Jump to content
Rajiv

Gavaskar Fired......not yet!

Recommended Posts

This should warm the hearts of "Whitey" worshippers http://content-www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/343839.html Another outspoken Asian out of the way.. probably to be replaced by "Yes Sir Mr Whitey" or a "fair and just" white man Sunil Gavaskar is set to be replaced as chairman of the ICC's cricket committee, according to a report in The Times. A decision that Gavaskar should be asked to resign was unanimously taken at last week's ICC executives' meeting in Dubai in the aftermath of comments he made during the recent Australia-India series. It was felt that his position conflicted with his work as a columnist and commentator. Gavaskar launched a stinging attack on Australia and England, describing them as as "dinosaurs" who were unable to "open their eyes and see the reality". The ICC executive are believed to have agreed that ex-cricketers who work in the media should not be barred from working on its committees, but that does not include the chairman of those committees. Now why was Malcolm Speed not replaced when he made comments against Indian board

Link to post
Which employee can get away with speaking publicaly against his employer in the media? At least not the firm where I work!
Gavaskar didn't speak against ICC. He was conveying the views of the Indian public to ICC. May be you need to read his article again.There is no good reason to ask him to step down.
Link to post
Gavaskar didn't speak against ICC. He was conveying the views of the Indian public to ICC. May be you need to read his article again.There is no good reason to ask him to step down.
I think he is being fired for what he said in the commentary box during the Aus tour and the potential of similar conflicts of interests in the future.
Link to post
Guest Hiten.

If Gavaskar's comments are heard from a non-Indian POV; then his comments were instigating an unneeded controversy to happen. ICC should have shunned him instead of firing. Now Gavaskar has all the reasons in the world to come up with a statement like "See I told you so". Cricket administrators and its affiliated members are bunch of jokers. They are the prime reason why cricket is not so popular in most part of this globe.

Link to post

ICC did what was really necessary. Gavaskar overstepped the line many times. You can not point out the weaknesses of your own organization speaking to the media or being part of the media. If Gavaskar must lead Indian's opinions in the media, he should have quit ICC on his own.

Link to post
ICC did what was really necessary. Gavaskar overstepped the line many times. You can not point out the weaknesses of your own organization speaking to the media or being part of the media. If Gavaskar must lead Indian's opinions in the media' date=' he should have quit ICC on his own.[/quote'] Spot on....the phrase 'conflict of interest' never really crossed Sunny's mind...or i guess like the plethora of inferiority-complex ridden desis here, he figured that BCCI's money equalling power-clout will see him get special treatment....good riddance as i said.
Link to post

Gee... I like sunny. Simple and straight shooter...nothing too complicated about the man. You can accuse him of many things, but being self-conscious of his speech, self-censoring or layering ideology over his thoughts is not one of them. Shoots from the hip and both stands by his word and takes the fall for it too.

Link to post
Gee... I like sunny. Simple and straight shooter...nothing too complicated about the man. You can accuse him of many things' date=' but being self-conscious of his speech, self-censoring or layering ideology over his thoughts is not one of them. Shoots from the hip and both stands by his word and takes the fall for it too.[/quote'] Even I like him. I still remember the days when DD was the only channel telecasting cricket. Commentators used to one of the most stupid species and there was an unwritten rule to be politically correct. If an umpire gives a wrong decision, the commentators used to convey that the player has been given out. To express disagreement with the umpire was considered a crime. Commentators only job was to report the progress of the game in politically correct language. Then came the era of expert commentators. The professional commentators started calling ex-player into the box for short stints. The expert commentators cared least for political correctness, but still the inertia continued. Then came the era of private television and the ex-cricketers became commentators himself. I remember Gavaskar was the first Indian commentator who started screaming foul at wrong decisions. He would explain the rule, would explain what happened and then would say "technically not out". I was a boy then and used to get impressed with this straightforward analysis. I still like Gavaskar and his comments, but he has definitely over stepped some rules and deserved the kick from ICC.
Link to post
I still like Gavaskar and his comments, but he has definitely over stepped some rules and deserved the kick from ICC.
Yeah...that's fair...but at the same time, what he said, I believe, needed to be said. He fell on his own sword and rendered a service while doing so. More respect to the man.
Link to post
Guest HariSampath

