There has been some discussion on Saturday Salon about the rejection by the International Cricket Council (ICC) of the nomination of John Howard as the next vice president and president elect of the ICC. It’s a four year part-time gig based in Dubai. The VP serves two years and then becomes president for two years.
It’s hard to know where to start with this one, but perhaps best with the fact that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) supplies almost 80% of the ICC’s operating funds and that the ICC, as Peter Roebuck says:
Although the ICC lacks the power assigned to other governing bodies, it presides over the game’s operations in countries ranging from England to India, Papua New Guinea to Chile, and many stops between.
It is responsible for the development of the game and striking the right balance between traditional and contemporary formats. Likewise it has to keep an eye on drugs, gambling , easy money and the other modern blights. For all its faults, the ICC remains the powerhouse of an ever-expanding game.
So ideally you need a candidate with vision and standing, a person of incorruptible integrity.
The next thing you need to know is that, as explained here candidates are selected on a rotational system after 2006, when Sharad Pawar and David Morgan attracted 5 votes each in the 10-member Council. This time it was Australasia’s turn.
Rival candidates emerged. New Zealand put forward an outstanding candidate in Sir John Anderson with an impressive and impeccable CV in cricket administration. Anderson, for example, had been a member of the ICC audit committee established some years ago to investigate Zimbabwe’s rorting of ICC funds. Cricket Australia (CA) approached John Howard.
You won’t go far to find commentary like that from Peter Roebuck which says that John Howard was the wrong candidate. Further, that he was simply unqualified for the job.
Soundings had been taken, but about a week before the vote it all turned pear-shaped. As far as I can see the dissent started with Zimbabwe. The crucial vote, however, was India’s and when they changed sides the die was cast.
This commentary on The Drum from 7 June shows how finely balanced it was and India’s pivotal role. And, yes, Howard’s comment on Murali’s bowling was significant, at least in Sri Lanka.
No official reasons have been given for rejecting Howard, though officially the BCCI say Howard lacked hands-on experience as a cricket administrator. Beyond that the reaction from India suggests that Howard was seen as “non-progressive”, “racist”, a man of the past. Others say the BCCI was wary of Howard because of his high profile and political style:
“The fact is that the BCCI has the financial muscle in the cricketing world now,” a well-placed Indian source told the Herald.
“There was a feeling that Howard would be difficult to control. They don’t want to contend with someone who will put a spanner in the works.”
Leading the charge has been Malcolm Speed who was the chief executive of the ICC from 2001 to 2008. Speed says:
Howard has been rejected because his appointment would provide ICC with strong leadership that would thwart the ambitions of several current administrators to downgrade and devalue the role of the ICC. Howard would have stood in their path. The role requires strength of character – a leader, diplomat, statesman and politician. The ICC board is as political as any political party. The countries that voted him down want a compliant figurehead who will do their bidding.
Speed carries scars. When the audit committee investigating Zimbabwe came up with awkward findings, Speed was sacked and the report canned.
Amongst the commentators, Peter Roebuck is scathing. He’s no great supporter of Howard in this role. No-one emerges with the slightest credit from the debacle, he says. Finally it is about power and money, and shadowy figures operating in the background. His article is compulsory reading.
The true battle is not between countries or faiths or colours but between the corrupt and the common man.
Incoming president Sharad Pawar is trying to pour oil on troubled waters but there can be little doubt that cricket is in some trouble. But for now the ball is in Australia’s and new Zealand’s court. The Kiwis have stuck by our man. An elegant solution would be to put forward Sir John Anderson, but he has now gone on to other things.
Mark Taylor is said to be a possibility, but may not want it and some think he’s not ready.
It’s a right old mess.
Julia Gillard has bought into the issue. I’d prefer a PM that didn’t comment on anything and everything when a journo pokes a microphone under her nose.
Zimbabwe’s regime is loathesome and even if Howard is a “closet racist” to quote the Indian press, it doesn’t mean that Zimbabwe is on the side of sweetness and light. South Africa’s desire to protect Mugabe also has played a role in their vote.
Zimbabwe’s regime is loathesome and even if Howard is a “closet racist” to quote the Indian press, it doesn’t mean that Zimbabwe is on the side of sweetness and light. South Africa’s desire to protect Mugabe also has played a role in their vote.
Mugabe is a racist and I don’t think he is in any closet.
Mugabe is a racist and I don’t think he is in any closet.
I read somewhere that NZ’s nomination was problematic for the ICC too, not sure of the reasons.
I think we should take the moral high ground and nominate someone else, but I’m guessing that Howard doesn’t want to wait until it is Australia’s turn again. Personally I don’t like him and can understand other cricketing countries not wanting him in the top job for whatever reason.
