Gordon's risky play

In his comments upon receiving the report on Monday from a three-man committee headed by Justice Anthony Lucky investigating the change of sponsorship in West Indies cricket, Ken Gordon has already opened the door to wild speculation.

The new West Indies Board president hardly needs any advice in dealing with sensitive issues in the media, but in suggesting that only the relevant aspects of the report will be made public, he has already sauntered down the pitch and is danger of being stumped if his reading of the regional mood turns out to me more a doosra than a routine leg-break.

It is not enough to imply that the WICB is actually going beyond the boundary in commissioning the inquiry in the first place, and by inference, we should be content with anything that is presented to the general public as being relevant to us.

Lest we forget, the investigation into the change of sponsors from Cable and Wireless to Digicel was launched just over two months ago in the wake of a region-wide media and public outcry over apparent inconsistencies in the chain of events that led to the announcement of the switch in July of last year. Compounding the issue even further were increasing questions as to the exact nature and scope of the new Digicel deal and whether or not the WICB, or specifically those involved in the actual negotiations, had promised more than they could deliver to an aggressive company fully intent on getting the very last milligrams of flesh due to it.

Like a woman scorned, Cable and Wireless have happily stoked the fires of discontent while at the same time claiming to have the best interests of West Indies cricket and the West Indies people (in another word, customers) at heart. Only the deaf, dumb and blind will ever accept that their rush to sign players on individual contracts last year before the announcement of Digicel's accession to the sponsorship throne was merely a matter of repositioning itself in the cricket marketplace.

Add to that a Players' Association intent on beating the drums of war, fuelled by an archaic confrontational trade union-type modus operandi, and the Board really had no choice but to call in the investigators if it were to have any credibility left in the wake of a tiresome series of labour disputes that culminated in a second-string squad going to Sri Lanka.

Even now, with all the smiles and handshakes in front of the cameras, it is difficult to see how players, who have essentially been divided into two camps in the aftermath of the dispute, will now happily come together as a real team if a settlement is reached by September 30th. Like every other deadline date so far set by both sides to achieve a final resolution to the impasse, what evidence is there to suggest that this signpost, like so many on Caribbean roadways, will be blissfully ignored?

As stated previously, the West Indies Cricket Board is a registered private company and should therefore strive to conduct its operations at all levels in a professional, business-like manner. But it is not, in the real sense of the term, a private business. Its business, in case it has slipped anyone, is to ensure the long-term success and viability of a sport that means more to Caribbean people than profits, losses and balance sheets. It means undertaking projects, programmes, tournaments and tours that are guaranteed to lose money because the sustainability of West Indies cricket as a competitive force in the global game is more important that simply slashing expenditure. Do you think any cricket fan will really be contented if the WICB gets into the black while the team on the field continues to get licks left, right and centre? Very recent history has shown that for those who hold West Indies cricket dear to their hearts, financial specifics are almost irrelevant once the team is winning.

Obviously administrators cannot take such a simplistic view. Yet at the same time, especially in a matter that questions the integrity and creditability of an organisation that is so much in the public domain, they cannot now hold themselves to be the final arbiters of what the people should and should not know in such a sensitive matter.

Never mind all the talk about transparency, if two so far unnamed directors refused to cooperate with the investigators, we must know who they are and why they are still directors.

If there is nothing to hide, then release the full report and let the dominoes fall as they may. Should it implicate certain individuals, then let them face the consequences. If there is a fear of expensive litigation in the event of a full disclosure, then what was the purpose of the exercise in the first place? Public relations?

As a non-executive president of an organisation accustomed to a certain way of doing things, Ken Gordon may have nothing more than the power of persuasion and a lengthy track record of achievement to make a difference.

But unless he is prepared to do what it takes to effect fundamental change, the new WICB president might just as well tuck his bat under his arm and walk back to the pavilion.

Huddling together to determine what we should or should not know from the Justice Lucky report is just not cricket.