South Africa news October 28, 2013

I don't believe my position is untenable - Lorgat

ESPNcricinfo staff
36

Cricket South Africa (CSA) chief executive Haroon Lorgat has said that his position is not untenable and that there are other areas in South Africa's cricket administration where he could make a difference. Lorgat had been withdrawn by CSA from dealing with matters relating to the ICC or the BCCI until an independent investigation into the controversial comments made by the ICC's former legal head David Becker, and Lorgat's alleged role in it, was completed.

"I offered the board on Sunday past to step aside until the Indian tour was confirmed and until the allegation against me was cleared. I've got nothing to fear," Lorgat told Eyewitness News. "I did not want to be the person that would have held up [the tour] or had the tour cancelled. I was happy to stand aside and offer to the board to have someone else take care of it, because if that's what it takes for the tour to go ahead, no one person is bigger than the tour.

"I don't believe my position is untenable. There are plenty other things that need to be done at CSA. We've got a programme of development that needs to be revisited, there are transformation issues that need to be dealt with, there are competitions to unfold, there's a Twenty20 competition that we have not fully exploited. We've got that scheduled for January and I would love to see our international players playing in that competition. There is a lot to be done and to suggest it's an untenable state. I am looking forward to getting my focus in areas where I feel I can make a difference."

Although there was no official statement, CSA's appointment of Lorgat as its chief executive despite a series of run-ins between him and the BCCI during his tenure as ICC chief seemed to have cast a shadow over India's tour of South Africa. The BCCI, which had earlier raised concerns about Lorgat being in the running for CSA's top job, rejected the original itinerary for the tour that had three Tests, seven ODIs and two T20s pencilled in. However, the eventual announcement of the tour ended an uncertain few months that severely tested the relations between the BCCI and CSA.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • JustIPL on October 29, 2013, 7:34 GMT

    @Bakhtiar_Wain: I don't agree with the notion that CSA did not stand by Lorgat. They hired him ignoring BCCI and did not send him on leave. He is out of BCCI affairs but CEOs don't deal with directly, they have their assistants to do that. Also, BCCI had to play bare minimum 2-test series to give 100dulkar farewell at home and avoid playing number one side just after so much of limited overs cricket at home. Losomg to SA might herald their ouster from test championship (as per calcs which BCCI might have done). Scrapping the whole series against top ranking test side would have been financial loss to BCCI as well who have to make separate money from cricket outside IPL (IPL money is from franchises). Therefore, SA had to manage it whether there was lorgat or not. BCCI bosses running here and there making complaints while Lorgat is sitting pretty and there are talks about legal implications of breaching ftp, ICC probe panel to investigate BCCI allegations etc., involving BCCI.

  • Biso on October 29, 2013, 7:12 GMT

    @Lilian Thompson: The Woolfe report is a shameless admission of the fact that ICC is incapable of running the ICC much less be capable of spreading the game without the lions share of the money provided by India. And there is no end to blinkered vision talk among many people here that BCCI is trying to drive the game to an end. If you call that report a document towards ideal governance then you are speaking for the incompetent men in ICC and most boards who are incapable of running the game without perpetual external aid. I can really imagine the attitude and performance of the so called independent men running the ICC if that report gets implemented. Do you really think the Indian's are going to accept such a report? Either you are ignorant or you expect Indian fans to be ignorant of facts on the ground.

  • Newlandsfaithful on October 29, 2013, 6:15 GMT

    It is becoming more and more apparent that money is the deciding factor in all matters pertaining to international cricket. The game itself, the sense of competition, are sliding into a quagmire of irrelevency. When players break do things "not in the spirit" of the game they are punished harshly, when administrators do it, there are no penalties or repecussions. Cricket is dead. The simple pleasure of watching players competing at a much loved sport is over. Instead cricket is turning into a trashy WWF type production complete with posturing managers (administrators), politics, betting, dancing girls and anything bizarre the marketing gurus can think of. Makes me sick.