Re Gillard: I think she was probably put on the spot. If she had said she didn’t know anything about cricket then she would have been dissed for being Un-Australian and the first PM in many years not to have an interest in the cricket- she may be a big fan I have no idea. If she had said that she didn’t have a view that could have been taken as a slur against Howard. If she said it was a matter for the ICC, who have come out strongly against him, it would have been spun as her dissing Howard. She may also genuinely think that he is a good candidate.
I read somewhere that NZ’s nomination was problematic for the ICC too, not sure of the reasons.
I think we should take the moral high ground and nominate someone else, but I’m guessing that Howard doesn’t want to wait until it is Australia’s turn again. Personally I don’t like him and can understand other cricketing countries not wanting him in the top job for whatever reason.
Re Gillard: I think she was probably put on the spot. If she had said she didn’t know anything about cricket then she would have been dissed for being Un-Australian and the first PM in many years not to have an interest in the cricket- she may be a big fan I have no idea. If she had said that she didn’t have a view that could have been taken as a slur against Howard. If she said it was a matter for the ICC, who have come out strongly against him, it would have been spun as her dissing Howard. She may also genuinely think that he is a good candidate.
Relax, it’s only a game
*ducks*
Relax, it’s only a game
*ducks*
I like the game Merc, but it still is only a game.
And Mindy — who cares if saying it is not a matter for the Australian government causes some people to say she is “dissing Howard”? Such people’s opinions are not worth worrying about, any more than one should not say religion is none of hers or government’s business for fear of dissing god botherers.
I like the game Merc, but it still is only a game.
And Mindy — who cares if saying it is not a matter for the Australian government causes some people to say she is “dissing Howard”? Such people’s opinions are not worth worrying about, any more than one should not say religion is none of hers or government’s business for fear of dissing god botherers.
Would it be too much to ask journalists to stop asking PM and other politicians these irrelevant, dumb-arse questions? Or do they really think the PM particularly is meant to be the fount of all wisdom? Maybe they should check the job description.
Would it be too much to ask journalists to stop asking PM and other politicians these irrelevant, dumb-arse questions? Or do they really think the PM particularly is meant to be the fount of all wisdom? Maybe they should check the job description.
Yes it would, Kent …
Yes it would, Kent …
On racism, I read somewhere an Indian commentator saying that India was one of the most racist countries on earth and that people routinely died there because of racism. What he said, I wouldn’t know.
I think it is more about corruption, power and money, as Roebuck said.
On racism, I read somewhere an Indian commentator saying that India was one of the most racist countries on earth and that people routinely died there because of racism. What he said, I wouldn’t know.
I think it is more about corruption, power and money, as Roebuck said.
Can’t Howard satisfy his self-actualisation needs by founding a think tank or something? Why does he have to take his unique brand of divisiveness and dishonesty to cricket, which already has more than enough of that commodity?
Anyone know how his book’s coming along by the way? It ought to be a hoot.
Can’t Howard satisfy his self-actualisation needs by founding a think tank or something? Why does he have to take his unique brand of divisiveness and dishonesty to cricket, which already has more than enough of that commodity?
Anyone know how his book’s coming along by the way? It ought to be a hoot.
Ken, I think one of the curious aspects of this is how certain cricketing types in authority in Australia and cricket writers see Howard as a model of ethical rectitude. I don’t see him as corruptible where money is concerned, but being ‘flexible’ so that there is a difference between the apparent and the real is be one of his leading characteristics, IMO.
More generally, there is an issue about how 20/20 cricket on the subcontinent fits in with the ICC that I don’t understand. I suspect this has a lot to do with what’s happened.
Also it has been noted that previous ICC presidents didn’t always have a track record in cricket administration. The incoming Sharad Pawar is a serving politician, being Minister for Agriculture. I don’t have any deep knowledge, but I’ve read stuff about multinationals greasing palms of Indian politicians to ensure that GM crops get a go even if millions of peasants are f*cked over in the process. One of the recent administrations had a minister who had a river diverted in a manner that suited a hotel he owned.
I’ve read numerous stories of police beatings, sometimes resulting in deaths, of locals who are protesting for one reason or another – building dams, digging up their country for minerals etc.
Speed says that some of the former presidents of the ICC have ended up in jail.
Ken, I think one of the curious aspects of this is how certain cricketing types in authority in Australia and cricket writers see Howard as a model of ethical rectitude. I don’t see him as corruptible where money is concerned, but being ‘flexible’ so that there is a difference between the apparent and the real is be one of his leading characteristics, IMO.
