Comments on: Editorial: Full Member Greed, CEO Conflict of Interest

By: Dogevpr2

Dogevpr2 — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:33:00 +0000

This is quickly becoming my favorite blog.The historical insularity and conservativism of the cricket world has kept us out of the Olympics and stymied the game.
After 150 years there are only 10 Full members of the ICC,
and noone thinks that’s unsatisfactory.Australia hosted the 2000 Olympics and noone thought to include a shortform of cricket.2012 in England and noone made a move again forcing
us to start our petition at cricket2012Games.com.In the
meantime basjketball has passed us by,soon baseball and golf will.

By: jet airways

jet airways — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:06:22 +0000

see the series today on tv…and then tell

By: benstinga

benstinga — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 04:25:28 +0000

Rod Lyall has written a very good opinion piece urging the full member countries to commit more fully to the mandate of the global development program. The article can be found at cricketeurope

By: Tom Mather

Tom Mather — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:21:17 +0000

For the Associates like Ireland who have a good WC, it can be of great benefit, but for the rest I agree with Ray. Now is the time to get some extra assistance from the ICC in compensation. Let’s concentrate on that.

By: ray

ray — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:59:06 +0000

The reduction in Associate numbers is a done deal. Where do we go from here? The Associate CEOs should speak with Malcolm Speed and other ICC executives who were behind the plans for 16 teams at the WC. They should quickly come up with a request for some form of assistance package (it can take many forms) for the Associates in the name growing the sport. This should be presented at the March ICC Board meeting. If the full members want to spread cricket globally and potentially increase their revenue, they will see the value of helping the associates members.

I am not of the opinion that qualifying for the WC alone does that much for the Associates. It is the additional funding, extra matches, sponsorship deals that can lead to development. These aspects can be achieved with development assistance from the ICC.

By: benstinga

benstinga — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:39:56 +0000

Well it seems as though the 10 full member CEO’s did indeed all vote for a reduction in the number of associates at the 2011 World Cup. This left the three associate representatives, as well as CEO Ex-officio Malcolm Speed, President Ray Mali and President Elect David Morgan in the minority.

I haven’t had official ICC confirmation of this but all indications point to a unanimous full member decision which quite possibly implies that the motion to reduce the number of associates was carried by 10 votes to 6 or perhaps 11 to 5.

It would appear that the full members have in fact betrayed the ICC’s own mandate of spreading the game and embracing cultural diversity and the spirit of cricket.

By: MH Arno

MH Arno — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 03:10:31 +0000

The ICC’s full members should feel ashamed at themselves for this decision. Pathetic!

By: Cuen Lucas

Cuen Lucas — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:42:17 +0000

Almost all the votes hinge on the BCCI’s move, whatever the do
will almost certainly set the direction for Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Zimbabwe and possibly the West Indies too.
That leaves Australia, New Zealand, and England, but can they be relied on to at least TRY to buck the trend and do the right thing? Or will they simply cave in to greed and arrogance?

Cricket has had so many chances to improve it’s image globally but would rather squander them in order to please at most 10 countries (a whopping 11% of it’s total member nations!). But with baseball and other sports gaining popularity due to their proactive and encouraging attitude towards new members, cricket’s opportunities might not be as infinite as they arrogantly believe.