Ranjha Posted June 1, 2010 Posted June 1, 2010 http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/461094.html .. now u get the point? I stand by what I said..BCCI does not have a problem with Howard...Get the point?
Karan114 Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 Six boards reject John Howard for ICC role Peter English June 30, 2010 Cricket Australia is waiting to confirm whether John Howard has failed in his push to become the ICC's vice-president following a move from six countries to block the appointment. The position taken by the board members on Tuesday night was believed to be an attempt to force Howard to withdraw his nomination before the executive meeting in Singapore on Wednesday. Howard remained in the race and unless there is a significant turnaround as the discussions conclude, it will leave the ICC without a deputy when India's Sharad Pawar takes over the presidency from David Morgan this week. "We're still waiting to hear the outcome," a Cricket Australia spokesman told Cricinfo. Six ICC board members signed a letter on Tuesday rejecting the appointment, but Zimbabwe, the most strident back-room protestor of Howard's nomination, was not one of them. Howard was a critic of Zimbabwe during his term as Australian prime minister and was responsible for banning the team from touring there in 2007. Howard visited Zimbabwe cricket officials last week in an effort to smooth relations with the board. A similar approach to South African administrators, who can operate as Zimbabwe's mouth piece at the ICC table, was rejected. Australia, New Zealand and England were the only supporters of Howard among the game's 10 major countries. Seven votes are required to seal the deal. Howard was the joint nomination of Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket for the role, which would have led to him taking the presidency in 2012. If Howard is officially rejected for the post, Australia and New Zealand are expected to be asked to recommend another candidate. While the two countries have remained committed to Howard, his selection was complicated by New Zealand's wish to select Sir John Anderson, its long-term respected administrator. An independent committee was charged with breaking the deadlock and once Howard emerged as the winner the boards were publicly united. However, the delay provided fuel for the opponents to question whether New Zealand had been out-muscled by Australia. Confirmation of Howard's role - he was nominated in March - was expected in April, but Zimbabwe raised their concerns through South African officials outside an ICC meeting in Dubai. The issue dragged on and Cricket Australia's chairman Jack Clarke and chief executive James Sutherland were still lobbying for support over the past couple of days. Peter English is the Australasia editor of Cricinfo http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/465262.html
achilles Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 ^^^ They have a right to air their opinions and they have done exactly that. You can't function under a President you have major issues with. I don't see anything wrong with what the 7 boards have done.
Sir john Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 ^^^ They have a right to air their opinions and they have done exactly that. You can't function under a President you have major issues with. I don't see anything wrong with what the 7 boards have done. what justice,pehle bolte hain(BCCI) pura support or aakhri main dhokha:((
achilles Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 what justice' date='pehle bolte hain(BCCI) pura support or aakhri main dhokha:(( BCCI didn't ever state its position on record. Mr.Pawar stated his position on the issue. And as history has had it, he usually tends to soften his target by first "supporting" him, put him in the cushion and then goes for the kill. I knew this is what would happen and I predicted it on 31st May 2010 itself.
Desi Cartman Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 JH is sort of a bully and is very aggressive and I dont think that it would have worked , especially during his tenure under Ramesh " sab loot loonga " Powar
achilles Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 JH is sort of a bully and is very aggressive and I dont think that it would have worked ' date=' especially during his tenure under [b']Ramesh " sab loot loonga " Powar Its Sharad :fail: :hysterical:
DomainK Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 Howard fails in ICC vice-president bid The ICC has demanded another vice-presidency candidate after John Howard's nomination was rejected by its executive board in Singapore. A move which began with members from six countries signalling their intention to block the appointment on Tuesday turned into an official rejection of Australia's former prime minister today. The ICC confirmed the decision this afternoon following an executive meeting that was supposed to formalise Howard's election. No vote was taken and Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket were asked to re-nominate a candidate by August 31. The ICC said in a statement: "Following lengthy consideration it was recognised that the nomination put forward by Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket did not have sufficient support within the ICC board." Initial rumblings from Zimbabwe and South Africa in April became an all-conquering alliance when India signed up along with their subcontinent neighbours this week. It leaves the ICC without a deputy to be paraded alongside India's Sharad Pawar when he takes over the presidency from David Morgan this week. The position taken by the six board members on Tuesday night was believed to be an attempt to force Howard to withdraw his nomination before the meeting. Howard remained in the race but lost the one-man raffle at the Raffles convention centre, ending the 70-year-old's cricket administration career before it was allowed to begin. Seven votes were required to seal the deal but Australia, New Zealand and England were the only supporters of Howard before the meeting among the game's 10 major countries. The