ICC news February 13, 2012

BCCI against key points in Woolf report

ESPNcricinfo staff

The BCCI's working committee has rejected the key recommendations of the Woolf report concerning the restructuring of the ICC, the Indian board president N Srinivasan has said. This is the first formal response from any national board to the recommendations - made public ten days ago - and, given the BCCI's dominant position in world cricket, could render the report a non-starter for all practical purposes.

"The working committee discussed all the main recommendations of the report submitted to the ICC by a committee headed by Lord Woolf. The working committee was of the opinion that these recommendations were not acceptable and rejected it," Srinivasan said after the meeting in Chennai. "The working committee was in particular not agreeable to the changes in the structure of the management of ICC that had been proposed."

Srinivasan, however, did not specify which of the several recommendations of the Woolf report the BCCI was opposed to.

The suggestions of the review are not binding on the ICC, which will examine it at the next board meeting in April.

The ICC's independent governance review, headed by Lord Woolf, had called for sweeping changes in the administration of cricket and the functioning of its governing body. It recommended a restructuring of the ICC's executive board to make it more independent and less dominated by the bigger countries and also a re-examination of the rights and benefits of the Test-playing Full Member nations, calling for measures to increase transparency in dealings by the ICC and its members.

The most important recommendation concerned revamping the ICC's executive board, its top decision-making body, to reduce the numerical strength of the Full Members and to offset their influence by bringing in independent directors, in keeping with best corporate governance practices.

The board currently comprises the heads of all Full Member nations, three representatives from the Associates and Affiliates and the ICC's president, vice-president and chief executive. Woolf's plan incorporated five independent directors - three from within the game and two from outside to bring in diversity of opinion and experience - with voting rights and the additional stipulation that they should not be in a minority. It suggested that the Full Member nations eventually have four representatives, and the Associates two, with the chairman, president and chief executive making up the desired dozen.

It also suggests that an ICC director should not concurrently hold any leadership or executive post with their home boards. For example, N Srinivasan is currently both an ICC director and president of the Indian board but, if the recommendations are accepted, he can't retain both posts. As for independent directors, they must not have recently held positions of authority on any member board or any commercial body that has had significant contractual relationships with the ICC.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Manesh on February 15, 2012, 4:12 GMT

    boss will order, a..will follow..:)

  • ajith on February 14, 2012, 18:09 GMT

    I was reading Cricinfos report on the Woolf report, found it pretty strange on some parts and somewhat idealistic in others. Unfortunately, not much was realistic. Anyway, I am sure people will be happy to scream about how BCCI is holding the innocent cricket world and the other saintly cricket boards to ransom. Sad the way people react and hilarious to read some of the comments.

  • SWAMINATHAN on February 14, 2012, 15:46 GMT

    We can get around the 3 independent directors from within the game clause & allow the BCCI (sic. ICC) to appoint to that place Messrs.Gavaskar, Shastri & Manjarekar. haha ... They are'nt aligned to any country ....... proofof their neutrality lies in that they ( the former 2 actually) are employed by an American company owned by an Aussie as well as the Indian Board.

  • Edd on February 14, 2012, 15:39 GMT

    The ignorance and pig headedness of the majority of Indian fans commenting on here is really quite shocking. Please look at the history of the game as well as the Woolf Report (which he was assisted with by justice Mukul Mudgal, former chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana court, which seems to have very conveniently been forgotten by all of the Indians commenting) before coming out with your 'we rule the cricket world because we make lots of money selling the tv rights blah blah blah' responses. With power comes responsibility.

  • timothy on February 14, 2012, 13:58 GMT

    first of all, does the bcci really get whatever they want? The new rule of using 2 new balls in ODI's are tailor made to suit england and Australia. There was enough evidence on the performance of hot spot and hawk eye that it is unreliable for the ICC not to make it uniform. And why do england and Australia get to control cricket for so long and when india becomes powerful all of a sudden everyone gangs up to stop them from "ruining cricket" in the 80's when the aussies and english were getting befuddled by the indian fielders and they made a rule that you can't have more than 2 fielders behind the popping crease

  • ajith on February 14, 2012, 13:39 GMT

    @Randikyaa, leaders? Well, just that we are much better than some of the sad boards of other countries who start getting nervous when it comes to talking shop with Bcci. I am not saying bcci is the best, not by a long shot, I am saying that the other boards are just plain pathetic and have no backbone. Please deal with that first and then ask us Indians to 'deal with it'. Cheers.

  • Bryan on February 14, 2012, 9:47 GMT

    Reading some of these comments really does disappoint me. The ignorance and evidence people haven't read this article let alone the Woolf report. So here are some points from peoples comments:

    1. Woolf report was commissioned by the ICC themselves unanimously 2. 'Independent Directors' are to come from within cricket (ex players, commentators etc) but not aligned with one particular country 3. The change in structure is to try and shift the balance of power away from any one nation whoever it might be. In the past it was England and Australia, now it is India, in the future it could be someone else if things stay the same 4. Report says the ICC should be for the good of 'Cricket' all over the world not just the current elite countries 5. Currently all nations pay into the ICC and then get an amount back of whatever profit the ICC makes. The Woolf report says the ICC should be self funding, meaning the BCCI and India can keep all their own money

  • Randika on February 14, 2012, 7:16 GMT

    @IndianKumar001: "To other countries : We are the world leaders is cricket deal with it".. Aha ha hahaa.. Just lol mate.. Leaders you say? Where have you led by example to create a better game then? New innovation? Better technology? More global reach? Kids interest raised worldwide? Better Cricket? On what grounds do you say you are leaders? Atleast a win-loss record? NONE.. Deal with it

  • Deepak on February 14, 2012, 6:52 GMT

    Who is 'Lord' Woolf anyways ? Who cares about his suggestions ? 2 directors from outside of cricket - are you serious ? This is a BIG joke.

  • Taimur on February 14, 2012, 5:38 GMT

    Nations should dominate cricket on field rather than in board rooms. Controlling ICC by one nation will ultimately deteriorate cricket as a whole. BCCI should act professionally and maturely. They should have given reasons, of course which they always have, before out rightly rejecting the report. There should be a level playing field for all and like the sports man spirit encouraged on field, it should be exercised at all levels. And BCCI please don't eat the cake before it is half baked.

  • No featured comments at the moment.