#ZCBOARD MUST GO

[encore]

Start with club cricket, organise national or provincial club leagues, work with volunteers, and build from ground up. With our legacy, this won't take a decade like the 80's, it'll be a lot shorter. A vibrant club game leads to a provincial national league with the Logan Cup and a T20 cash cow league. Regular bilateral series then show that we belong to the ICC test and one day leagues. ICC then starts to look badly. The new leadership at ICC reinstates us in about 5 years' time or so.

Did you hear that UAE, Scotland, Netherlands, PNG, Nepal? I hope you're taking notes!

https://www.herald.co.zw/mlotshwa-mukuhlani-meet/

Mukuhlani and Mlotshwa are already meeting under the auspices of Coventry. Apparently, there's a clause in the ICC constitution that allows gvt interference if the member association requests it. This is why SRC was waiting for the suspended board to request the meeting first, which they seemingly did. So some kind of compromise will be reached, ICC will be forced to endorse it and the suspension will be lifted in Oct.

ACTUAL ARTICLE

The meeting was organised by Youth, Sports, Arts and Recreation Minister Kirsty Coventry.
“The SRC confirms that it received formal correspondence from Mr Mukuhlani yesterday morning requesting engagement in resolving ZC issues,’’ said Mlotshwa.

“That approach has been welcomed by the SRC, whose Board met this morning (yesterday) to consider the broad parameters for engagement.

“There was then a meeting held later this afternoon (yesterday) between the Hon. Minister Kirsty Coventry, Messrs Mukuhlani and Lloyd Mhishi representing the suspended directors and myself.

While the article does mention input received from the Interim Committee on Tuesday,
1. The Interim Committee was not part of that meeting.
2. If Coventry or Mlotshwa were in control, at least DEB/VH would have been part fo the meeting.
3. There is nothing wrong in the legal ZC Board memebers requesting a meeting with the SRC to tell them to back off. ZC Board did not invite govt interference, they requested a meeting - very big difference.
4. The one thing that stands out is the presence of Kirsty Coventry. She had boldly stated had non-interference(which would put the ICC govt interference beyond reasonable doubt), and for her to risk that and be in the thick of things now confirms Taps' suspicion, that she might be pressured by govt to shake things a little

I believe SRC will stick to their guns - the law is on their side - but Mukuhlani's ace card (ICC money and registration) is very hard to overlook. So the compromise probably looks like this: the interim board stays but for a considerably shorter period, perhaps 6 months but more like 3, then elections will be held for a new substantive board. Mukuhlani will like his chances. But the interim board and their CEO Hogg will make so many substantial changes in a very short space of time, most of them so good for cricket that Mukuhlani's new board will effectively be bound by them. On top of that, an empowered SRC will push for a new forensic audit. Mukuhlani's board will then fall under immense pressure from there onwards that they will wonder why they played their ace card so prematurely.

Developments recently guide as to what transpored, and the consequences. Recall that some players and staff have decided to sue SRC. According to the SRC Constitution, it can be sued, and the staff have a VERY strong case. It will affeect the government's pockets. Secondly, while ZC is also accountable to member Assocciation like Mashonaland, Matabeleland and Manicaland cricket associations(not sure fo the actual Associations), the SRC Constitution says the ZC Interim board is accountable to it, and not to the game and its members.

Mukuhlani and Co get elected by the members. No deal they can strike with SRC/Coventry can leave them exposed. So there is no way Mukuhlani will have the power to reach any agreement which allows Hogg to make substantial changes in a short space of time.

LINK TO SRC CONSTITUTION
LINK TO ZIM CONSTITUTION

3 Establishment of Sports and Recreation Commission
There is hereby established a commission, to be known as the Sports and Recreation Commission which shall be a body corporate capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name and, subject to this Act, of performing all acts that bodies corporate may by law perform.

My simple legal advice to Zimbabwe is tore-write the SRC Constitution. It gives way too much power to the Sports Minister. Basically, the SRC does not need to exist because of the amount of influence and oversight the Sports Minister has over it. In basic terms, the SRC would never be Constitutional. Which explains the denials/comments of the Sports Minister and ZANU Chief Whip.

