zimcricketforums.com

That's true we don't have alternative sources of revenue, but I can't imagine any other board would that would have fewer expenses. We have only a handful of venues and provincial associations, a tiny community of players and a virtually non-existent grassroots programme. If Googly's $60m figure is correct, then a responsible admin could easily fund cricket operations and have plenty left over.

I don't have the inside track here, but I think we've been getting more than that, I think this is a reduction.

Bring back Campbell he had sponsors rolling in and plenty of home and away tours lined up ......

jaybro wrote:Bring back Campbell he had sponsors rolling in and plenty of home and away tours lined up ......

I agree... Bring back Campbell

http://cricbuzz.com/cricket-news/92570/ ... c-overhaul

No real surprise ZC will side with India and vote against the overhaul.

Mr Twig wrote:http://cricbuzz.com/cricket-news/92570/ ... c-overhaul

No real surprise ZC will side with India and vote against the overhaul.

Yes, no real surprise there.

SL, Bang, WI, Pak, NZ should also vote against the overhaul unless they change that proposal to make full membership non-permanent. I could perhaps see where they could increase the scope for suspending full membership rights if a full member dismantles or let's lapse the structures needed for maintaining full membership (so for example if a full member stopped organizing domestic first-class cricket entirely for 2 seasons or more and there isn't any mitigating circumstances like a natural disaster), but to strip full membership based on team performance (which is likely to be a criterion) is ridiculous. In ANY league system there is almost always likely to be a team that loses the most number of matches in the league. That's a feature, not a bug. Punishing entire cricketing societies for a feature of sports is the surest way to kill interest in the sport in those societies.

ZC needs to be overhauled. Badly. But they speak the truth here:

"We are in agreement that funds should be well administered and there should be good corporate governance," said Mukuhlani. "But there are certain things that you cannot make constitutional. For example you can't say today you are not performing well so you are no longer a full member. To gain membership is a process, for example Afghanistan is doing well working towards attaining full membership, but if they were to lose form the year they gain membership, what would we do in that kind of situation? Strip them of full membership? The bulk of revenue in cricket comes from India at the moment. Let's say for some reason India have a dip in form and start losing, are we going to then say India you are no longer a member, is that possible?"

And again I note that Afghanistan have been working towards full membership without the complaints (like the Irish) about "no clear pathway" and hurdles. They have a country that has been in the midst of violence since the 1980s and yet they still push along, getting the task done without griping. Afghanistan (and Ireland now that they have got with the program and stopped their bellyaching) should simply be welcomed to full membership without these hare-brained schemes to make full membership more "fluid" (but which in actual fact, seem like ideas meant to eventually restrict full membership to a core of 3-5 countries).

I agree in principle, but what must be galling for the affected parties is that there's a certain amount of funds for distribution by the ICC and we're getting our full member share and getting worse every year, and nothing is going to stop the slide now. There has to be a time limit on that. It's not like we came bottom of the log for the season but we're bouncing back next one. It would be great if they set strict criteria and policed it. I'd like to see a requirement for board members to be independently wealthy and not be remunerated at all, that would cut out most of the nonesense.

Zimbabweans have mastered the art of standing with their hands out for cash and then angrily shouting st the timid donors when they meekly ask where the money may have disappeared to. ICC need to rein our board in or pull the plug.

Mueddie28 wrote:

jaybro wrote:Bring back Campbell he had sponsors rolling in and plenty of home and away tours lined up ......

I agree... Bring back Campbell

+1

After today's debacle I would be supportive of us resigning full membership. We don't deserve it.