Howard fails in ICC vice-president bid

[Feed]

The Indian Cricket Board is set to play a crucial role in former Australian Prime Minister John Howard's nomination as ICC vice-president as two African countries are against such a move, reports said. More...

[hitman1980]

Even with India on his side, I don't think howard will be the next president .. cos SA, zim and SL will surely oppose him .. and if 4 members oppose tht person won't be the next president .. They just need to find one more and I am sure India will be more than happy to be tht member :D

[Ranjha]

Even with India on his side' date=' I don't think howard will be the next president .. cos SA, zim and SL will surely oppose him .. and if 4 members oppose tht person won't be the next president .. They just need to find one more and I am sure India will be more than happy to be tht member :D[/quote'] Nope....BCCI has no problem with Howard....Howard is thru...SL board is not a certainty against Howard either. Howard is a good choice from that region.

[Sachinism]

Howard is a knob and should not be voted in. I hope BCCI use their power for something useful and make sure he doesn't get in

[EnterTheVoid]

Howard is a knob and should not be voted in. I hope BCCI use their power for something useful and make sure he doesn't get in

On what basis are you saying that ? I understand he was a former politician and all, but,

[saneindian]

The former PM of Australia reporting to an Indian cabinet minister..bahut maja aayega. Banao isko VP, fir dekho Pawar kaise iski band bajayega

[f2000560]

well all this thing about no association is hogwash guy has run a country sure as hell can run a game. people who think former cricketers are the one who should be in administration should only look at how sunil gavaskar and ravi shaz are buggers they mess up and say we knew only cricketing stuff i know dick about finance and legal. howard is decent nomination

[Mamu]

well all this thing about no association is hogwash guy has run a country sure as hell can run a game. people who think former cricketers are the one who should be in administration should only look at how sunil gavaskar and ravi shaz are buggers they mess up and say we knew only cricketing stuff i know dick about finance and legal. howard is decent nomination

You have no idea,in how many different words have I tried putting that. SMG as an ICC adminstrator was a disaster. People got excited when Akram got selected as KKR Bowling Coach. In fact Average Players like Patil, Robin Singh and JOhn Wright have done a far better job as coaches than others.

[hitman1980]

Nope....BCCI has no problem with Howard....Howard is thru...SL board is not a certainty against Howard either. Howard is a good choice from that region.

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/461094.html .. now u get the point?

[Mamu]

I thought I read somewhere Today -- even Pawar is against Howard nomination, which pretty much seals the deal. Now Pawar might be against him just because SL wants it to be so, not sure. It is a classic case of 'You scratch my back,I'll scratch yours'

[The Outsider]

Any idea why these countries are opposing his nomination? Yeah, I read Sri Lanka's official stance is lack of any cricket administration background, but could not find any reason for Zimbabwe and South Africa's stance. Is it to so with Howard's anti Zimbabwe stance when he was PM? If yes that would make sense, I guess. Even Sri Lanka's official stance is kind of weak and looks like it might have to do with Murali and/or Howard being perceived as carrying grudges against some countries into the Council.

[maggot_brain]

On what basis are you saying that ? I understand he was a former politician and all' date=' but,[/quote'] He's so right wing it's not even funny. Ask an Australian about the Afghan refugee boat incident if you want to know more. He's an arsehole of the highest order.

[Desi Cartman]

Any idea why these countries are opposing his nomination? Yeah, I read Sri Lanka's official stance is lack of any cricket administration background, but could not find any reason for Zimbabwe and South Africa's stance. Is it to so with Howard's anti Zimbabwe stance when he was PM? If yes that would make sense, I guess. Even Sri Lanka's official stance is kind of weak and looks like it might have to do with Murali and/or Howard being perceived as carrying grudges against some countries into the Council.

Yes its due to Zim. Lankans also have a dislike for him since he called Murali a chucker.

[Sachinism]

The controversy over the nomination of John Howard for the role of ICC's president-designate has taken an interesting turn with Sharad Pawar, the president-in-waiting, throwing his weight behind the process that chose the former Australian prime minister. Pawar's stand, which also received backing from ICC president David Morgan, comes in the wake of opposition, led by the Zimbabwe, South Africa and Sri Lanka boards, to Howard's nomination. http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/461151.html With Pawar and Morgan backing him, he's a certainty now

[Gunner_Mania]

The PCB will seek the advice of the Pakistan government before deciding whether or not to support John Howard's bid for the vice-presidency of the ICC, a stance senior officials say indicates the seriousness and sensitivity of the issue. http://www.cricinfo.com/pakistan/content/story/461188.html Why the government? They just need to been seen doing things differently from everybody else I think

[Guest Hiten.]

The PCB will seek the advice of the Pakistan government before deciding whether or not to support John Howard's bid for the vice-presidency of the ICC, a stance senior officials say indicates the seriousness and sensitivity of the issue. http://www.cricinfo.com/pakistan/content/story/461188.html Why the government? They just need to been seen doing things differently from everybody else I think

Remember, these are the people who say "Don't mix politics with sports" after every IPL auction :phehehe:

[Sachinism]

Remember' date=' these are the people who say "Don't mix politics with sports" after every IPL auction :phehehe:[/quote'] :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Bibi pwns Pakistan

[siddhu]

Remember' date=' these are the people who say "Don't mix politics with sports" after every IPL auction :phehehe:[/quote'] I think that would be more because PCB is a clueless organisation. When they don't know the difference between banned and suspended... :--D:--D

[Chandan]

Any idea why these countries are opposing his nomination? Yeah, I read Sri Lanka's official stance is lack of any cricket administration background, but could not find any reason for Zimbabwe and South Africa's stance. Is it to so with Howard's anti Zimbabwe stance when he was PM? If yes that would make sense, I guess. Even Sri Lanka's official stance is kind of weak and looks like it might have to do with Murali and/or Howard being perceived as carrying grudges against some countries into the Council.