In an nutshell, if ZC have in some way breached the SRC Act then SRC have a right to interfere. Except:
1. Parliament summoned Coventry to appoint a new SRC board in March.
2. She only appointed this board in June, then left for Maternity Leave. The new Board apppointments weres not well received, and roundly crciticised.
3. Even though a regular DG exists, what time did the new board have to charge ZC, and then ZC have a right to reply before SRC can dismiss that reply and take action.

I don't like the chances of the SRC against challenge from the Staff and Member Associations.

It may just be that the negotiations/meeting is simply to say we step back you continue but lets hold the elections by this time and we ensure everything runs smoothly from there.

Whatever the case might be, unlike the crash-and-burn clique, I don't want cricket Zimbabwe to be lost to the game!

[zimbos_05]

They took a big risk. A risk they knew could end their careers so they must have been willing to stop playing. This is a job after all. You dont have to like everybody at your workplace.

1) They took a risk not for themselves, but for all of Zim Cricket. Remember that. They did not act selfishly.

2) This is not a part time job you come and go from. Cricket is a career. The quicker our players start realising this, the quicker their lives will change for the better.

[Boundary]

I don't like the chances of the SRC against challenge from the Staff and Member Associations.

It may just be that the negotiations/meeting is simply to say we step back you continue but lets hold the elections by this time and we ensure everything runs smoothly from there.

Whatever the case might be, unlike the crash-and-burn clique, I don't want cricket Zimbabwe to be lost to the game!

I don't want to spend time nick-picking. Here are the basics: Mukuhlani and his chaps gave the SRC a chance when they held an irregular board meeting and the results of the votes were thus nullified. That position will stand in any legal dispute. Mukuhlani's defence is basically the ICC, which has specifically stipulated that he be reinstated. The SRC knows that fighting the ICC is a lost cause, it will take too long, it will take its toll on the game in Zim and it will most likely result in a loss.

The compromise is therefore anything that will allow Mukuhlani to call off his dogs.If he's a happy with a settlement, convincing the ICC in Oct to remove Zim's suspension will be easy. But Mukuhlani won't just have his own way - there will be a cost to his board being reinstated. That's what SRC will extract and my guess is that it will have something to do with the Interim Board. Mlotshwa in his radio interview, he stated several times that he's looking out for the long term interest of the game: school and club cricket as well as reviving the FC structures ie paying more players fairly rather than focussing only on an elite group in the national team.For that to happen it means Hogg's plans have to be preserved and to do that you have to secure at least some tenure of the Interim Board. It's a mixture of legal threat vs political dialogue.

The ZC staff challenge on the SRC is inconsequential, they will drop those charges as soon as ZC under Hogg threatens them with dereliction of duty. But it won't come to that, the outcome of the negotiations between Mlotshwa and Mukuhlani will determine most things. Mukuhlani now has on obligation to look after people who batted on his behalf (the national team captains and the ZC staff who boycotted work). But how far will he carry them when his neck is exposed? Remember this all happened because of an irregular board meeting, the SRC still have more weapons. Previous useless, incompetent and corrupt SRC boards have belied the real power that the Sports Commission has in sports governance in the country.

[Boundary]

As a long, long aside, since I have not seen this mentioned, I will put some context into why I am willing to trust Mlotshwa and his new SRC.

Mlotshwa was appointed directly from his previous post as Chairman of the Sables Trust. 'What's that?' you say. First, some context. Zim rugby is probably the first major sport in the country to reinvent its governance. Of all sports in Kirsty Coventry's in-tray, rugby posed the least problems, for they had resolved governance issues by themselves a couple of years ago when Jani was voted in to lead a new ZRU board. They then set up a body they called the Sables Trust, run independently, to look after the Sables national teams financially. They have since done a stellar job, though more is required. A Zim Academy side spent over 2 months in Cape Town playing in the Supersport Rugby Challenge, a lower tier of SA's domestic structures. They lost all games but learnt a lot more. And it was all paid for by the Sables Trust. That academy side was coached by Dawson and after De Villiers was sacked as national team coach (we failed miserably in last year's Gold Cup, a world cup qualifying tournament, losing badly to African contemporaries) Dawson was upgraded back to the Sables. His captain from the stint in the Cape is now his national team captain. There's new blood all round including talent from lesser teams in Europe and SA. The assistant coach is Chavhanga, the former Bok. This team is playing in the Victoria Cup this year (involves Vic Falls neighbours Zambia and Lake Victoria neighbours Kenya and Uganda - hence the name). We have won 3 on the trot including beating Kenya by a single point this afternoon at Hartsfield.