  • Ashwin1983 on October 28, 2013, 23:31 GMT

    OK, I registered on cricinfo just so I could post a comment in the context of this article. While I am not a fan of Srinivasan, I am so sick and tired of hearing all these "BCCI is a bully" tales. Let us consider the Lorgant/CSA episode. Lorgant is clearly a bull in a China shop and does not possess the tact necessary - as evidenced by his dealings while at the helm of the ICC and announcing the India tour without consulting the Indian board. Forget the fact that India pays the tab in Cricket, announcing a bilateral itinerary without taking the other board into confidence is a piss poor business practice. Only difference between CSA and BCCI (they both have confrontational leaders) is one pays the tab and the other eats a free meal. I have no idea why this "Woolf Report" is relevant, because all the self-righteous audits and reports seem to emanate from England. What, the rest the world is incapable of analysis without a "lord" to write up a few paragraphs?

  • sysubrceq0 on October 28, 2013, 21:58 GMT

    @MK88 - you speak as BCCI is against the tests, what happenned to SA -SL test series this year, it was scrapped for SLPL which never took off anyway. CSA & SLCB also not interested in Tests then why alienate BCCI? AUS is wallopped for 8-0 in India, SL never won a test in India. Everybody is tiger at home. Dont bring 8-0 always in all discussions. BCCI is there for interest of Indian cricket and they are doing really well. india did well though in previous tours, which you do not consider anyway - what you see is what happenned 2 years back and bring that each and everytime in every discussion.

  • samincolumbia on October 28, 2013, 20:16 GMT

    BCCI trying to boss CSA is not deliberate and purely unintentional!

  • immi2711 on October 28, 2013, 19:56 GMT

    Really BAD BAD move by CSA by bowing down to BCCI. Right now thats what it looks like as CSA just bent over for BCCI, and not even for the full tour. Had India come in for full tour, I would have said ok, CSA is still loosing money.

    But from credibility point of view, CSA has shown no back bone, wolf came howling and they threw Lorgat in front, which shows CSA as a back-stabbing organization with no balls....

    This shows how strong BCCI is...that even ICC has no say in it. Bascially what BCCI said here, " we dont care about ICC "

  • on October 28, 2013, 19:12 GMT

    It may very well be that BCCI had issues with Lorgat during his time with the ICC. This may have influenced the curtailed tour to SA by the Indians. However, forget the politics and perhaps consider that the BCCI manufactured this fight to ensure that their favourite son, Sachin Tendulkar, played his 200th test in India or else it would have been in SA. Tendulkar will play these tests against the 6th ranked West Indian team instead of the number 1 test team. So BCCI wins again - full capacity stadiums in India bringing in more money and all of India will proudly watch Tendulkar playing these games on home soil and will probably pummel the West Indians on the sub continent pitches. Will it be a true test to honour the incredible career of one of the icons of the modern game? Lorgat and CSA will survive this despite the financial loses and will live another day and so will the BCCI (as long as they forget about honour and what was called the gentleman's game and follow the money).

  • sysubrceq0 on October 28, 2013, 18:17 GMT

    @LillianThomson - Woolf Report is nothing as to take the whole revenue from all boards into ICC and ICC will pay to all boards. When 70% of the revenue is from BCCI and you want BCCI to agree to woolf report and take 10 - 20% of their revenue instead of 70%? Woolf Report is good for boards like SLCB, PCB, kenya, ZIM, WI, SA, NZ and associates with poor revenue. instead of implement revenue sharing, harron should have done more to cricket to be globalized like arranging matches for Associates with BD, WI. Sponsoring matches for Associates with bottom 4 of top-10 test countires to get experience. BD & ZIM hardly get test matches with top teams. Even India played recently with ZIM in ZIM where AUS & ENG didn't play there from a decade. We all want Cricket should be globalized not the revenue from one Board. BCCI dis so many good things to Indian Cricket, they look after well their players even after their retirement, no other board does it.