What I've been reading is quite an interesting analysis on this. This is how the things have gone according to Prem Panicker: The battle over John Howard’s [the ultimate cricket tragic, a Cricinfo profile earlier this year had dubbed him as] appointment as the next chief of the ICC becomes more amusing by the minute — and there is nothing quite as risible as India’s explanation for its opposition: apparently the board, with Sharad Pawar wearing his hat as the ICC head beginning July playing point man, says it does not want yet another politician heading cricket. Distinctly duh! Sri Lanka’s opposition is easier to explain — Howard, going beyond his then brief as Australia’s prime minister, was caustic on the subject of Muthaiah Muralitharan way back when; for the Lankan board, this is long-delayed payback. Peter Roebuck is scathing on the subject:

Make no mistake, the case against Howard is as dishonest as it is inconsistent. A board that welcomed Percy Sonn, who declared the 2003 Zimbabwe election free and fair though he knew it was a lie, thereby condemning Zimbabweans to years of torment; a board that accepted Ray Mali, whose co-operation with the apartheid government was exposed by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; a board that listens to Peter Chingoka and Ozias Bute, apologists for evil in Zimbabwe, is poorly placed to turn its back on Jack the Ripper, let alone a former PM and cricket fanatic. The cricket boards of India, South Africa and Zimbabwe are leading the campaign to prevent the antipodean nominee taking up his position. Their reasons are different and mostly false. India says that it does not want another politician to become involved in the game, let alone one as contentious as Howard. India’s real reason is that they fear Howard’s strength and skills and resent his high-handed conduct in the ongoing debate about uranium exports. After decades watching the West run the game, they intend to retain complete control. No less pertinently, they have always been backed by the Zimbabweans and now return the favour.

Against that, Rick Eyre has been consistently blogging on Howard — and from that perspective, posts on why Australia needs to pull the plug on the candidacy, and that right quick.

John Winston Howard is clearly not going to be the unifying face of world cricket for the years 2012-2014 or any other years, and the numbers are shaping up against him. Time for Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket to go down to the corner bakery, buy the biggest humble pie in the shop, and come up with another candidate. Sir John Anderson, even.

One must keep an eye on this story — if nothing else, the manufactured outrage from various quarters, and Australia’s possible reaction, promises considerable amusement for the rest of us. And ultimately, none of it matters — the ICC has in recent times become almost irrelevant to the conduct of the game, so why would we need to get worked up on the identity of its next chief? Next? Howard’s beginning: the news is that India is backing the former Aussie PM for the post of ICC chair, to succeed Sharad Pawar. So now we can begin speculating on just what the quid pro quo is, here. More bilateral series between India and Australia? Australia’s support to push through a proposal for a defined IPL window? What? But the more curious story is this: Curioser and curioser: India apparently arm-twisted Sri Lanka into opposing the nomination of John Howard as the next ICC president. Speculating on the basis of a speculative story is bad policy, but still: how did this go? India opposed; India got those over whom it has some influence to oppose [where would Sri Lankan cricket be without these once a week 'tournaments' with India?]; India then had a meeting with Howard; India withdrew its opposition? Now I am even more curious to know what the quid pro quo was. But the question arises that why does it matter at all? It isn’t as some believe, that he truly is the best man for the job. And it isn’t that he will be Test Cricket’s savior, the readiness of the board to jump into bed with the BCCI over the Champions League should tell you all you need to know about that. Nor is it that he will give a strong voice to Australia’s (once again, NZ’s concerns can be, urm…, well reviewed a little later) interests and counteract the increasingly powerful Asian bloc – I doubt anybody can make a significant impact on that, though there is no doubt that this is one of the reasons Howard has been selected. The real reason is that this is Cricket Australia’s rather lame effort to assert themselves on the international scene by taking a bold and provocative stand. It will win them no friends, renew enmity once dead with certain boards and eventually all they would have engineered is a nice fall flat on their face. As mentioned before, I don’t honestly see what danger Howard would bring to the most dysfunctional of sporting bodies, the ICC, or for that matter how much his predecessor Sharad Pawar could either. If it were up to me, politicians would be kept a few astronomical units away from cricket administration, but all that said, when was the last time an ICC CEO made any real impact on the sport, positive or negative? And since when has the ICC not been torn by some rift or the other and the formation of these retarded blocs opposing each other for a variety of political reasons. And to be honest I’m sick of hearing about these bungling has-beens and their desperate efforts to grab the limelight. If the game was meant to be about the administrators there would have been deliberate efforts to make their actions more entertaining. Like in the IPL. So what do you guys make up from this? Is all this one again misplaced media interest and an accumulated list of rumours?

[achilles]

Once upon a time, Sharad Pawar backed and gave a clean chit to Lalit Modi in the Kochi IPL crisis. And we all know what happened next.

He's so right wing it's not even funny. Ask an Australian about the Afghan refugee boat incident if you want to know more. He's an arsehole of the highest order.

He's a done deal. It would be unhealthy for the sport to have one arrogant individual trying to take on a world-dominating cricket board. And it won't even be funny. Malcolm Speed learnt that the hard way.