Why am I going on about this? These are the short term results but the long term ambitions are bolder. There's plans to develop Hartsfield (the traditional home of the sport) into a proper stadium with corporate boxes and the like. There's also hopes that the Zim Academy side in SA will rise up the structures.I've not read anyone say this, but the ambitions surely must terminate with our own Super Rugby franchise (although hold your horses, we're still playing well below the Currie Cup level, which itself is a tier below Super Rugby).

Now look at cricket. In a short space of time, rugby has taken advantage of its pedigree in the country to start to build on a long term vision, without the support from the IRB that cricket enjoys from the ICC. But if you're Kirsty Coventry what can you do? You hire someone who's been part of the turnaround in rugby (but taking care not to ransack their entire shop) and you put him at the SRC, where he can oversee governance and long term viability of not only cricket but football, hockey, netball, olympic sports, amongst others. The mess at ZIFA and ZC is just the start, everything needs to follow the rugby poster child. I wish Kirsty Coventry would do more to highlight that there's good stories in amongst the bad.

TL,DR Mlotshwa came from the Sables Trust, where rugby has gotten rid of bad apples and is on an upward trend. The hope is that cricket (and other sports) do likewise. If we see the new SRC's ambitions in this light, maybe that might get everyone onboard.

[encore]

Boundary, just to get this part out of the way. I get your enthusiasm and hopes guided by templates and developments here and there. However, Zimbabwe Rugby is nothing compared to Zimbabwe soccer and cricket. In the broad sense - unless you focus on countries like WAL, SA & NZ, never mind AUS - Rugby(Union) is tiny compared to cricket and soccer. Some would argue it's more on par with hockey and netball, or even below. Which is sad because you only need a ball. In Zimbabwe's scheme of things, SRC is weaker than ZIFA and ZC. That's a fact! I want what you're having if you think SR will cull Cheetahs, Kings and Force, dumping them to Pro14, and will consider anything from ZIM. In SA SARU have flouted many rules and its constitution - Finances, Elections etc - several times and neither SASCOC nor IRB can or will ever do anything. Unlike ICC & FIFA/CAF IRB's voice is insignificant. In fact, IRB is so weak it can't claim to have power anywhere near CAF.

Back to the legalities and issues around this matter. For one to follow it intimately you have to understand SRC suspending ZC and installing it's own interim board, and ICC statement on suspending of ZC after this action.

Even in SA, SASCOC has a Constitution that is even more powerful than SRC, but it cannot just issue a directive to SARU or SAFA or CSA to not hold elections due to technicalities based on complaints. The participants have to obtain a court order to interdict those elections. If they are already held, then you have to obtain a court judgment declaring them illegal. That way ICC have no choice. In South Africa we had an inquiry into cricket, courts, Audits etc President removed reinstated, CE removed etc. Only in the end did the Sports Minister appoint an inquiry - HEADED BY A JUDGE.

Same thing happend in mighty India and BCCI. Their aribtration/probes/inquiries even have TWO judges!!! And you wonder why ICC flatly dismissed SRC/Interm ZC Board. You deem elections illegal, and instead of holding clean elections asap, you decide to impose Dave Ellman-Brown on ICC until September 2020!

Unless I'm mistaken, in ZIM none of the participants in the elections complained to a court. They just went via the SRC??? The SRC is just a Public Body - a mere steward. It has no legal qualifications to determine things that are the preserve of courts or legally qualified minds. On what objective basis does it weigh/investigate complaints. Even if it was due to Finances/Administration, the SRC/Sports Minister never instituted any Independent check such as independent audits. SRC said: "The new [SRC] board also announced that it would appoint a new independent forensic audit firm to look into the financial activities of ZC amid allegations of misappropriation of funds." You do that BEFORE taking any action. Not AFTER.

Unlike in Zimbabwe, the Sri Lanka Sports Minister did not hide like Coventry in the recent issue. That is why the ICC did not not suspend Sri Lanka but it simply withheld funds until everything was clarified to them by the SL Government that elections were late - effectively scrapped by the government opportunisticaly - and we stepped in. In Zimbabwe Coventry went all Shaggy and said "it wasn't me", instead of saying yes we took an informed decision as Government. I have power over SRC, and they are fulfilling my instructions. This is why ICC never invited Dave Ellman-Brown. His own government had in essence "disowned" him. In the previous instance in SLC, THE SRI LANKAN MINISTER HAD A COURT ORDER!!! What do SRC have? To make matters worse, the SRC tried to delay ZC elections, and make their office bearers illegal.

