ICC annual conference 2014 June 28, 2014

WICB, PCB heads elected to ICC executive committee

ESPNcricinfo staff
16

David Cameron, the WICB president, and Najam Sethi, the PCB chairman, have been elected to the ICC's five-member executive committee, which will be chaired by CA's Wally Edwards and also includes new ICC chairman N Srinivasan and ECB's Giles Clarke. David Richardson, who received a two-year contract extension as ICC chief executive, is an ex-officio member of the committee.

India, England and Australia have permanent representatives on the executive committee, while the other two members will be elected by the ICC board for two-year terms. The ICC chairman's term is also for two years.

The executive committee was created as part of the raft of administrative changes ushered in by the BCCI, ECB and CA, and described by its architects as "the sole recommendation committee on all financial (including ICC distributions and costs), constitutional, personnel (other than event personnel), anti-corruption, ethics, integrity, development and director nominations matters".

The ICC board also ratified the composition of other committees at the annual conference in Melbourne and Cricket South Africa was the only Full Member to not have a representative on any of them.

Clarke was appointed the chair of the ICC's Finance and Commercial Affairs Committee, which will comprise Edwards, Srinivasan, BCB president Nazmul Hassan and SLC president Jayantha Dharmadasa. Richardson will once again be an ex-officio member on the committee.

NZC director Martin Snedden will chair the Governance Review Committee, which includes Zimbabwe Cricket's Peter Chingoka, BCCI secretary Sanjay Patel, Singapore's Imran Khawaja and Hassan. Srinivasan and Richardson are ex-officio members on the committee.

The ICC Development Committee was reconstituted to grow cricket beyond its traditional boundaries. It will be chaired by Srinivasan and include the three Associate Member representatives of the ICC Board, the three Associate Member representatives on the Chief Executives' Committee and the Affiliate Members' Global Representative. It will also include Chingoka, Cameron, Snedden, as well as Richardson and the ICC Head of Global Development Tim Anderson as ex-officio members.

The team that will review the anti-corruption processes and resources at international and domestic level will be chaired by Richardson and includes ECB chief executive David Collier, BCCI representative Sundar Raman, CA chief executive James Sutherland and an independent expert.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on June 30, 2014, 8:38 GMT

    All boards should bycott this setup. Pakistan and Srilanka took the initiative but reverted due lack of support.

  • on June 29, 2014, 12:13 GMT

    @asiacricket1234 Pakistan is the 4th largest revenue generator for cricket even with no matches at home. I think revenue is the most important criterion in this changed administration.

  • Kirstenfan on June 29, 2014, 11:31 GMT

    Will mean less tests and tours for SA again.

  • on June 29, 2014, 5:30 GMT

    @utkarsh pandy look who is talking last time the Pakistan team played in ENG or AUS they took care of the ausies in 2010 it's not Pakistan's fault that they don't get much test matches against the so called big three also when Pakistan played against India in India last time they took care of the hosts, Pakistan's win ratio is 30.16,now let's talk about India lions at home and pusycats outside the win ratio of india is a mere 21.33 just in the past 3 yrs india managed to win only one match out of 14 and that too against WI and lost 9......dude you got some nerves to talk about Pak cricket

  • on June 29, 2014, 2:02 GMT

    Talking of things like elite 3 on Test match win basis, Australia and England may belong to this category, but Pakistan's inclusion will be a mere technicality based on their 90s show. Australia till very recently dominated world cricket in Tests, England won series at home,Australia and India. Pakistan doesn't have enough security to even host a home Test match, they play and win Tests in UAE where temperatures are so inhumanly high that it is a wonder that the English, Aussies and SA players are even able to survive the day. When did Pakistan win a Test match in England, Aus, SA or even SL, last time? South Africa could belong to big 3 of Test cricket on the basis of recent (10 - 15 years)wins, Pakistan can't.

  • on June 29, 2014, 0:42 GMT

    I can't believe this. Presence of one person in the top administration of SA can make such a big difference. Those who chose him seem to have taken a big risk. They knew that the ball was pitched outside off and is coming straight to the stumps; yet they lifted the bat and let the ball goes through! Where to?

  • asiacricket1234 on June 28, 2014, 19:12 GMT

    This decision doesn't make any sense. Why PCB will be a part of ExCo. Pakistan has a great cricket team but their cricket board is one of the worst in the world. They are not financially sound in fact they said it before that if they cant secure series against India, Aus they will go bankrupt, their president changes every 2 weeks too. How could such cricket board get responsibilities like this? Why not SA cricket board or SLC? I think the reason behind this is that both WI, PCB will be spineless part of the group and nod in front the big three unlike SA Cricket or SLC hence they picked these two. PCB needed series from the big 3 and in return of that they are going to agree to anything and as for WICB don't we all know how professional they are.

  • on June 28, 2014, 18:30 GMT

    This shows that the ICC are acting like a bunch of thugs who are fighting over money. Shame to say the least. Going forward only issues of some countries will be heard

  • on June 28, 2014, 17:18 GMT

    They have declined to put cricket into olympics, there by stopping cricket becoming popular in other countries. And 3 nations are keeping hegemonial rule over others, this is not going to work. I think other nations should stop playing cricket with those 3 and setup a separate international cricket council.