More generally, there is an issue about how 20/20 cricket on the subcontinent fits in with the ICC that I don’t understand. I suspect this has a lot to do with what’s happened.
Also it has been noted that previous ICC presidents didn’t always have a track record in cricket administration. The incoming Sharad Pawar is a serving politician, being Minister for Agriculture. I don’t have any deep knowledge, but I’ve read stuff about multinationals greasing palms of Indian politicians to ensure that GM crops get a go even if millions of peasants are f*cked over in the process. One of the recent administrations had a minister who had a river diverted in a manner that suited a hotel he owned.
I’ve read numerous stories of police beatings, sometimes resulting in deaths, of locals who are protesting for one reason or another – building dams, digging up their country for minerals etc.
Speed says that some of the former presidents of the ICC have ended up in jail.
Well I guess that rules out a:
Well I guess that rules out a:
Well maybe it’s a good job for Howard after all.
Well maybe it’s a good job for Howard after all.
He’s got the aruldite. He’s just looking for a new seat to glue his bum to. Now that he’s passe here, and on the RWDB TV talk shows in the US, he must be truly suffering from relevance deprivation. Long may he suffer.
He’s got the aruldite. He’s just looking for a new seat to glue his bum to. Now that he’s passe here, and on the RWDB TV talk shows in the US, he must be truly suffering from relevance deprivation. Long may he suffer.
Four points:
1. Cricket administration at the highest levels internationally is extremely corrupt.
2. Howard would be a good person to try to clean it up.
3. Seeing the little [word I am not allowed to use on this blog] get his cumuppance trumps point 2.
The sheer visceral satisfaction I got at seeing Howard being shafted by the ICC was better than sex.
Four points:
1. Cricket administration at the highest levels internationally is extremely corrupt.
2. Howard would be a good person to try to clean it up.
3. Seeing the little [word I am not allowed to use on this blog] get his cumuppance trumps point 2.
The sheer visceral satisfaction I got at seeing Howard being shafted by the ICC was better than sex.
I find it hard to get past the fact that seeing Howard humiliated and doing his full on sook has been nothing short of wonderful. Rejected and left in limb,almost like being left in Nauru.
I know I should be serious and say it is terrible but I can’t. Watching the Offsiders and footage from Indian television, it is clear Australia has a bigger problem than bloody John Howard’s fragile ego. I wish he would do as he promised and just P off into the sun set. It is only cricket. It is corrupt and messy but at the end of the day who gives a stuff? We should just be thankful that it has given us a chance to see that whinging little grub put back in his box. Now will someone close the lid and nail it down please.
I find it hard to get past the fact that seeing Howard humiliated and doing his full on sook has been nothing short of wonderful. Rejected and left in limb,almost like being left in Nauru.
I know I should be serious and say it is terrible but I can’t. Watching the Offsiders and footage from Indian television, it is clear Australia has a bigger problem than bloody John Howard’s fragile ego. I wish he would do as he promised and just P off into the sun set. It is only cricket. It is corrupt and messy but at the end of the day who gives a stuff? We should just be thankful that it has given us a chance to see that whinging little grub put back in his box. Now will someone close the lid and nail it down please.
Polyquats… spot on Having the PM as commentator in chief is one thing I hope will stop… Continual bloody doorstops about absolute piffle when they should be working. I do note when she takes ministers to a press confercne she asks them to take questions instead of boring us sh….less like Krudd used to. Also I note she can answer a question in about two sentences…. PS anyone see Crean on Oakes this morning a refreshing safe pair of hands…..I think the adults may be back in charge of the asylum
Polyquats… spot on Having the PM as commentator in chief is one thing I hope will stop… Continual bloody doorstops about absolute piffle when they should be working. I do note when she takes ministers to a press confercne she asks them to take questions instead of boring us sh….less like Krudd used to. Also I note she can answer a question in about two sentences…. PS anyone see Crean on Oakes this morning a refreshing safe pair of hands…..I think the adults may be back in charge of the asylum
Brian
Thank you for this excellent sober exposition of the nuances and political intricacies at play in this issue. Of course, such a short piece can only touch the surface. As will be increasingly revealed, this story gets better, more political, and has less to do with Howard than even your piece suggests. One intriguing aspect is that all the data has been is the public domain for months, but completely ignored in Australia blog debates.
I was hoping to explore what the REAL juicy parts of this story are, but post on an inappropriate thread. Nevertheless, hopefully many of the aggressive responses I received, might start cooling down, as they start finding out for themselves, just what I was hoping we would discuss.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/06/30/wednesday-whimsy-2/#comment-896181
Brian
Thank you for this excellent sober exposition of the nuances and political intricacies at play in this issue. Of course, such a short piece can only touch the surface. As will be increasingly revealed, this story gets better, more political, and has less to do with Howard than even your piece suggests. One intriguing aspect is that all the data has been is the public domain for months, but completely ignored in Australia blog debates.
