ICC revamp February 4, 2014

CSA to list revamp objections to ICC


Even while it stays engaged in negotiations with the BCCI, Cricket South Africa has laid out some fundamental objections to the ICC makeover proposal which includes the permanent membership for representatives from India, England and Australia in the proposed Executive Committee. It is learnt that CSA is preparing a detailed submission to be made to the ICC president Alan Isaac, going into details of their objections to the draft proposal for the revamp of the ICC, drafted by the BCCI, Cricket Australia and the ECB.

The precise details of the submission could not be obtained but ESPNcricinfo understands that the chief observations made to the ICC could include, apart from constitutional procedure and ethical codes, specifics around clauses pertaining to governance and revenues. These may involve raising objections to the proposals suggesting that the all-powerful Executive Committee have permanent seats for the Big Three (BCCI, CA and ECB) in particular. Or asking for clarity and accounting on the revenue distribution with respect to the division of the ICC revenues on a scale of graded percentages.

Regardless of the ICC's release after the last Board meeting about "unanimous support around key principles" in its draft proposal, CSA, the Pakistan Cricket Board and Sri Lanka Cricket are the three boards that make up the main opposition to the changes. On Monday, the PCB's governing board recorded its opposition of the proposals, while SLC issued a statement after an emergency meeting of its executive committee. The committee will meet, SLC said, with its "stake holders" on February 5, adding that, "with a view to safe guard the current rights and privileges of Sri Lanka Cricket as a Full Member of the ICC."

CSA denied a report in ESPNcricinfo that talks were on between CSA and the BCCI with a view to reaching an agreement to push the draft proposals through and resolve the dispute between the two boards over CSA CEO Haroon Lorgat. CSA's statement said they would "not consider deals that compromise our key principles". CSA president Chris Nenzani said, "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."

The three boards who make up the main opposition to the Big Three draft proposals are said to be in contact with each other over their approach to the ICC Board meeting to take place on February 8.

Nagraj Gollapudi is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. Sharda Ugra is senior editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Edward on February 7, 2014, 11:08 GMT

    Although difficult, painful and costly, a new cricketing world body is not an impossibility. Huge "markets" exists in the USA and China and unhappy smaller nations would be eager to come on board if they realise that progress in world cricket seem possible for them after years of struggling under ICC management.

  • David on February 7, 2014, 4:13 GMT

    @ Jimmyvida If you can't beat SA on the cricket field is the sporting way to then do it in the boardroom? Face facts: India may have a billion fans, but SA has the players those fans WANT to watch. The ECB just booted KP, the only English player that Indian fans love to watch. The Indian team is being hung, drawn & slaughtered by New Zealand. Are a billion Indian fans going to be happy to settle for watching India get slaughtered by every other team in short 1 to 2 test series, and interminably, deathly boring 5 test series India vs England games? They would rather watch paint dry!

    No. Without exciting cricket that big money flow will dry up. Do a billion Indian fans want to watch Dale Steyn take 6 for 8, or Ishant Sharma take 6 for 134 as New Zealand cruise to 500? Cant bat, can't bowl, can't field, and need great opposition to provide the excitement.

    A LOT of Indian fans would tune in to watch SA. SA would make more Indian money OUTSIDE of the ICC!

  • Channan on February 6, 2014, 17:32 GMT

    Did someone just say BCB are in with the proposals? OK, so WI, BCB, India, NZ, Australia and England and any other cricketing country willing would form the new cricket body. The rest can play amongst themselves and share the loot amicable. Soon SA will realize that it is footing 80%-90% of the bill, but must be willing to take a wooping 20%. It would then come with bowl in hand and say, "please Sirs......"