  • on October 28, 2013, 18:02 GMT

    series between different nations are under icc , from the umpires nominated to the determination of the credibility of the cricket played. The issue here is the appalling lack of governance presented via the conflicts in interest littered across the management of the sport. the players maybe professional but the administrators are amateur

  • JustIPL on October 29, 2013, 7:34 GMT

    @Bakhtiar_Wain: I don't agree with the notion that CSA did not stand by Lorgat. They hired him ignoring BCCI and did not send him on leave. He is out of BCCI affairs but CEOs don't deal with directly, they have their assistants to do that. Also, BCCI had to play bare minimum 2-test series to give 100dulkar farewell at home and avoid playing number one side just after so much of limited overs cricket at home. Losomg to SA might herald their ouster from test championship (as per calcs which BCCI might have done). Scrapping the whole series against top ranking test side would have been financial loss to BCCI as well who have to make separate money from cricket outside IPL (IPL money is from franchises). Therefore, SA had to manage it whether there was lorgat or not. BCCI bosses running here and there making complaints while Lorgat is sitting pretty and there are talks about legal implications of breaching ftp, ICC probe panel to investigate BCCI allegations etc., involving BCCI.

  • Biso on October 29, 2013, 7:12 GMT

    @Lilian Thompson: The Woolfe report is a shameless admission of the fact that ICC is incapable of running the ICC much less be capable of spreading the game without the lions share of the money provided by India. And there is no end to blinkered vision talk among many people here that BCCI is trying to drive the game to an end. If you call that report a document towards ideal governance then you are speaking for the incompetent men in ICC and most boards who are incapable of running the game without perpetual external aid. I can really imagine the attitude and performance of the so called independent men running the ICC if that report gets implemented. Do you really think the Indian's are going to accept such a report? Either you are ignorant or you expect Indian fans to be ignorant of facts on the ground.

  • Newlandsfaithful on October 29, 2013, 6:15 GMT

    It is becoming more and more apparent that money is the deciding factor in all matters pertaining to international cricket. The game itself, the sense of competition, are sliding into a quagmire of irrelevency. When players break do things "not in the spirit" of the game they are punished harshly, when administrators do it, there are no penalties or repecussions. Cricket is dead. The simple pleasure of watching players competing at a much loved sport is over. Instead cricket is turning into a trashy WWF type production complete with posturing managers (administrators), politics, betting, dancing girls and anything bizarre the marketing gurus can think of. Makes me sick.

  • Ashwin1983 on October 28, 2013, 23:31 GMT

    OK, I registered on cricinfo just so I could post a comment in the context of this article. While I am not a fan of Srinivasan, I am so sick and tired of hearing all these "BCCI is a bully" tales. Let us consider the Lorgant/CSA episode. Lorgant is clearly a bull in a China shop and does not possess the tact necessary - as evidenced by his dealings while at the helm of the ICC and announcing the India tour without consulting the Indian board. Forget the fact that India pays the tab in Cricket, announcing a bilateral itinerary without taking the other board into confidence is a piss poor business practice. Only difference between CSA and BCCI (they both have confrontational leaders) is one pays the tab and the other eats a free meal. I have no idea why this "Woolf Report" is relevant, because all the self-righteous audits and reports seem to emanate from England. What, the rest the world is incapable of analysis without a "lord" to write up a few paragraphs?

  • sysubrceq0 on October 28, 2013, 21:58 GMT

    @MK88 - you speak as BCCI is against the tests, what happenned to SA -SL test series this year, it was scrapped for SLPL which never took off anyway. CSA & SLCB also not interested in Tests then why alienate BCCI? AUS is wallopped for 8-0 in India, SL never won a test in India. Everybody is tiger at home. Dont bring 8-0 always in all discussions. BCCI is there for interest of Indian cricket and they are doing really well. india did well though in previous tours, which you do not consider anyway - what you see is what happenned 2 years back and bring that each and everytime in every discussion.

  • samincolumbia on October 28, 2013, 20:16 GMT

    BCCI trying to boss CSA is not deliberate and purely unintentional!

  • immi2711 on October 28, 2013, 19:56 GMT

    Really BAD BAD move by CSA by bowing down to BCCI. Right now thats what it looks like as CSA just bent over for BCCI, and not even for the full tour. Had India come in for full tour, I would have said ok, CSA is still loosing money.

    But from credibility point of view, CSA has shown no back bone, wolf came howling and they threw Lorgat in front, which shows CSA as a back-stabbing organization with no balls....