I was hoping to explore what the REAL juicy parts of this story are, but post on an inappropriate thread. Nevertheless, hopefully many of the aggressive responses I received, might start cooling down, as they start finding out for themselves, just what I was hoping we would discuss.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/06/30/wednesday-whimsy-2/#comment-896181
There was a good reason and a bad reason to reject Howard. Bad reason – his stance against Mugabe. Good reason – 20 years of unabashed support for Apartheid, including arguing they should be allowed to play cricket and supporting boycott busting teams.
If he lost because of Mugabe that’s a worry, but if he lost because some people in India have a long memory of him endorsing them being denied basic human rights based on the colour of their skin, then that’s a damn fine thing (and of course many of his subsequent acts as PM might just have suggested to people he hadn’t changed much.
The fact that India has a very racist culture does not diminish their right to give someone a metaphorical kicking for effectively designating their relatives as being subhuman.
There was a good reason and a bad reason to reject Howard. Bad reason – his stance against Mugabe. Good reason – 20 years of unabashed support for Apartheid, including arguing they should be allowed to play cricket and supporting boycott busting teams.
If he lost because of Mugabe that’s a worry, but if he lost because some people in India have a long memory of him endorsing them being denied basic human rights based on the colour of their skin, then that’s a damn fine thing (and of course many of his subsequent acts as PM might just have suggested to people he hadn’t changed much.
The fact that India has a very racist culture does not diminish their right to give someone a metaphorical kicking for effectively designating their relatives as being subhuman.
Ken @9
“Can’t Howard satisfy his self-actualisation needs by founding a think tank or something?”
The very scary idea is that he may think cricket is the very essence of an ‘Australian values’ think tank.
Ken @9
“Can’t Howard satisfy his self-actualisation needs by founding a think tank or something?”
The very scary idea is that he may think cricket is the very essence of an ‘Australian values’ think tank.
I’ve just found another one by Peter Roebuck that is worth a read. Roebuck says Sir John Alexander was clearly the better choice, but he thought back in March that Howard could do the job. The ICC is a basket case and CA thought Howard was the only one with sufficient clout to do the job.
I hadn’t been aware how the decision was made, but Roebuck says the Sir Rodney Eddington was appointed to broker an outcome, essentially failed and had to make the call himself.
Sir Rod (who recommended him for a gong?) has a pretty fair reputation in business circles and is currently chair of Infrastructure Australia. Even played 8 first class matches for Oxford way back when.
So I’m not sure it is fair to say that Australia “bullied” NZ, as has been said elsewhere.
I’ve just found another one by Peter Roebuck that is worth a read. Roebuck says Sir John Alexander was clearly the better choice, but he thought back in March that Howard could do the job. The ICC is a basket case and CA thought Howard was the only one with sufficient clout to do the job.
I hadn’t been aware how the decision was made, but Roebuck says the Sir Rodney Eddington was appointed to broker an outcome, essentially failed and had to make the call himself.
Sir Rod (who recommended him for a gong?) has a pretty fair reputation in business circles and is currently chair of Infrastructure Australia. Even played 8 first class matches for Oxford way back when.
So I’m not sure it is fair to say that Australia “bullied” NZ, as has been said elsewhere.
Brian
Keep reading. It just gets juicier and juicier. The more you read, the more Howard evaporates. He is a marginal character,
Brian
Keep reading. It just gets juicier and juicier. The more you read, the more Howard evaporates. He is a marginal character,
Brian perhaps ‘bullying’ is not the best description, but Cricket Australia stubbornly insisted on Howard when Anderson seemed a more suitable appointee. Peter Roebuck’s argument why Anderson was the better choice seem persuasive to me and CA’s actions were pig-headed.
Brian perhaps ‘bullying’ is not the best description, but Cricket Australia stubbornly insisted on Howard when Anderson seemed a more suitable appointee. Peter Roebuck’s argument why Anderson was the better choice seem persuasive to me and CA’s actions were pig-headed.
Suggestions here that New Zealand wasn’t impressed with the exercise. Other interesting thoughts here.
Suggestions here that New Zealand wasn’t impressed with the exercise. Other interesting thoughts here.
Brian @ 20
Eddington was CEO of British Airways for a while and got a gong from the UK for “services to aviation” when he left BA (not in the best shape btw, much criticised for his tenure there – had also been with Cathay Pacific). As an Aussie, he can style himself Sir if he likes, unlike Bob Geldoff for instance who, being Irish, has only an honorary gong.