  • on June 28, 2014, 14:51 GMT

    Do hope that this motivates US in the West Indies to move up the rankings. It was stated when we came on board with this new dispensation that the Cricket in the West Imndies would benefit. we will take note for these 2 years

  • on June 30, 2014, 8:38 GMT

    All boards should bycott this setup. Pakistan and Srilanka took the initiative but reverted due lack of support.

  • on June 29, 2014, 12:13 GMT

    @asiacricket1234 Pakistan is the 4th largest revenue generator for cricket even with no matches at home. I think revenue is the most important criterion in this changed administration.

  • Kirstenfan on June 29, 2014, 11:31 GMT

    Will mean less tests and tours for SA again.

  • on June 29, 2014, 5:30 GMT

    @utkarsh pandy look who is talking last time the Pakistan team played in ENG or AUS they took care of the ausies in 2010 it's not Pakistan's fault that they don't get much test matches against the so called big three also when Pakistan played against India in India last time they took care of the hosts, Pakistan's win ratio is 30.16,now let's talk about India lions at home and pusycats outside the win ratio of india is a mere 21.33 just in the past 3 yrs india managed to win only one match out of 14 and that too against WI and lost 9......dude you got some nerves to talk about Pak cricket

  • on June 29, 2014, 2:02 GMT

    Talking of things like elite 3 on Test match win basis, Australia and England may belong to this category, but Pakistan's inclusion will be a mere technicality based on their 90s show. Australia till very recently dominated world cricket in Tests, England won series at home,Australia and India. Pakistan doesn't have enough security to even host a home Test match, they play and win Tests in UAE where temperatures are so inhumanly high that it is a wonder that the English, Aussies and SA players are even able to survive the day. When did Pakistan win a Test match in England, Aus, SA or even SL, last time? South Africa could belong to big 3 of Test cricket on the basis of recent (10 - 15 years)wins, Pakistan can't.

  • on June 29, 2014, 0:42 GMT

    I can't believe this. Presence of one person in the top administration of SA can make such a big difference. Those who chose him seem to have taken a big risk. They knew that the ball was pitched outside off and is coming straight to the stumps; yet they lifted the bat and let the ball goes through! Where to?

  • asiacricket1234 on June 28, 2014, 19:12 GMT

    This decision doesn't make any sense. Why PCB will be a part of ExCo. Pakistan has a great cricket team but their cricket board is one of the worst in the world. They are not financially sound in fact they said it before that if they cant secure series against India, Aus they will go bankrupt, their president changes every 2 weeks too. How could such cricket board get responsibilities like this? Why not SA cricket board or SLC? I think the reason behind this is that both WI, PCB will be spineless part of the group and nod in front the big three unlike SA Cricket or SLC hence they picked these two. PCB needed series from the big 3 and in return of that they are going to agree to anything and as for WICB don't we all know how professional they are.

  • on June 28, 2014, 18:30 GMT

    This shows that the ICC are acting like a bunch of thugs who are fighting over money. Shame to say the least. Going forward only issues of some countries will be heard

  • on June 28, 2014, 17:18 GMT

    They have declined to put cricket into olympics, there by stopping cricket becoming popular in other countries. And 3 nations are keeping hegemonial rule over others, this is not going to work. I think other nations should stop playing cricket with those 3 and setup a separate international cricket council.

  • on June 28, 2014, 14:51 GMT

    Do hope that this motivates US in the West Indies to move up the rankings. It was stated when we came on board with this new dispensation that the Cricket in the West Imndies would benefit. we will take note for these 2 years

  • on June 28, 2014, 13:49 GMT

    Well done west indies.hope you guys continue tghe good work.

  • ambalal on June 28, 2014, 12:43 GMT

    South Africa has recently joined elite four of Test Cricket nations which have won more test matches than lost. Elite four in terms of pure cricket sense are as follows.

    Austraiia, England, Pakistan and South Africa

  • on June 28, 2014, 12:17 GMT

    ICC can devise as many elite three as it wishes, as cricket which once used to be purely gentleman,s game is now influenced by Money Money and money as well. ICC Elite three are India, England and Australia. Purely in cricketing terms elite three of Test cricket which includes Test cricketing nations which have won more test matches than lost are as follows.

    Austraiia, England and Pakistan.

  • on June 28, 2014, 10:18 GMT

    @Clyde, if you'd like to cut away all the administrators, finances etc I guess we could go back to the 1800's and watching the Aussies battle it out with the Poms every second year, not that you'd get to see much of it unless you had the fare to sail out to Aus and a good horse once you'd arrived. To be honest I'm not so sure what you are worried about, I don't think the game belongs to one man, nor will it. For all the uproar over the power shift within the ICC there is actually now some good decisions being made, like Nepal and the Dutch getting T20I status. Perhaps with fewer people needing to come to agreement we might actually see some decisions made now.