    This shows how strong BCCI is...that even ICC has no say in it. Bascially what BCCI said here, " we dont care about ICC "

  • on October 28, 2013, 19:12 GMT

    It may very well be that BCCI had issues with Lorgat during his time with the ICC. This may have influenced the curtailed tour to SA by the Indians. However, forget the politics and perhaps consider that the BCCI manufactured this fight to ensure that their favourite son, Sachin Tendulkar, played his 200th test in India or else it would have been in SA. Tendulkar will play these tests against the 6th ranked West Indian team instead of the number 1 test team. So BCCI wins again - full capacity stadiums in India bringing in more money and all of India will proudly watch Tendulkar playing these games on home soil and will probably pummel the West Indians on the sub continent pitches. Will it be a true test to honour the incredible career of one of the icons of the modern game? Lorgat and CSA will survive this despite the financial loses and will live another day and so will the BCCI (as long as they forget about honour and what was called the gentleman's game and follow the money).

  • sysubrceq0 on October 28, 2013, 18:17 GMT

    @LillianThomson - Woolf Report is nothing as to take the whole revenue from all boards into ICC and ICC will pay to all boards. When 70% of the revenue is from BCCI and you want BCCI to agree to woolf report and take 10 - 20% of their revenue instead of 70%? Woolf Report is good for boards like SLCB, PCB, kenya, ZIM, WI, SA, NZ and associates with poor revenue. instead of implement revenue sharing, harron should have done more to cricket to be globalized like arranging matches for Associates with BD, WI. Sponsoring matches for Associates with bottom 4 of top-10 test countires to get experience. BD & ZIM hardly get test matches with top teams. Even India played recently with ZIM in ZIM where AUS & ENG didn't play there from a decade. We all want Cricket should be globalized not the revenue from one Board. BCCI dis so many good things to Indian Cricket, they look after well their players even after their retirement, no other board does it.

  • on October 28, 2013, 18:02 GMT

    series between different nations are under icc , from the umpires nominated to the determination of the credibility of the cricket played. The issue here is the appalling lack of governance presented via the conflicts in interest littered across the management of the sport. the players maybe professional but the administrators are amateur

  • J._Doe on October 28, 2013, 15:01 GMT

    India is in a position of strength, like England and Australia were in the past. In the future it will be a different nation or group that will wield the power. They will have some negotiating advantages, and that is how the system works. Lograt was a weak choice to head CSA at the moment because of his previous positions, and that is a problem CSA is dealing with. South Africa is a highly marketable team and they should leverage that for what it is worth. But please, this is business and that's how it works!

  • on October 28, 2013, 14:58 GMT

    Lorgat says;

    "...I did not want to be the person that would have held up [the tour] or had the tour cancelled. ..."; dated 28th Oct 2013.

    You failed to protect CSA's interest in not realizing it at the right time. You should have and could have arrived at this enlightenment in early July. You are late by more than two months.

    Do you have any idea, how much the Cricket loving world lost; because of your late realization? How much CSA lost financially (May be!)?

  • MK88 on October 28, 2013, 13:17 GMT

    BCCI continues to boss everyone around. They do not want to work with Lorgat, but they want to work with CSA, isn't it Lorgat works for CSA!! They fought with Lorgat on matters of ICC, not on matters of CSA. Why taking things so personal? It wouldn't have mattered if Lorgat was CEO when they needed a place to host IPL.Given that the Indian team got walloped 8-0 away in Eng and Aus, they should be touring SA happily with the aim of assessing their new cricketers after the retirement of Sir Dravid and Laxman, and an apparent loss of form by Zaheer Khan. What a loss for cricket fans. Good thing they (BCCI) are not interested in test cricket. Not too much money there...we'll stick to hit and run T20s.

  • ladycricfan on October 28, 2013, 12:47 GMT

    @Lillion Thomson, If you think ICC executive board should have independent members then it should only be involved in the governance of multinational tournaments. Let it have a seperate committee consists of Representatives from national boards to regulate bilateral contests.