Brian @ 20
Eddington was CEO of British Airways for a while and got a gong from the UK for “services to aviation” when he left BA (not in the best shape btw, much criticised for his tenure there – had also been with Cathay Pacific). As an Aussie, he can style himself Sir if he likes, unlike Bob Geldoff for instance who, being Irish, has only an honorary gong.
I dunno. I would have thought the fact he is a racist warmonger might have had something to do with him getting shafted. Good. http://enpassant.com.au/?p=7610
I dunno. I would have thought the fact he is a racist warmonger might have had something to do with him getting shafted. Good. http://enpassant.com.au/?p=7610
Thanks JP. If ever I am in any doubt about an issue, I only need to hear your opinion to know that the opposite view is correct.
ps I won’t click your self promotional link
Thanks JP. If ever I am in any doubt about an issue, I only need to hear your opinion to know that the opposite view is correct.
ps I won’t click your self promotional link
Ken, your second link @ 23 is to Mike O’Connor, a lovely bloke who has to fill a column with something. I’ve always regarded him as entertaining rather than substantive. But otherwise fair enough, I don’t disagree with you.
In fact the NZ people are probably the only ones to emerge with any credit from the debacle, to use Roebuck’s phraseology.
Ken, your second link @ 23 is to Mike O’Connor, a lovely bloke who has to fill a column with something. I’ve always regarded him as entertaining rather than substantive. But otherwise fair enough, I don’t disagree with you.
In fact the NZ people are probably the only ones to emerge with any credit from the debacle, to use Roebuck’s phraseology.
Isn’t Eddington mixed up big time with Brumby?
Where would Labor state governments get their riding instructions from, if they didn’t employ neolib corporate gurus to keep them on the neoliberal straight and narrow. The connections involving “Eddington” and “Yes Minister” grow apace.
In SA we’ve had politicians similarly install mining magnate Robert DeCrespigny on the same sort of pedestal, usually reinforced by influence peddlers like Bill Ludwig and the more visible Richo.
About sending the right “signals” to corporate Australia to avoid the sort of onslaught Rudd faced over mining taxes and refugees.
Isn’t Eddington mixed up big time with Brumby?
Where would Labor state governments get their riding instructions from, if they didn’t employ neolib corporate gurus to keep them on the neoliberal straight and narrow. The connections involving “Eddington” and “Yes Minister” grow apace.
In SA we’ve had politicians similarly install mining magnate Robert DeCrespigny on the same sort of pedestal, usually reinforced by influence peddlers like Bill Ludwig and the more visible Richo.
About sending the right “signals” to corporate Australia to avoid the sort of onslaught Rudd faced over mining taxes and refugees.
Why didn’t India merely declare that they would not accept a war criminal into the role? That way they would keep Howard out and do the world a service by directing focus back to this unrepentent criminal’s past actions.
Why didn’t India merely declare that they would not accept a war criminal into the role? That way they would keep Howard out and do the world a service by directing focus back to this unrepentent criminal’s past actions.
“Where would Labor state governments get their riding instructions from, if they didn’t employ neolib corporate gurus to keep them on the neoliberal straight and narrow.”
Very good point, Paul. I’ve often thought that the collapses of the State Banks in Victoria and SA had a lot to do with the determination make them competitive to the point of installing corporate executives to senior management and the boards.
It seemed to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of State banks to provide security for savings and housing finance. Dunstan always claimed that he’d rather have had “jobs for the boys” type appointments to the boards because these beneficiaries were never in doubt about who they were accountable to. They may not understand the latest deal being promoted (and there’s a lot of boards everywhere who don’t) but they’d have enough sense to report back to him, “Mr Premier, I’m not sure what’s going on here.” which would be enough warning to warrant a closer look.
Bit off the topic, but was drawn to your remark.
As to the matter in hand, 3 cheers to the board at the ICC.
“Where would Labor state governments get their riding instructions from, if they didn’t employ neolib corporate gurus to keep them on the neoliberal straight and narrow.”
Very good point, Paul. I’ve often thought that the collapses of the State Banks in Victoria and SA had a lot to do with the determination make them competitive to the point of installing corporate executives to senior management and the boards.
It seemed to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of State banks to provide security for savings and housing finance. Dunstan always claimed that he’d rather have had “jobs for the boys” type appointments to the boards because these beneficiaries were never in doubt about who they were accountable to. They may not understand the latest deal being promoted (and there’s a lot of boards everywhere who don’t) but they’d have enough sense to report back to him, “Mr Premier, I’m not sure what’s going on here.” which would be enough warning to warrant a closer look.
