ICC news October 17, 2013

BCCI, ECB against ICC chairman's role

  shares 22

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

  • SeekingAlpha 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.

  • common_man_review 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?

  • whatawicket 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

  • on October 18, 2013, 21:52 GMT

    agree 100% with zahid sultan

  • 2.14istherunrate 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.

  • dishNub 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.

  • JamesAngusSutherland 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.

  • Vic010 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?

  • Juiceoftheapple 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.

  • on October 18, 2013, 12:35 GMT

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

  • SeekingAlpha 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.

  • common_man_review 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?

  • whatawicket 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

  • on October 18, 2013, 21:52 GMT

    agree 100% with zahid sultan

  • 2.14istherunrate 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.

  • dishNub 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.

  • JamesAngusSutherland 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.

  • Vic010 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?

  • Juiceoftheapple 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.

  • on October 18, 2013, 12:35 GMT

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

  • ladycricfan on October 18, 2013, 10:51 GMT

    What is there to laugh if the chairman post goes to someone from india or england? Do you want someone from Zim or Bang(for eg) to be the chairman who neither have big fan base nor are high up in icc team rankings and given powers to decide what happens in world cricket? There is a democratic system in place in the ICC. The heads of each member boards and 3 reps from associates have one vote each. It is just, that the members have the power in the ICC through their votes. They are the ones who work hard in their respective countries in regards to cricket.

  • satishchandar on October 18, 2013, 6:11 GMT

    @Zahidsaltin : BCCI never said who should be CEO of CSA. They just wanted things to be what they were.. If the new CEO wants to make statement by announcing a schedule without consulting with their counterparts, BCCI alos has enough ego to counter it in their own style which is what we see now..

  • ODI_BestFormOfCricket on October 18, 2013, 3:30 GMT

    on seeing comments i can only laugh, as of woolf report, if chairman post is created it will go to eng or ind administrators.

  • crick_sucks on October 18, 2013, 3:08 GMT

    @Zahid, stop your moaning. No one is dictating terms to anyone. It is all hear say. all these cricketing sites are the biggest rumor mongers. That's their bread and butter.

  • Zahidsaltin on October 17, 2013, 20:41 GMT

    Be it the world politics, economics are just the sport, bullying forces are running them all as per their wishes and to maximize their own interests. Cricket management is possibly the worst of all the sports bodies in the world. Everything can be expected now that it has come to the point where one board wants to even decide that who should be the CEO of another board.

  • Alexk400 on October 17, 2013, 19:57 GMT

    Self serving imbeciles BCCI and ECB

  • on October 17, 2013, 19:44 GMT

    England supporting BCCI ? STRANGE !!!

  • UndertheGrill on October 17, 2013, 19:15 GMT

    Cricket boards in general, and the BCCI & ECB in particular, really do their own fans, and fans of the game around the globe, no favours whatsoever with this overtly self-serving direction that they don't even try to mask anymore. At this rate cricket will consume and regurgitate itself within a decade, leaving behind a big mess for someone else to clean up.

  • on October 17, 2013, 17:44 GMT

    Why no snarky tone or scathing comments and editorials on this? If only BCCi was involved then we would have 100 hate comments, 2-3 editorials in some newspapers about the evil dictator BCCI but since now the Holy cow England is involved everybody is ready to turn a blind eye as they did for the last century.

  • Jonah58 on October 17, 2013, 17:13 GMT

    What a shock any move to reduce the power of the gang of 4 in the ICC and possibly open the cricket world to developing teams is opposed by the enlightened boards of England and India. Makes me wonder how long before we end up with a world cup with Only England India Australia and South Africa allowed to take part. I mean 10 teams is far too many for the TV rights to pay for. The final nail in the Woolfe report.

  • Lets_Bash_Indians on October 17, 2013, 15:40 GMT

    ECB, Don't Even try, Now People from across the globe will curse You for Standing along with BCCI, no matter what the issue is,BCCI always gets condemned, That's Why they have become ignorant to all the criticism they face, they don't care about Anything now, But for ECB, it'll be their first experience, ALL THE BEST (#Proud BCCI follower)

  • on October 17, 2013, 14:22 GMT

    I am pretty sure if BCCI alone were in favour of diluting the ICC chairman's power there would be a flurry of comments about how BCCI is corrupt and wants more power to itself by diluting the Presidents power. But since ECB too favours it there will hardly be any limelight on this issue, because you know... ECB is incorruptible and exists for the good of cricket and all.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on October 17, 2013, 14:22 GMT

    I am pretty sure if BCCI alone were in favour of diluting the ICC chairman's power there would be a flurry of comments about how BCCI is corrupt and wants more power to itself by diluting the Presidents power. But since ECB too favours it there will hardly be any limelight on this issue, because you know... ECB is incorruptible and exists for the good of cricket and all.

  • Lets_Bash_Indians on October 17, 2013, 15:40 GMT

    ECB, Don't Even try, Now People from across the globe will curse You for Standing along with BCCI, no matter what the issue is,BCCI always gets condemned, That's Why they have become ignorant to all the criticism they face, they don't care about Anything now, But for ECB, it'll be their first experience, ALL THE BEST (#Proud BCCI follower)

  • Jonah58 on October 17, 2013, 17:13 GMT

    What a shock any move to reduce the power of the gang of 4 in the ICC and possibly open the cricket world to developing teams is opposed by the enlightened boards of England and India. Makes me wonder how long before we end up with a world cup with Only England India Australia and South Africa allowed to take part. I mean 10 teams is far too many for the TV rights to pay for. The final nail in the Woolfe report.

  • on October 17, 2013, 17:44 GMT

    Why no snarky tone or scathing comments and editorials on this? If only BCCi was involved then we would have 100 hate comments, 2-3 editorials in some newspapers about the evil dictator BCCI but since now the Holy cow England is involved everybody is ready to turn a blind eye as they did for the last century.

  • UndertheGrill on October 17, 2013, 19:15 GMT

    Cricket boards in general, and the BCCI & ECB in particular, really do their own fans, and fans of the game around the globe, no favours whatsoever with this overtly self-serving direction that they don't even try to mask anymore. At this rate cricket will consume and regurgitate itself within a decade, leaving behind a big mess for someone else to clean up.

  • on October 17, 2013, 19:44 GMT

    England supporting BCCI ? STRANGE !!!

  • Alexk400 on October 17, 2013, 19:57 GMT

    Self serving imbeciles BCCI and ECB

  • Zahidsaltin on October 17, 2013, 20:41 GMT

    Be it the world politics, economics are just the sport, bullying forces are running them all as per their wishes and to maximize their own interests. Cricket management is possibly the worst of all the sports bodies in the world. Everything can be expected now that it has come to the point where one board wants to even decide that who should be the CEO of another board.

  • crick_sucks on October 18, 2013, 3:08 GMT

    @Zahid, stop your moaning. No one is dictating terms to anyone. It is all hear say. all these cricketing sites are the biggest rumor mongers. That's their bread and butter.

  • ODI_BestFormOfCricket on October 18, 2013, 3:30 GMT

    on seeing comments i can only laugh, as of woolf report, if chairman post is created it will go to eng or ind administrators.