Gavaskar is spot on. He was perfectly correct in criticising the match referee Mike Procter in taking the word of two Aussies over that of two Indians without a shred of proof. He has also criticised the Anglo-Aussie dinosaurs. These are facts, not biased opinions. It is a hard truth that England and Australia had the dominant voice in world cricket till recently and India has recently become the epicenter of world cricket. By being on the ICC cricket committee , there is NO reason why he shouldn't speak his mind as a journalist. If that had been the case either ICC should have brought this issue up when he was appointed to the committee or when he became a commentator/journalist. Also, unless it is explicitly stated in his contract with ICC, there can be no bar on he doing his job. Terms like "conflicts of interest" can be bandied about by intellectually challenged pseudo analysts of everything and nothing here( one principal non Indian/non anything actually), whose self esteems take a pounding on encountering anything Indian , to such an extent they bash everything Indian ( I was trying to be polite....but what the heck, western arse kissers), but it naturally escapes notice as to how and where there is a conflict of interest. Where are ICC's interests defined ? is it set in stone that no action of the ICC/officials can be criticised in media by other ICC officials ? Or is ICC trying to say that its actions are beyond scrutiny ? If Gavaskar as a media commentator expected to keep quiet about the conduct of the game if there are glaring flaws in its running ? Is the chairman of the cricket committee a paid fulltime position ? what are the job reqs/definitions ? At another level, hasn't the ICC referee's actions been overruled by the ICC appointed judge ? Hasnt Gavaskar been proved he was correct in criticising Procter ? Isnt it a fact that world cricket is now dominated on and off the field by India ? If Gavaskar chooses to defy the ICC, there is nothing they can do about it, although that showpiece position is of no value and he is much an asset to the Indian as well as International voice as a champion ex cricketer/media commentator.

Link to post
These are facts, not biased opinions. It is a hard truth that England and Australia had the dominant voice in world cricket till recently and India has recently become the epicenter of world cricket.
Nothing factual about insecure rants about 'evil biassed racist English/Aussies'. And I hope you realize that England became epicenter of cricket coz they discovered the game and were the overwhelming dominant force for 50+ years....Australia became the epicenter by dominating allcommers from the 1930s till the end of 1950s, then being one of the top teams from then on till mid 90s and dominating from 90s till today. India's claim to 'epicenter' is not based on cricketing achievements, but rather, on simple dollars and a humongous population. Hardly worthy credentials whichever way you look at it.
By being on the ICC cricket committee , there is NO reason why he shouldn't speak his mind as a journalist
ICC clearly stipulates that you cannot criticize the governing policies and personnel in the media if you are a member of the governing body. Gavaskar is in violation of that and clearly, deserved termination.
Also, unless it is explicitly stated in his contract with ICC, there can be no bar on he doing his job.
Utter rubbish, as usual from you. There are a zillion precedents where companies DO NOT have to stipulate explicitly what the code of conduct is, as long as the employee is found to be in conflict of interest, they can be legitimately fired.
Terms like "conflicts of interest" can be bandied about by intellectually challenged pseudo analysts of everything and nothing here, whose self esteems take a pounding on encountering anything Indian , to such an extent they bash everything Indian ( I was trying to be polite....but what the heck, western arse kissers
Nothing more than inferiority complex and false pride stemming from a lack of experience on a global scale. Yet another closet 'chip on shoulder' exposes himself! And its the insecure haughty jingoists who cannot grasp the simple logic and phrase of 'conflict of interest'.
is it set in stone that no action of the ICC/officials can be criticised in media by other ICC officials ?
Precisely.
f Gavaskar as a media commentator expected to keep quiet about the conduct of the game if there are glaring flaws in its running ?
No, Gavaskar as an ICC employee is expected to not launch vitriolic diatribes on racist-tinged language because of his own insecurities. Its called conflict of interest with one of your employers. You cannot hold a job with the US military and be selling arms without license...its conflict of interest between the two jobs...likewise applies here.
Is the chairman of the cricket committee a paid fulltime position ?
Irrelevant. Even if it is a voluntary position, compromising your company/being in conflict of your company's interests still applies.
At another level, hasn't the ICC referee's actions been overruled by the ICC appointed judge ?
True, but that is in accord to the due proceedings.
Isnt it a fact that world cricket is now dominated on and off the field by India
On-field ? LOL! India hasn't won an away series in Australia or South Africa in ages....i suppose for blind supporters of a historically mediocre team, a few ODI victories and a pyajama world cup (20/20) is enough to proclaim domination on the field...but fact is, Australia is STILL the dominant nation ON FIELD.
If Gavaskar chooses to defy the ICC, there is nothing they can do about it
Sure can...they can fire him....Gavaskar is an employee of ICC and if he is in violation of ICC protocol, his a$$ can be fired quicker than a 22mil from a hand-gun.
Link to post
Guest HariSampath

For the attention of Confused Canadians aka "ashamed of color and wannabe whites": Please be educated on the fact there can be no "conflict of interest", unless the primary interests of the ICC is clearly defined. Note that the moment ICC had appointed Gavaskar as Chairman of cricket committee, it was a de facto acceptance of his role as a commentator not being in conflict with ICC policy. Note that Gavaskar is NOT the only commentator with an active role in the ICC. IF there would have been any anticipation of any commentator potentially acting against the interests of ICC, then if it indeed was part of ICC policy, such a person could not have been appointed. Having appointed the person with no clause whatsoever on his other roles or their potential conflics of interests with ICC ( which again , is undefined), de facto becomes de jure ( I am laboring the point , just for the feeble intellects of confused Canadians, other normal adults please bear with this) Calling Eng/Aus as dinosaurs doesnt translate as "racist"...perhaps the metaphor is lost on confused canadians. Being confused maketh not a Confucious

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...