Bit off the topic, but was drawn to your remark.
As to the matter in hand, 3 cheers to the board at the ICC.
Howard’s talents for the job should not be understated.
Howard was able to engineer the Australian taxpayer footing the bill for his brother’s failed business.
Likewise, is it not possible that Howard may be able to engineer the redirection of Indian billionaires’ money away from their private and very profitable cricket league to those moribund competitions administered by the ICC?
One underestimates Howard’s cleverness at one’s peril.
Howard’s talents for the job should not be understated.
Howard was able to engineer the Australian taxpayer footing the bill for his brother’s failed business.
Likewise, is it not possible that Howard may be able to engineer the redirection of Indian billionaires’ money away from their private and very profitable cricket league to those moribund competitions administered by the ICC?
One underestimates Howard’s cleverness at one’s peril.
Thanks Don. Am already drawing up a tentative connection between this thread and the one to do with Bob Carr’s anti commo trope which also seems forty years out of date; also much of the concern over Rudd, Gillard and much of state Labor, nowadays.
If the veil has been drawn on so many issues what left have the media provided us with for discussion, than whether Howard runs the cricket council, or Paris Hilton busted with some grass, ffs?
And no probs Katz, any one who underestimates Howard is still courting disaster.
Thanks Don. Am already drawing up a tentative connection between this thread and the one to do with Bob Carr’s anti commo trope which also seems forty years out of date; also much of the concern over Rudd, Gillard and much of state Labor, nowadays.
If the veil has been drawn on so many issues what left have the media provided us with for discussion, than whether Howard runs the cricket council, or Paris Hilton busted with some grass, ffs?
And no probs Katz, any one who underestimates Howard is still courting disaster.
Anyone who thinks Howard, a PM who presided over the utterly scandalous AWB corruption, is a fit person to end the corruption (if it exists) in the ICC has rocks in their head.
Anyone who thinks Howard, a PM who presided over the utterly scandalous AWB corruption, is a fit person to end the corruption (if it exists) in the ICC has rocks in their head.
Yes Droo. John Howard was guilty of many things. Inept or corrupt governance are not amongst his sins. He may be as guilty as one can get of being politically the diametric opposite of many on this site, but not of corruptly or ineptly implementing his political policies.
Whilst many are orgasming in their pants over seeing Howard’s nomination rebuffed, they seem unconcerned to be allying themselves with Mugabe & crew.
In this case, Howard is guilty of being a political opponent of Robert Mugabe. It would be abhorrent to side with Mugabe, a butcher who has not only destroyed his country economically, but massacred his own citizens in large numbers.
As distasteful as it may be, it is better to side with John Howard on this one, than with the forces of darkness.
Yes Droo. John Howard was guilty of many things. Inept or corrupt governance are not amongst his sins. He may be as guilty as one can get of being politically the diametric opposite of many on this site, but not of corruptly or ineptly implementing his political policies.
Whilst many are orgasming in their pants over seeing Howard’s nomination rebuffed, they seem unconcerned to be allying themselves with Mugabe & crew.
In this case, Howard is guilty of being a political opponent of Robert Mugabe. It would be abhorrent to side with Mugabe, a butcher who has not only destroyed his country economically, but massacred his own citizens in large numbers.
As distasteful as it may be, it is better to side with John Howard on this one, than with the forces of darkness.
SATP, if all Howard did was piss Mugabe off, he’d be in the ICC comfy chair as I write. But he managed to alienate everybody in cricket who isn’t white (though I’m buggered if I know what he did to the West Indians).
SATP, if all Howard did was piss Mugabe off, he’d be in the ICC comfy chair as I write. But he managed to alienate everybody in cricket who isn’t white (though I’m buggered if I know what he did to the West Indians).
“Cricket Australia (CA) approached John Howard.”
Are we totally sure it was that way around?
“Cricket Australia (CA) approached John Howard.”
Are we totally sure it was that way around?
Elise,
Presumably the ICC approached Howard to see if he would accept the nomination. And prabably every day after that, he was on the phone or flooding them with e-mails asking if he had been nominated yet. Sic gloria transit mundi.
Elise,
Presumably the ICC approached Howard to see if he would accept the nomination. And prabably every day after that, he was on the phone or flooding them with e-mails asking if he had been nominated yet. Sic gloria transit mundi.
Sam, from the post Dileep Premachandran provides an interesting view. He seems to think it started with Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka quite separately, but the opposition would have dissolved if India had supported Howard. CA would have been mad not to sound India out on the matter and first it seems they supported him. When India turned a lot of others followed. India gave a reason (lack of experience), but it probably was something else.