  • adnan on February 6, 2014, 17:26 GMT

    Mr. Panday lets see the realistic view, BCCI refuse to play Pakistan on political grounds, no Pakistani player allowed in IPL, Indian team had poor record overseas, BCCI comes with a briiliant idea in this proposal no relegation for BIG 3 in ICC rankings, this is how ur BCCI people think to remain on top, saying we r not been able to compete at international level. BCCI president Sirinivasan now offering PCB bilateral series at neutral venue, to get thrir vote, on the other hand in his interview he said we look at our schedule how to accomodate and when to accomodate all the rest of the seven, it means no cricket is allowed for rest of the seven with BIG 3, as once this proposal is approved, BIG 3 said they had busy schedule with each other so soory, when we get time and think the rest of the seven r financially viable to play. and in case of Pakistan BCCi told them afterwards Govt. won't allowed them to play. That's it beginnig of the end.

  • Sunil on February 6, 2014, 15:56 GMT

    It is so funny to see people talking about democracy and EQUALITY and uniform distribution of revenues to all members. Could any one please answer these simple questions ?

    1. WI, NZ, SL have population like 4-5 millions each. They have very few cricket stadium and professional cricketers to care of. India (or BCCI) has over 25+ cricket associations whose members (and geographical areas) are much greater than these countries combined. How is it fair that a young kid in India get 300 times LESS fund than a kid in NZ or WI from ICC? Never mind that India actually generate 70-80% of ICC revenue and demanding ONLY 20% (India alone has over 60% of the total population which follow cricket).

    2. You say, "But India earns from IPL", True. But then so are other nations by their other domestic sports.

    3. Assuming BCCI is forced to accept equal revenue and manage its BIGGER needs from domestic revenues, does it not make sense for INDIA to skip ICC altogether and focus on IPL, etc.??

  • yuvraj on February 6, 2014, 14:38 GMT

    SO BCCI is saying that they are taking administrative charge to improve world cricket. But, here is my question. How much help they provided to associated nations in the past 10 years, despite of making the highest profit in world cricket? Take a look at the help given by other cricketing nations.ECB- Offers contracts to IRish, Dutch and Scotish players and every year they play an ODI game with these teams. WICB- Despite of having financial problems, they have included IReland in their domestic cricket. CSA- We have allowed some of the Namibia players to take part in our domestic matches. PCB- Helping out Afghan team and arranges a game for them with their visiting teams. NZC- Helping for the development of cricket in USA. Teams Like AUS and SL also agreed to play matches with Ireland whenever they tour England. Its seems only BCCI is the one who hasnt helped them at all and they will never do it.

  • Cricinfouser on February 6, 2014, 11:23 GMT

    The Big Three proposal will not do any good to world cricket. I being an Indian, cannot accept this proposal. It will undermine the value of the other countries playing this sport called cricket. And why give more revenue to the Big Three? Why not develop the associates and affiliates?

  • Dummy4 on February 6, 2014, 5:18 GMT

    Please SA do not vote in the favor off this revamp. Please.

  • Dummy4 on February 6, 2014, 0:21 GMT

    While revenue distribution should be fair, and should mostly be used to develop cricket in respective nations, the Big 3 proposal is undemocratic.Even if a two-tier system has to be there, it has to be equal for all teams involved.BCCI certainly seems to be the key player but ECB and CA are no less to blame. These two boards have always been the most powerful in the cricket world, no radical change can take place without their involvement.Lets hope that the boards opposing the change are not doing so just to get their hands in the revenue pie. And for Pakistani friends, who are using this opportunity to criticize the Indian cricket team, should remember that India was ranked number 1 in Test cricket not too long ago and it was on the basis of Test wins in NZ,Aus,Eng,Pak,SA and WI.All teams go through transition period , you guys make it seem as if Pakistan never loses a game anywhere.Plz keep yur arguments realistic.

  • Dummy4 on February 5, 2014, 17:10 GMT

    It is right time that India first utilise their resources and time for selection good all-rounders, good bowlers and good batsmen who can play good and competitive cricket as their present performance in overseas does not deserve any special treatment. I think we concentrate on improving our quality of cricket.

  • No featured comments at the moment.