  • satishchandar on October 28, 2013, 12:36 GMT

    Hello folks.. Even here, BCCI is not a bully.. They felt something is against their interest and they had reserved opinion and just sorts of boycotted the tour - which is same like Australia or England didn't want to play in Kenya or SL in WC when other teams played safely.. If you don't want to play - You don't play.. SA board needs money and they offered without Lorgat is BCCI willing to tour.. BCCI has problems with Lorgat ONLY and not CSA..

    If Lorgat is a great manager and he can do wonders, CSA would have stuck with him and ignored BCCI certainly.. As of now, BCCI > Lorgat and hence CSA shifted gears for betterment of them.. Where do you see BCI bullying? BCCI never had problems with Lorgat as lead of CSA but they don't want to make any deal with Lorgat.. CSA wisely understood it and the tour proceeds..

  • Alpesh-HK on October 28, 2013, 12:29 GMT

    Being an Indian, I feel disappointed to see this heavy weight politics in administering a gentleman's game... It's a shame if we want to follow a pattern of dominance and exploitation that supposedly was executed by the Aussies and the English boards at one point of time. What is the difference between us and them? It's a circle and it's going to come back and hurt us at some point of time in the future. Money is certainly the driving force of today's game but why does few political honcho's get their egos in between the administration and make the common Cricket watching people suffer. We are being robbed of test cricket by culling this series and then senior players like Rahul, Ravi, etc. talks on chat shows that Test Cricket is getting killed. This is the real game. Who is killing the real cricket? Why can not a forum of senior players from different countries get together and protect the so called real game.. Disappointing and Sad.. God Bless Test Cricket.

  • LillianThomson on October 28, 2013, 12:13 GMT

    @SC13159 I cannot believe that you think that international cricket's governance is similar to international football.

    FIFA enforces what the ICC doesn't: that even though an executive is nominated by a member he is explicitly FORBIDDEN from acting as its agent.

    Do you think Sepp Blatter acts for Switzerland, or that Michel Platini acts for France? The idea is absurd.

    Yet Indian fans think that it is somehow normal or reasonable or constructive that Srinivasan acts for India's interests at the ICC.

    And this is why the English used to have too much power through the MCC and why the BCCI does now.

    The whole point of governance of international sport is that the executive body needs to act independently and for the greater good.

    If you reduce it to "bilateral" agreements or let Boards use their nominees as their agents at the ICC you end up with the dysfunctional mess which is destroying the game now.

  • ladycricfan on October 28, 2013, 12:00 GMT

    Formula 1 is an individual sport. Football is mainly played in league format. You can't compare cricket with them. Cricket is mainly a nation v nation sport where bilateral tours are the main ingredient and rightly relevant boards take care of them. Only when multinational tournaments like world cups and champions trophies happen ICC takes charge. Governance of these multinational tournaments by ICC is comparable to governance of football leagues and other multinational sports.

  • PanGlupek on October 28, 2013, 11:50 GMT

    @LillianThomson, yeah agree with you r.e. the Woolf report - I've read all 62 pages of it (unlike most who slag it off, probably) & no right-minded person can say that it would not reduce risk of people acting against the interests of the game for personal gain.

    The one big problem with it though, is it relies on turkeys voting for Christmas. It was always obvious that the BCCI wouldn't agree to it, because it would severely hamper their ability to interfere with other people's business for their own personal gain.

    With power comes responsibility - history teaches us that when people with great power use their power to increase their power, and disregard what's right/wrong/nothing to do with them, they get toppled eventually.

  • yoohoo on October 28, 2013, 11:43 GMT

    @LillianThomson - Please don't compare to other unrelated sports, whose realities are not the same. Which other sport has 75% money coming in from one country? Baseball, basketball? Does baseball have a multi-lateral forum where all the money from US is distributed among the countries? Does basketball?

    The woolf report was designed to distribute india's money to other countries, and to expect that something like that will be accepted by India it ridiculous. It is not wrong for indians to expect a big chunk of what they spend to be ploughed back into india. Nor is it wrong for india to expect a level of influence on where their monies are spent, and by whom!