Don’t know about West Indies, but I thought they were voting in sympathy with Zimbabwe and South Africa.
Elise, my bet is that it started with an informal conversation somewhere, but whose idea it was we’ll probably never know. My impression is that some of those cricketing folk are pretty conservative and ignorant about politics.
Sam, from the post Dileep Premachandran provides an interesting view. He seems to think it started with Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka quite separately, but the opposition would have dissolved if India had supported Howard. CA would have been mad not to sound India out on the matter and first it seems they supported him. When India turned a lot of others followed. India gave a reason (lack of experience), but it probably was something else.
Don’t know about West Indies, but I thought they were voting in sympathy with Zimbabwe and South Africa.
Elise, my bet is that it started with an informal conversation somewhere, but whose idea it was we’ll probably never know. My impression is that some of those cricketing folk are pretty conservative and ignorant about politics.
Brian, it’s always possible the Indians see Howard as an obstacle to them amassing even greater riches from the game.
But maybe the Indians know him and just don’t like him. Who knows?
Anyway, the game belongs to India now. They’ve got the money; they run the show. The other countries have no choice but to ask, “how high?” when the Indians say “jump.” If the non-Indians tried to do their own thing the Indians would simply invite every good player in the world to play 20/20 full time in India. And they would over there before you could say “cheque book”.
Brian, it’s always possible the Indians see Howard as an obstacle to them amassing even greater riches from the game.
But maybe the Indians know him and just don’t like him. Who knows?
Anyway, the game belongs to India now. They’ve got the money; they run the show. The other countries have no choice but to ask, “how high?” when the Indians say “jump.” If the non-Indians tried to do their own thing the Indians would simply invite every good player in the world to play 20/20 full time in India. And they would over there before you could say “cheque book”.
Turn it up SATP, Howard was in charge when the wheat for weapons disgrace occured, if that aint corrupt I dunno what is.
Gilding the lilly is not a good look, and he does display some nasty racist tendencies. Some of us still remember his disgracefull behavior at the reconcilliation conference.
Turn it up SATP, Howard was in charge when the wheat for weapons disgrace occured, if that aint corrupt I dunno what is.
Gilding the lilly is not a good look, and he does display some nasty racist tendencies. Some of us still remember his disgracefull behavior at the reconcilliation conference.
sam, more than one commentator has said that the boot is on the other foot now. The game used to be run out of London with Australia in tow, with scant regard for what people in the subcontinent thought.
sam, more than one commentator has said that the boot is on the other foot now. The game used to be run out of London with Australia in tow, with scant regard for what people in the subcontinent thought.
Oh what a surprise. Brian posts a good and reasonably balanced piece on the ICC imbroglio, and the usual suspects seize the opportunity to concentrate on vituperative dumping on John Howard.
The real issue is to do with governance and corruption in Indian cricket extending more and more its tentacles into the ICC, and the Indians’ desire to have a patsy in the top job who won’t try to tidy anything up. With a large dollop of reverse racism added.
But corruption and racism in third world countries are issues that the progressive left is always anxious to avoid. Bashing John Howard is so much more satisfying anyway and, besides, shows the world that indispensable quality of being able to carry an irrational hate forever,
The prize, though, goes to the commenter who has discovered that the collapses of the State Banks in Victoria and SA had nothing to do with the Labor administrations of the time and can all be blamed on guess who.
Oh what a surprise. Brian posts a good and reasonably balanced piece on the ICC imbroglio, and the usual suspects seize the opportunity to concentrate on vituperative dumping on John Howard.
The real issue is to do with governance and corruption in Indian cricket extending more and more its tentacles into the ICC, and the Indians’ desire to have a patsy in the top job who won’t try to tidy anything up. With a large dollop of reverse racism added.
But corruption and racism in third world countries are issues that the progressive left is always anxious to avoid. Bashing John Howard is so much more satisfying anyway and, besides, shows the world that indispensable quality of being able to carry an irrational hate forever,
The prize, though, goes to the commenter who has discovered that the collapses of the State Banks in Victoria and SA had nothing to do with the Labor administrations of the time and can all be blamed on guess who.
Could not agree more on AWB. How none of them ended up in pokey is beyond me.
Could not agree more on AWB. How none of them ended up in pokey is beyond me.
Wozza @ 42 – time takes longer than a couple of years to heal the Howard scars
Though I did hear some interviews on ABC radio saying that it wasn’t about Howard’s previous stances on cricketers, his politics, or racism on India/Zimbabwe’s part etc. Its just about corruption and money and a desire to make sure that no one with sufficient power to do much about ICC funds being diverted away from cricket is appointed.
