What to do about the ICC

The Hair tribunal is highlighting some apparent corruption (and possible bias) within the ICC. Can this organisation be trusted to look after the welfare of all members and uphold the laws of the game? Is there another way?

Sack the lot and start again with Warnie as head.

Go back to the Imperial Cricket Council.

Ban India!

Same as we did with the C4 forum - someone else set up a cricket council and move everyone over.

I can't do it, though. I'm on my death bed.

Dello wrote:Same as we did with the C4 forum - someone else set up a cricket council and move everyone over.

I can't do it, though. I'm on my death bed.

Ball tampering?

tac wrote:

Dello wrote:Same as we did with the C4 forum - someone else set up a cricket council and move everyone over.

I can't do it, though. I'm on my death bed.

Ball tampering?

No balled?

taipan wrote:

tac wrote:

Dello wrote:Same as we did with the C4 forum - someone else set up a cricket council and move everyone over.

I can't do it, though. I'm on my death bed.

Ball tampering?

No balled?

The new change of ball rule?

Balls to the lot of yous...

Return to the original format -
To the Keepers of the Laws and Spirit of Cricket.
Neutrals in every respect.
No favouritism.
Couldn't give a toss what Boards think ...
Would slap down any Board stepping out of line ...
Have a multi-racial presence within the offices of a neutral Body -

Revert to the MCC.

Ever since the ICC were formed, we've had nowt but crap decisions and tenuous issues which have split the cricketing world.

Fact is, having said all that, I know for certain the MCC would not want the poisoned chalice back.
Too much toxic waste in it right now ....

Dello wrote:Balls to the lot of yous...

What's the Guv'nor of the Bank of England done now?

Geez merlo, you really are a clueless clown.

Invader Zim wrote:Geez merlo, you really are a clueless clown.

Hark .... I heard an arse (of Zim quality) squeak...!
Something you wanted to say Zimmer?

tac wrote:

taipan wrote:

tac wrote:

Dello wrote:Same as we did with the C4 forum - someone else set up a cricket council and move everyone over.

I can't do it, though. I'm on my death bed.

Ball tampering?

No balled?

The new change of ball rule?

His only lasted for 80?

No 'sorted'? Very disappointed...

Invader Zim wrote:No 'sorted'? Very disappointed...

Don't be.
The MCC have moved on from the days of old colonial attitudes.

- It has an Australian as the Club Secretary.
- It has a multi-racial membership across the spectrum of professions.
- It has the good of cricket as its basic belief.
- It Is not influenced by outside pressure and foibles of Boards.

What would be more desirous?
Setting up a multi racial Committee under the auspices of a neutral Club tending to the needs of the present day game ...
OR ...
having a biased ICC fouling it up every so often, dependant on whims, outside pressures and financial blackmail from the wealthier cricket nations.

tac wrote:Sack the lot and start again with Warnie as head.

Are we talking about the Australian government?

I see some subi's have started voting.

taipan wrote:I see some subi's have started voting.

Either that or Henry

taipan wrote:I see some subi's have started voting.

Obviously some people are prepared to vote anoymously but unable to justify their stance.

I'm one of the 30%...
Think the idea of the ICC is great. Just needs the executive board to be completely non country board specific.

No bugger from any of the members countries should be on the main board, run it as a normal business is run, making normal business decisions.

You can have various sub commitees, again decided by the main board which can deal with varying bits and pieces.

To have heads of the PCB, ECB, ACB etc on the board just asks and causes trouble, as they are only in ti for the good of their countries and not the game as a whole.

Cue abuse and slander!

Fair point, but I think you should have voted for the last option.

S F Barnes wrote:Fair point, but I think you should have voted for the last option.

I did.

Option 3, ICC is ok, get rid of the tealeafs!

holcs wrote:

S F Barnes wrote:Fair point, but I think you should have voted for the last option.

I did.

Option 3, ICC is ok, get rid of the tealeafs!

Top man!