these two bodies would be in the hands of former players for the most part and the financial people would have primacy in financial matters but not elsewhere. With ICC as it is I do not see cricket meaningfully surviving without just becoming a continuous stream of t20 tournaments globally.

  • Dish on October 18, 2013, 17:42 GMT

    @Alexk400: those are the same imbeciles that are paying 80% of yours and rest of the world cricket's bills and expenses. So bent over and take it, or go play in Laos with 3 bamboo sticks as wickets, banana-leaves as pads, $0.50 as match fee.

  • James on October 18, 2013, 15:04 GMT

    A chairman by definition does not have executive or decision making powers. His role is to convene and chair meetings. He can only vote if there is a deadlock.

  • Vic on October 18, 2013, 13:53 GMT

    @satishchandar, the BCCI didn't want Lorgat as the boss of SA cricket in the first place, then when he made the announcement about the tour the BCCI just used that as the excuse to put pressure on SA cricket and to get their own way. Now there is a possibility that Lorgat might be put on long leave & have nothing to do with the BCCI. How come?

  • Simon on October 18, 2013, 13:25 GMT

    Presumably they felt that they couldnt pursue their own interests with someone else with executive powers. Also an issue that a chairman might decide to favour one or the other and they dont want to be in a position where they are on the recieving end. Is it democratic having a figure head wielding power (self interest), and presumably FIFA has this arrangement, with all its hangers ons, and is a self serving organisation that keeps football in the dark ages (technology wise) and only bows to the TV executives. So taking away powers from the national boards is not in itself worth anything, unless it actually has a role. The national boards may as well hammer out things between themselves and form their own power blocks, rather than defer to another body which may side with one or the other or worse, be self serving. Basically, what is the role of the exec body? The MCC makes the rules. The countries need to play each other? So an uneasy peace is retained and deals hammered out.

  • Dummy4 on October 18, 2013, 12:35 GMT

    Feathering one's own nest is the expression that springs to mind.

  • No featured comments at the moment.