  • gsingh7 on October 28, 2013, 11:40 GMT

    lorgat was naive to stand up to bcci. now he is suspended on bcci 's directions. bcci have become too big headed and only care for indian cricket fans and does not want to share revenues with other boards. i think they do have a point. if 1.2 billion watch cricket in india, then bcci should capitalise and dont think much about icc recommendations. anyway more than 70 % revenue is generated by bcci. so icc have their hands tied when dealing with bcci. interesting times ahead.

  • DaisonGarvasis on October 28, 2013, 11:35 GMT

    @Lillian Thomson - So what you are basically saying is "since it is test cricket that people outside Asia likes, BCCI should promote test cricket only". What about the likes and dislikes of people in Asia? That doesnt matter does it Mr. Lillian? If boards outside Asia want to promote Test Cricket, when did BCCI stop them? What you guys are saying is "we cant or we are incapable of organize an event like IPL, therefore BCCI organizing IPL is spoiling the Cricket World". And then penalize their own players for asking to take part in IPL and making them choose. One cant blame the player if he choose IPL.

  • DaisonGarvasis on October 28, 2013, 11:18 GMT

    Sorry Mr. Lorgat - please make sure you have not made BCCI upset on the "other areas" that you deem could benefit from your service. Otherwise chances are, you will pick an area and then you will have to "willingly withdraw" from serving in those area as well...

  • LillianThomson on October 28, 2013, 11:11 GMT

    @Yoohoo You cannot just call the Woolf Report an "unrealistic" "sham" and expect to get away with it without supporting arguments.

    If you decry it you decry modern governance standards throughout elite sport. Which recommendation(s) do you dispute, and on what basis?

    Every other sport from football to Formula 1 has a multi-lateral form of decision making in which the elite executives are required to act independently of their own constituencies' needs to ensure a good outcome.

    In cricket that is the case constitutionally, yet the BCCI's nominees blatantly act in their Board's interests, which is explicitly forbidden.

    So whereas other sports sell their international rights collectively and pool the profits, in cricket the money and power flows to one nation.

    And as a result the calendar is lopsided, Test cricket is dying even though outside Asia it is the most popular and followed form and players from certain countries fall prey to corruption as they are excluded from the riches

  • Hammond on October 28, 2013, 11:08 GMT

    Just boycott playing against India altogether. That will do the trick.

  • yoohoo on October 28, 2013, 10:56 GMT

    @LillianThomson - Woolf report is a sham that does not take into account the realities of the cricket world.

  • DRS_Flawed_NeedsImprovement on October 28, 2013, 10:49 GMT

    i dont know about other boards, but india should not bow to icc or woolf report. Reason is very simple, india is cricket crazy nation, india needs to feed thousands of peoples who involving in professional cricket. If bcci run charity, if acting for best intrest of other boards or bow to something how could it possible for bcci to help cricketters.

  • Vic010 on October 28, 2013, 10:49 GMT

    I'm afraid it all comes down to money. The BCCI has most of the money and if you don't do what they say "we'll cancel the tour" then comes into play.

  • on October 28, 2013, 10:43 GMT

    Would love to have watch the test at Newlands, but I am more than happy to give that pleasure up just to fight the principle that the BCCI cannot dictate to us.

    I have a lot of confidence in Lorgat and believe that we made the right decision in appointing him. They must still do the investigation - he does not need this cloud hanging around him. As a Saffa I always had some enjoyment supporting other teams against England for the perceived arrogance, now this has changed.

  • on October 28, 2013, 10:39 GMT

    Who cares if the BCCI were unhappy with the appointment of Haroon? It has nothing to do with them. SA should boycott the tour to India in a couple of years time. Just don't go.

  • Bakhtiar_Wain on October 28, 2013, 10:36 GMT

    CSA credibility as an employer and country representative body is down in the dumps. Shameful that it didnt have the backbone to stand by its own CEO on orders from BCCI.

  • LillianThomson on October 28, 2013, 10:21 GMT

    Lorgat was the best CEO that the ICC has had.

    Just as the Woolf report outlined is ideal for governance, Lorgat exhibited independence and worked in the best interests of the collective rather than as a pawn of 1 or 2 boards.

    Unfortunately for him, one stakeholder refuses to implement the Woolf Report's recommendations for good governance, and seeks to drive out of influence in cricket anyone who seeks to have the ICC operate in line with best practice in governance.

