ICC revamp

CSA denies discussing Lorgat role with BCCI

ESPNcricinfo staff

February 4, 2014

Comments: 34 | Text size: A | A

Haroon Lorgat at a press conference after Salman Butt and Mohammad Asif were found guilty in London, Dubai, November 1, 2011
CSA said it wants "good relations" with the BCCI, but not at the expense of "good governance" © Getty Images
Enlarge

Cricket South Africa has denied ESPNcricinfo's report that a patch-up with the BCCI over Haroon Lorgat is on the cards, saying it would "not consider deals that compromise our key principles". The report had said discussions were on which may result in CSA supporting the proposed ICC revamp in exchange for its chief executive, Lorgat, being reintegrated into top administration.

"While we are engaged in discussions with the ICC and other Members, including the BCCI, to find an acceptable way forward, we have not and will not consider deals that compromise our key principles and integrity," CSA president Chris Nenzani said in the statement. "This is a difficult time for global cricket and attempts to mislead and create confusion are not welcome.

"CSA vehemently denies any notion of deals being made with any other party. On the contrary we will seek to uphold good governance and our professional approach to find solutions to the current proposals being considered by all the Member boards.

"We have carefully considered the proposals and we have declared that we will engage further with the ICC and other Members to try and reach any consensus ahead of Saturday's ICC Board meeting and that position still stands."

CSA was one of four boards which originally came out in opposition of the 'position paper' put together by the BCCI, the ECB and Cricket Australia, which proposed greater governance and financial be vested in the three at the ICC level. CSA has not been on the best terms with the BCCI since it appointed Lorgat its chief, disregarding BCCI "concerns" over him. The BCCI had curtailed India's tour to South Africa in December.

Nenzani said CSA would "naturally" be interested in improving relations with the BCCI, but not at the expense of "good governance". "Naturally we want good relations with the ICC and all its Members, especially India, with whom we have always enjoyed a special relationship, but we will exercise our responsibilities with due care, skill and integrity and we will uphold the principles of good governance."

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by stormy16 on (February 4, 2014, 18:17 GMT)

Nice to hear the noble views of CSA but my money is on ONE of the three jumping and at this stage CSA is looking like the hot favorite. No matter how much money the greedy bunch have, but even the greediest of them all will understand that you cannot have any sort of competition without the best team in the world on board. I dont even understand how two nations can have a such a problem over an individual, the game and the country is surely bigger than individuals.

Posted by Master_uv_Puppetz on (February 4, 2014, 17:51 GMT)

@Andy Mettews: "Between the three they could still run Test tours and Championships at a huge profit"... seriously??? For how long would you want to see Jadeja Vs Broad??? And when two of them are playing.. would you love to see the 3rd one playing against Zim or WI every time??

Why there is even a mention of break-away at all?? I'm sure cricket won't survive for long in absence of those 3 champion teams. It would be sad, pathetic even, if all of us did nothing to stop international cricket die. There have already been allegations of corruption against IPL. Plus the mockery of the playing rules that would happen in the reign of big 3.

Cricket though,will remain cuz it's survives on love of the game by ordinary public. We never needed anything from anyone when we used to share a dirt ridden ground along with 30 teams in 40c temperatures or why we would watch every ball of the test match on TV. We just loved to play and have fun

Posted by BowledYa on (February 4, 2014, 17:41 GMT)

If the big 3 want more of the money they help generate, from my perspective that can always be negotiated and put on the table for all members to discuss. What disgusts us fans is the sheer brazeness of the proposal to take away other countries voting rights. SA was among the first countries to play test cricket, and Pakistan has been a core team member of the cricketing world for almost 70 years, won world cups and produced worldclass players like Imran Khan, Miandad, Majid Khan, Waqar and Wasim Akram, the list is long. To see a proposal to relegate these teams to 2nd class in ICC is not only dishonest, it is a slap on the face of cricket fans.

Posted by   on (February 4, 2014, 17:13 GMT)

Anyone who thinks money doesn't talk needs to remember the rebel tours of SA under apartheid. Where there is money players will ditch national teams and boards for personal profit.

If the seven boards COULD keep all their players they would at least be able to survive. If the SA Test team was stripped of its stars because they were playing in the IPL, Big Bash and on rebel "Rest of World" teams against the Big Three - the game is up.

It's not about how the boards vote - it's how the players of those boards vote. Stay loyal and play Test Cricket for your country, or jump ship and play the IPL, Big Bash and rebel tours of India, England and Australia. I don't even blame the players. They would have families to support. Ultimately most of us love our country - BUT we love our families more. We have to provide for them first. My belief is the first rebel tour would happen within six months of a split. If it gets nasty only one side will win. It won't be the seven.

Posted by manishwa on (February 4, 2014, 17:12 GMT)

When the whole issue started, everyone said - let the big three play among themselves. Now we have a small-three that would end up playing among themselves. What a week can do!

And I have the least sympathy for the so called small-three. Look closely - and they are the most unpredictable boards - simply because they are massively ruled by their political governments. The Lankans don't even pay their players. And South Africans too dominated by their own Government.

And all of these three are now simply posturing. And the rest of the two will be shunned for the years to come.

Posted by   on (February 4, 2014, 17:08 GMT)

If the Big Three don't get their way they will almost certainly break away. That really would be a disaster. Between the three they could still run Test tours and Championships at a huge profit. Could the other seven manage to raise enough to survive?

The key test will be the IPL. If the IPL is allowed to ban non-affiliated nations from earning money, and they leave it to the cricketers involved to decide, an large majority of SA, NZ and SL players will choose the IPL over their country and it's board.

If that spirals - and those players choose to play for unofficial Test teams then the situation will hit breaking pint and the smaller boards will simply go bankrupt. Without any income from the Big Three most boards could not survive. If the best SA players had a rebel tour and the IPL to play in - most would ditch their boards and walk away.

If may not be fair but in the end the boards that generate the revenue won't continue to share it.

It's just a matter of when it happens.

Posted by nibir78 on (February 4, 2014, 17:03 GMT)

Why don't ICC distribute money according to rank position and ensure each team play equal number of game in an average for 1 or 2 year duration?

Also need to ensure half of the teams played match are at abroad. India, Australia, England in recent time shown good result only in home ground. The rating points should be counted from last 10 or 20 matches only for all teams. Older rank point values should be automatically replaced with new and then evaluate on keeping (or not) test status of bottom 1 or 2 countries. That would add up excitation at all tests and ppl would not need to cry for only money without performing.

Posted by BowledYa on (February 4, 2014, 16:30 GMT)

I don't see how the big 3's proponents can proclaim financial benefits for other countries if they agreed to the proposal, when the whole idea is for the big 3 to keep more of the money. Bribing other members with short term tours that they never proposed before is despicable. This very proposal is in itself an excellent example of what would happen to the non-big 3 if they gave in. This proposal would have passed without any discussion.

Posted by Jimmyvida on (February 4, 2014, 16:28 GMT)

Instead of a 2-tier system. Let the teams that agree play with one another eg: England, Australia, India, NZ, WI etc, and the other board will comprise CSA, PCB, SL, BCB etc. Can anyone see where the money will flow. Each group will have its own Champions Trophy. Players from second group invalidated from playing IPL and the Big Bash, however, can in the SPL. In a stupid format as this, the only country to really lose out is CSA.

Posted by   on (February 4, 2014, 16:24 GMT)

England and Australia who always talk very high on good governance, have teamed up with India to promote modern day imperialism. shame on you big 3.

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
ESPNcricinfo staffClose
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days