Brian @ 41 – the rotation scheme for the head of the ICC was originally introduced because it was seen that England (and to an extent Australia) had too much power in the ICC. I don’t think they really envisioned that the board would knock back a country’s nomination when it was their turn.
Wozza @ 42 – time takes longer than a couple of years to heal the Howard scars
Though I did hear some interviews on ABC radio saying that it wasn’t about Howard’s previous stances on cricketers, his politics, or racism on India/Zimbabwe’s part etc. Its just about corruption and money and a desire to make sure that no one with sufficient power to do much about ICC funds being diverted away from cricket is appointed.
Brian @ 41 – the rotation scheme for the head of the ICC was originally introduced because it was seen that England (and to an extent Australia) had too much power in the ICC. I don’t think they really envisioned that the board would knock back a country’s nomination when it was their turn.
Chris (last para), yes, that’s my understanding too. Which is why the Australians are seeing it as an insult.
Can I say again that Roebuck, who has a pretty good handle on these things, sees it as about money and power. The CA, being conservative and/or naive politically, was probably blind to the problematic aspects of Howard’s record. They would have been far better off backing the eminent cleanskin from NZ.
Chris (last para), yes, that’s my understanding too. Which is why the Australians are seeing it as an insult.
Can I say again that Roebuck, who has a pretty good handle on these things, sees it as about money and power. The CA, being conservative and/or naive politically, was probably blind to the problematic aspects of Howard’s record. They would have been far better off backing the eminent cleanskin from NZ.
It’s a pity John Howard is involved here, because it veers the analysis too far away from where the real action lies in geopolitics, unrelated to Australia or Howards.
It’s a pity John Howard is involved here, because it veers the analysis too far away from where the real action lies in geopolitics, unrelated to Australia or Howards.
Brian @ 45 – Sir John Anderson may be a great administrator and experience in uncovering corruption (people already know its there), but would he have the international political connections and influence outside of the cricket community to actually get something done about it?
Brian @ 45 – Sir John Anderson may be a great administrator and experience in uncovering corruption (people already know its there), but would he have the international political connections and influence outside of the cricket community to actually get something done about it?
Chris @ 47, probably not. If the Indians hold sway it can probably only change when they change, which means don’t hold your breath!
Chris @ 47, probably not. If the Indians hold sway it can probably only change when they change, which means don’t hold your breath!
Wozza, I think people here are happy to have it both ways – the rebuff of Howard was clearly dodgy in itself, but it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.
Wozza, I think people here are happy to have it both ways – the rebuff of Howard was clearly dodgy in itself, but it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.
I don’t think that anybody (well, not on this blog in any case) thinks that the ICC were pure in their motives in rejecting Howard, or indeed pure about anything.
Fortunately, it’s only about running world cricket, not running word cancer research, so I can really rejoice in the rodent’s rebuff.
If world cricket now sinks because it is run by crooks, that will only worry me a little bit.
I don’t think that anybody (well, not on this blog in any case) thinks that the ICC were pure in their motives in rejecting Howard, or indeed pure about anything.
Fortunately, it’s only about running world cricket, not running word cancer research, so I can really rejoice in the rodent’s rebuff.
If world cricket now sinks because it is run by crooks, that will only worry me a little bit.
I could care less about Howard not succeeding in becoming one of the super blazers but it would take too much effort. Not like there aren’t plenty of other super blazer jobs going in other notoriously corrupt sporting organisations. You’ve tried Cricket and Rugby League, perhaps it’s time to reprise your love (/gag) of the Socceroos John? Oh hang on, you might have the same problem there. Maybe the Olympics would be a better fit, plenty of room at the trough there too.
I could care less about Howard not succeeding in becoming one of the super blazers but it would take too much effort. Not like there aren’t plenty of other super blazer jobs going in other notoriously corrupt sporting organisations. You’ve tried Cricket and Rugby League, perhaps it’s time to reprise your love (/gag) of the Socceroos John? Oh hang on, you might have the same problem there. Maybe the Olympics would be a better fit, plenty of room at the trough there too.
@37 and @38, it has been my experience from organising things, that certain types of people have the balls to come and virtually demand that they be given awards, prizes, honorary positions or keynote addresses at international conferences.
There is no end to the ego of some people, when status is concerned. More front than Myers.
Would you put it past Howard, based on his previous behaviour???
@37 and @38, it has been my experience from organising things, that certain types of people have the balls to come and virtually demand that they be given awards, prizes, honorary positions or keynote addresses at international conferences.
There is no end to the ego of some people, when status is concerned. More front than Myers.
Would you put it past Howard, based on his previous behaviour???