    So the world is left with a governance model which is known to be flawed and which continues to act in a dysfunctional way and to deliver poor outcomes for every stakeholder except for the dominant one.

    Those of us who love cricket should be wishing Lorgat well, not queuing up to bury him.

  • on October 28, 2013, 10:13 GMT

    @Giridhar Krishnan: Logart is a former first class player. He is more qualified to administer cricket than some who have been administering cricket in this country. Now you can come back and say he is not an international cricketer and that disqualifies him or he should have 50 international centuries to administer the game. I would just call the suggestions silly and call it a day.

  • on October 28, 2013, 10:09 GMT

    Shouldn't have messed with BCCI to start with. ....

  • willsrustynuts on October 28, 2013, 10:05 GMT

    I think it is time that the BCCI stopped trying to pick personnel for overseas boards and concentrate instead on picking the playing XI. India will have a much better chance of success if the BCCI pick the opposition team. Surely that makes more sense, it is their ball after all.

  • on October 28, 2013, 9:50 GMT

    What does step aside mean? Why cant you get former cricketers to these positions instead of this business people

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on October 28, 2013, 9:50 GMT

    What does step aside mean? Why cant you get former cricketers to these positions instead of this business people

  • willsrustynuts on October 28, 2013, 10:05 GMT

    I think it is time that the BCCI stopped trying to pick personnel for overseas boards and concentrate instead on picking the playing XI. India will have a much better chance of success if the BCCI pick the opposition team. Surely that makes more sense, it is their ball after all.

  • on October 28, 2013, 10:09 GMT

    Shouldn't have messed with BCCI to start with. ....

  • on October 28, 2013, 10:13 GMT

    @Giridhar Krishnan: Logart is a former first class player. He is more qualified to administer cricket than some who have been administering cricket in this country. Now you can come back and say he is not an international cricketer and that disqualifies him or he should have 50 international centuries to administer the game. I would just call the suggestions silly and call it a day.

  • LillianThomson on October 28, 2013, 10:21 GMT

    Lorgat was the best CEO that the ICC has had.

    Just as the Woolf report outlined is ideal for governance, Lorgat exhibited independence and worked in the best interests of the collective rather than as a pawn of 1 or 2 boards.

    Unfortunately for him, one stakeholder refuses to implement the Woolf Report's recommendations for good governance, and seeks to drive out of influence in cricket anyone who seeks to have the ICC operate in line with best practice in governance.

    So the world is left with a governance model which is known to be flawed and which continues to act in a dysfunctional way and to deliver poor outcomes for every stakeholder except for the dominant one.

    Those of us who love cricket should be wishing Lorgat well, not queuing up to bury him.

  • Bakhtiar_Wain on October 28, 2013, 10:36 GMT

    CSA credibility as an employer and country representative body is down in the dumps. Shameful that it didnt have the backbone to stand by its own CEO on orders from BCCI.

  • on October 28, 2013, 10:39 GMT

    Who cares if the BCCI were unhappy with the appointment of Haroon? It has nothing to do with them. SA should boycott the tour to India in a couple of years time. Just don't go.

  • on October 28, 2013, 10:43 GMT

    Would love to have watch the test at Newlands, but I am more than happy to give that pleasure up just to fight the principle that the BCCI cannot dictate to us.

    I have a lot of confidence in Lorgat and believe that we made the right decision in appointing him. They must still do the investigation - he does not need this cloud hanging around him. As a Saffa I always had some enjoyment supporting other teams against England for the perceived arrogance, now this has changed.

  • Vic010 on October 28, 2013, 10:49 GMT

    I'm afraid it all comes down to money. The BCCI has most of the money and if you don't do what they say "we'll cancel the tour" then comes into play.

  • DRS_Flawed_NeedsImprovement on October 28, 2013, 10:49 GMT

    i dont know about other boards, but india should not bow to icc or woolf report. Reason is very simple, india is cricket crazy nation, india needs to feed thousands of peoples who involving in professional cricket. If bcci run charity, if acting for best intrest of other boards or bow to something how could it possible for bcci to help cricketters.