  • on June 28, 2014, 6:44 GMT

    Cricket should have its carnival every year so in that connection i want to recommend. World Test Championship should be played every 4 years. In which top 2 teams xhould play with each other to determine who will play in which semi final. while no 3 should play vs no 6 and no 4 should play vs no 5. and the winners of this two match will play with the top two teams and than there will be the final. the three tests should be played simultaneoulsy and than next week semi finals should be played and than next week final so in one month we can play a test championship.

  • Clyde on June 28, 2014, 5:06 GMT

    1. Say we take the time of W. G. Grace as the baseline, could we say the number of administrators and coaches per player had increased, or decreased, and by how much and why? 2. Are all the appointments announced in this article honorary, for I don't seem to see any mention of this aspect of 'finance'. I hesitate to ask this, but is it possible those who pay at the turnstiles are not made completely au fait with what happens to their money? 3. What I have read about the new arrangements, which reading has an uncanny amount to do with a man called Srinivasin, has often been vague, allusive and portentous. It is as if cricket would no longer be a game played by the laws of the Marylebone Cricket Club between two teams who have agreed to play and to divvy the profits, the five-day format being the touchstone, be it as 'Tests' or not. 4. Can anyone explain to me why any new arrangement could have more weight than the liberty to play the game, or not, with whoever is willing at the time?

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Clyde on June 28, 2014, 5:06 GMT

    1. Say we take the time of W. G. Grace as the baseline, could we say the number of administrators and coaches per player had increased, or decreased, and by how much and why? 2. Are all the appointments announced in this article honorary, for I don't seem to see any mention of this aspect of 'finance'. I hesitate to ask this, but is it possible those who pay at the turnstiles are not made completely au fait with what happens to their money? 3. What I have read about the new arrangements, which reading has an uncanny amount to do with a man called Srinivasin, has often been vague, allusive and portentous. It is as if cricket would no longer be a game played by the laws of the Marylebone Cricket Club between two teams who have agreed to play and to divvy the profits, the five-day format being the touchstone, be it as 'Tests' or not. 4. Can anyone explain to me why any new arrangement could have more weight than the liberty to play the game, or not, with whoever is willing at the time?

  • on June 28, 2014, 6:44 GMT

    Cricket should have its carnival every year so in that connection i want to recommend. World Test Championship should be played every 4 years. In which top 2 teams xhould play with each other to determine who will play in which semi final. while no 3 should play vs no 6 and no 4 should play vs no 5. and the winners of this two match will play with the top two teams and than there will be the final. the three tests should be played simultaneoulsy and than next week semi finals should be played and than next week final so in one month we can play a test championship.

  • on June 28, 2014, 10:18 GMT

    @Clyde, if you'd like to cut away all the administrators, finances etc I guess we could go back to the 1800's and watching the Aussies battle it out with the Poms every second year, not that you'd get to see much of it unless you had the fare to sail out to Aus and a good horse once you'd arrived. To be honest I'm not so sure what you are worried about, I don't think the game belongs to one man, nor will it. For all the uproar over the power shift within the ICC there is actually now some good decisions being made, like Nepal and the Dutch getting T20I status. Perhaps with fewer people needing to come to agreement we might actually see some decisions made now.

  • on June 28, 2014, 12:17 GMT

    ICC can devise as many elite three as it wishes, as cricket which once used to be purely gentleman,s game is now influenced by Money Money and money as well. ICC Elite three are India, England and Australia. Purely in cricketing terms elite three of Test cricket which includes Test cricketing nations which have won more test matches than lost are as follows.

    Austraiia, England and Pakistan.

  • ambalal on June 28, 2014, 12:43 GMT

    South Africa has recently joined elite four of Test Cricket nations which have won more test matches than lost. Elite four in terms of pure cricket sense are as follows.

    Austraiia, England, Pakistan and South Africa

  • on June 28, 2014, 13:49 GMT

    Well done west indies.hope you guys continue tghe good work.

  • on June 28, 2014, 14:51 GMT

    Do hope that this motivates US in the West Indies to move up the rankings. It was stated when we came on board with this new dispensation that the Cricket in the West Imndies would benefit. we will take note for these 2 years

  • on June 28, 2014, 17:18 GMT

    They have declined to put cricket into olympics, there by stopping cricket becoming popular in other countries. And 3 nations are keeping hegemonial rule over others, this is not going to work. I think other nations should stop playing cricket with those 3 and setup a separate international cricket council.

  • on June 28, 2014, 18:30 GMT

    This shows that the ICC are acting like a bunch of thugs who are fighting over money. Shame to say the least. Going forward only issues of some countries will be heard

  • asiacricket1234 on June 28, 2014, 19:12 GMT

    This decision doesn't make any sense. Why PCB will be a part of ExCo. Pakistan has a great cricket team but their cricket board is one of the worst in the world. They are not financially sound in fact they said it before that if they cant secure series against India, Aus they will go bankrupt, their president changes every 2 weeks too. How could such cricket board get responsibilities like this? Why not SA cricket board or SLC? I think the reason behind this is that both WI, PCB will be spineless part of the group and nod in front the big three unlike SA Cricket or SLC hence they picked these two. PCB needed series from the big 3 and in return of that they are going to agree to anything and as for WICB don't we all know how professional they are.