John Howard to head ICC?

[silentstriker]

Found this interesting:



What I found interesting was in that last week India announced that their government had cleared the way for India to start talking to Pakistan about playing cricket.

Could this be payback for the removal of Gavaskar.

The BCCI is not a monolithic organization. There are always factions each looking to put its own interests above the others. Pawar gave his approval of Howard. Pawar is allied with Modi. Pawar/Modi section is being discredited as we speak. Making Pawar look like an idiot, or worse, a guy who went back on his word, would further do that. It's quite possible it's as simple as that.

 

[silentstriker]

Their "official" reason:

The BCCI, on its part, clarified that the decision not to support Howard was taken by its working meeting members because Howard was seen as "non-progressive", "racist" and "inexperienced". "The decision was unanimous. In the meeting, the members had decided to side with countries like South Africa, Zimbabwe and West Indies and it's not an individual decision," a top BCCI official told TOI on Thursday.

-Times of India


BCCI truly are hilarious.

 

[Cevno]

A BCCI source told AFP there was "nothing personal against Howard".

"But we do accept the argument that only a man with previous experience in cricket administration should head the ICC.

Howard was not involved with Cricket Australia at any time."

CA chairman Jack Clarke wary of India's clout - Yahoo! Eurosport

 

[Cevno]

Gillard backs Howard for top cricket job

Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she would be happy to support John Howard's appointment to the International Cricket Council (ICC).

The former prime minister said yesterday he would not withdraw as Australia and New Zealand's nomination for the ICC vice president, after African and Asian blocs within the council dismissed his candidacy.

"John Howard, passionate, passionate cricket fan. I share some of the concerns he's voiced publicly about the kind of factors that are influencing this decision," Ms Gillard told Fairfax Radio today.
Advertisement: Story continues below

"I'd be very happy to offer full support for John Howard to get this role."

Mr Howard said he was not told why his candidacy had been blocked.

However, he conceded the rebuff could be because of political decisions he had made in the past, including his treatment of Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe.

A decision on what action to take now was up to Cricket Australia and New Zealand, Mr Howard said.

Gillard backs Howard for top cricket job

 

[silentstriker]

Peter Chingoka justifies Howard's rejection | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | Cricinfo.com

 

[Julian87]

fmd there are some stupid opinions in India.

 

[Athlai]

See I just don't get this opinion:

"The move to nominate Howard, Chingoka said, was akin to "asking me to come and edit the Melbourne Age without any experience in the journalism industry. "

No it's akin to asking you come to manage the Melbourne Age, to manage the editors and the writers. He was a prime minister he has the credentials to run the ICC, he is a bit of a controversial pick but FFS don't *****foot around it.

 

[pasag]

See I just don't get this opinion:

"The move to nominate Howard, Chingoka said, was akin to "asking me to come and edit the Melbourne Age without any experience in the journalism industry. "

No it's akin to asking you come to manage the Melbourne Age, to manage the editors and the writers. He was a prime minister he has the credentials to run the ICC, he is a bit of a controversial pick but FFS don't *****foot around it.

It's not even akin to that, that's the CEO's job.

 

[Athlai]

Yeah good point even less intimacy than that is required.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah good point even less intimacy than that is required.

Exactly. CEO's moving from one industry to another isn't uncommon. It's all big decisions to be made after consulting with experts, regardless of the industry.

 

[Dissector]

I don't think it's like a CEO moving to another industry. It's more like a politician with no corporate experience becoming a CEO which is certainly rare. In any case apart from the issue of his experience the simple fact is that Howard clearly doesn't enjoy the confidence of several major ICC members. How can you be an effective ICC president if the boards you have to work with don't trust you? Personally I think this mistrust is well justified but regardless of that, its existence is an objective fact which would have made Howard much less effective.

 

[silentstriker]

Except he isn't becoming a CEO. It's like a a politician with no corporate experience sitting on a board. Which is the polar opposite of rare.

 

[honestbharani]

The real reasons for Howards rejection will come out in the end,



They have rejected Howard because they think he is racist but cannot show how he is racist because the reason he is racist is because he is Australian. India hae spent a lot of time calling Australians racist of late, (read about Indian students).

Stick with it CA and make these countries put there cards on the table and lets see where everyone stands.

yeah.. Seth is India and BCCI's spokesperson..


I wonder if we can consider you to be representative of Australia, then?

 

[honestbharani]

fmd there are some stupid opinions in India.

fmd, there are some posters who are believing every other thing out of the media and that too, the Indian media, which is the real stupid part...

 

[Dissector]

Except he isn't becoming a CEO. It's like a a politician with no corporate experience sitting on a board. Which is the polar opposite of rare.

Being President of the ICC involves quite a bit more than just sitting on the board of a company I would imagine.

If the position is just a sinecure, pretty much the only requirement is that you get along with the boards which btw Pawar manages to do. If it is a serious cricket administration post, Howard doesn't have the experience to do the job. Either way he is a bad candidate.

 

[Spikey]

So uh, what exactly does the ICC president do? Because I've been under the impression he pretty much does nothing.

 

[honestbharani]

So uh, what exactly does the ICC president do? Because I've been under the impression he pretty much does nothing.

still needs to get along with the boards to do that nothing, I guess..

 

[silentstriker]

They have rejected Howard because they think he is racist but cannot show how he is racist because the reason he is racist is because he is Australian.

So your position is that they won't support any Australian in the spot?

 

[jeevan]

We're finding out a key difference in having a foreign policy as Australian PM and of a policy that is amenable to most members of the ICC.
In the former, you pretty much have to take good care of the Americans,the British and the Chinese; and the rest can pretty much go and **** themselves.
The latter job involves a majority from countries who went and ****ed themselves.

I.e. Howard's former prime ministership is his biggest liability, not his strongest suite.

 

[Shri]

Lets just say he was..."over qualified", and get over it.