USACA objections raise eyebrows

Documents leaked to Cricinfo suggest that far from coming as surprise, the USA Cricket Association were aware of the ICC's objections to its offered Memorandum of Understanding from the outset. And it also seems that the USACA did make an offer to try to resolve its differences with the ICC.

From the off, the USACA expressed concern with the MOU, and Gladstone Dainty, the USACA's president, wrote to the ICC claiming that it was too restrictive and also that it was "counter to the charter of USACA as a non-profit organization, and has the potential for serious tax consequences and possible criminal consequences."

While details of the ICC's response is not known, at the end of December he again wrote and, referring to letters dated November 1 and December 20, angrily told the ICC that "it is ... mischievous and self-serving for the ICC to attempt to interfere with the USACA's election process. All communication should be directed through USACA . Any other mechanism for communicating ...is presumptuous and out of line."

Dainty was also increasingly worried by what he viewed as the lack of control was the ICC to follow the course it had proposed. "We are prepared to work with the ICC and any other party in a spirit of cooperation toward the goal of developing the game of cricket in the United States," he said. "However, we are firm that we will not give up our autonomy or cede our responsibility to any others."

A reply from Matthew Kennedy, the ICC's development manager, dismissed Dainty's objections and, in turn, accused the USACA of being dilatory and obstructive. "Your reply," Kennedy wrote, "causes considerable dissatisfaction and distress to us. We are rapidly reaching the conclusion that Project USA is doomed to failure. ICC would never take any action that would either jeopardise USACA's tax-exempt status or create any financial or other issues for USACA."

With time running out, Dainty seemed to back down a little, acknowledging that "we acknowledge your response that this is not so" on the matter of stripping the USACA of its autonomy. But, still unhappy with the idea that profits from Project USA would head away from the States, he proposed a USA Cricket Development Trust Fund which would be administered by trustees (three from the USACA, two from the ICC) and which would ensure that all income was invested back into in USA cricket. Dainty implied that this idea had been given private backing by the ICC although there is no evidence of this.

The suspension of Project USA followed shortly afterwards.

What the correspondence makes clear is that Dainty and the board of the USACA were concerned about monies generated by Project USA being taken offshore and possibly used elsewhere. That is strange given that the ICC stated from the off that all funds raised would be invested back into the USA, a position which it has never moved from. The necessary accounting prerequisites were also put in place early on.

The suspicion is that the objections being raised owe more to how the money is controlled rather than where it would be spent. The governance issues flagged many times by the ICC show that it is right to want to keep a tight hold of the reins. The worry is that the USACA looks as if it is quite willing to cut off its nose to spite its face.