six members signed a letter on Tuesday effectively stopping the appointment, but Zimbabwe, the most strident back-room protestor of Howard's nomination, was not one of them. During Howard's 11-year term as prime minister he was critical of Robert Mugabe's regime and was responsible for banning the team from touring the country in 2007. Howard visited Zimbabwe cricket officials last week in an unsuccessful effort to smooth relations with the board. Once India turned from Howard there was no chance of him gaining enough support, with Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh believed to have sided with their all-powerful neighbour. Howard was the joint nomination of Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket for the role as part of the rotational system employed by the ICC. Under the regulations, Howard would have assumed the presidency in 2012 after Pawar's two-year term. While the two countries have remained committed to Howard, his selection was complicated by New Zealand's wish to choose Sir John Anderson, its long-term respected administrator. An independent committee was charged with breaking the deadlock and once Howard emerged as the winner the boards were publicly united. However, the delay provided fuel for the opponents to question whether New Zealand had been out-muscled by Australia. Confirmation of Howard's role - he was nominated in March - was expected in April, but Zimbabwe raised their concerns through South African officials outside an ICC meeting in Dubai. The issue dragged on and Cricket Australia's chairman Jack Clarke and chief executive James Sutherland were still lobbying for support over the past couple of days. http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/465262.html
Roshanrocks Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 How does Sharad Powar manage so many posts together :hmmmm2: amazing
warmonger Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 This was on the cards ever since BCCI's allies both African and Asian Bloc were against the Former PM of OZ. But will this affect BCCI's seemingly smooth relationship with Cricket Australia in future?
Sachinism Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 CA chairman Jack Clarke wary of India's clout Jack Clarke, Cricket Australia's chairman, will be more cautious in his dealings with India following its role in dismissing John Howard as the ICC's vice-presidential candidate in Singapore. Australia has developed an increasingly strong relationship with the BCCI, including developing the Champions League Twenty20, but the board has used its might to help block Howard's passage. A frustrated Clarke said India wasn't the only country to oppose the joint recommendation of Australia and New Zealand at the meetings in Singapore over the past two days. However, the decision by the ICC's board to request another candidate has altered the environment. "You hope it doesn't affect your relationship but it obviously puts a block there for a while and makes you wary, I suppose," he said. "But we have to deal with all the member countries of the ICC ... We'll have a board meeting in October and there's no point not rolling up." Zimbabwe and South Africa were the original opponents to Howard's nomination, raising their protests outside an ICC meeting in Dubai in April, but a group of six members signed a letter on Tuesday night expressing their desire to veto the recommendation. The list didn't include Zimbabwe, but India's strength allowed them to bring Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh on board, highlighting a return to the days when the Asian and African countries voted en-masse. Despite seeing Howard "knocked off" by the alliance, Clarke refused to say the enormous power of the bloc was unhealthy for the future of the game. "In any business model where a company has 75% of the income it is not an ideal model, but that's not India's fault they do that," he said. "With distributions that go to all the countries, [india] earn it and distribute it evenly among nine of the Test-playing countries and the Associates. "It is a powerful bloc, it's a reality of life. But you've also got to remember that until 1992 Australia and England had a power of veto [in ICC meetings]." There is a strong feeling that if India had supported Howard he would have had no problems in becoming the deputy to Sharad Pawar, the incoming ICC president. "I can't speculate about that," Clarke said. "I've been on the board for 18 months, been to seven meetings, I think the bloc vote that was once there before my time doesn't exist at the same level." 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." http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/465379.html
Mamu Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 It is a shame that Aus and India dis-agree on very miniscule issues, that can be resolved. Not exactly sure what problems does India have with Howard.
Shawn Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 AUS should have nominated someone with a good cricketing knowledge.
Ranjha Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 BCCI was just testing its clout for future arguments/events.
Nova Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 How does Sharad Powar manage so many posts together :hmmmm2: amazing This is how he manages it --- "The man who is to be the next ICC president, Sharad Pawar, is the Minister for Agriculture in the Indian government - a serious full-time job, feeding 1.2 billion people. He is a good and fair man but he will be working part-time as ICC president and, take it from me, he knows little about cricket administration. I was present at several ICC board meetings he attended. ICC meetings generally last two days. Pawar attended for one hour and was then replaced by one of the Board of Control for Cricket in India apparatchiks. They were concerned that he was too busy and would be too reasonable" - Malcolm Speed Source: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/howard-was-rejected-because-he-would-foil-the-iccs-saboteurs-20100630-zmti.html :D
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now