The SRC will continue to have problems in Zimbabwean Sports because it and the laws around it do not gives it unquestionable authority. It makes more sense to just dissolve the SRC and the Sports Minster deals directly with Sports in Zimbabwe. SRC is just like AU/SADC. Toothless. If you are powerful you can ignore them. Not so with the properly empowered EU.

NB: Fifa crush SRC rebellion against Zifa

[Boundary]

You are missing a point encore. Legally the SRC can do what it did because an act of parliament empowers it to do so. Previous SRC boards were either incompetent, not interested or corrupt to exercise any authority vested in them by parliament. Now, I'll grant you that obtaining a court judgement probably binds ICC better than any other method but that's also highlighting another fact: law trumps politics no matter where you go, except in a few instances like rebellion/uprising. In Zim, the legal standing, which will be upheld by any court judge should Mukuhlani hope to challenge it in court, is that the SRC is empowered to do what it did. Now, of course it was an excuse, a flimsy excuse at that, and Mukuhlane left the door open for it, that an irregular board meeting had taken place. A previous SRC would've probably shrugged and let things go but this one was waiting for an excuse and it got one.

ICC is on shaky ground legally but politically they've earned enough credit to do what they did because they've given money to Zim since 2003 when they could've and maybe should've pulled the plug. ICC at this point feel like they can dictate any directive they wish and we would almost certainly comply. The problem for ICC is you have a new regime in the country, they have been trying to draw a line in the sand since Nov 2017. This new regime appointed Kirsty Coventry, who appointed a new SRC board. Everything is in accordance with the country's laws but the thrust itself is a result of a new political directive. The new SRC board thus sees itself as different from the ones before it and it would really like to see ZC (and ZIFA and others) follow the new ZRU template. That's where ICC finds itself. The credit it had built up since early 2000s doesn't really bind this new lot. Of course Kirsty, the new SRC and the ZC Interim Board would really want to listen to the game's custodians (the ICC) but more important than that is that they would really like to see the game in the country managed differently. It's like a crook with a Swiss bank account, of course following principle the Swiss will protect your money - until it's not in their interest to do so.

Oh btw, rugby is bigger than cricket c'mon! Just compare the respective world cups. Cricket is largely a commonwealth sport, rugby is now integral in the hinterlands of Japan and Argentina, not to mention the likes of Italy and France, don't forget too the Eastern Europe and North African strides made in the last few years. Granted, IRB is considerably weaker than ICC (who have India's money and only really listen to Aus/Eng/Ind and everyone else has to fall in line) whereas the IRB couldn't really even attempt to control the Super Rugby and Six Nations countries even if they wanted to.The club game in Europe and the franchise game in the southern hemisphere has way too much independent money, even national boards struggle to control how much they can call up the players for the international fixtures.

[encore]

Legally the SRC can do what it did because an act of parliament empowers it to do so.

Kindly share that Section of the Act.

Oh btw, rugby is bigger than cricket c'mon

[ZIMDOGGY]

Rugby in Oz is having its own ZC style drama atm.
Apart from league winning the code war by a country mile, If Folau wins (which he should imo) in his lawsuit against RA we are broke.
Rugby has its own self to blame, when hiring Raelene Castle to run The game just after being dumped by the Canterbury Bulldogs NRL side for literally running that club into the ground, which will take years to recover. That’s literally the equivalent of bankrupting Manchester United given how strong the dogs were. Signing off on contracts that ran into 11 milllion in a 9.5million salary cap.
Rugby Australia thought that despite that effort, it was worth hiring the gothic justice social justice warrior to run the shop.

Makes me angry as both a bulldogs fan and an ex pro rugby player.

[zimbos_05]

Apart from league winning the code war by a country mile, If Folau wins (which he should imo) in his lawsuit against RA we are broke.

This has more to do with Australias political landscape and shit heads like Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Rupert Murdoch, Tony Abbott, Pauline Hanson etc...

Guaranteed that had it been any other player from any other religion, they would have been slaughtered.

I do agree with the Raelene Castle thing. Unfortunately in this push for equality it ends up being that people not necessarily suited for the role get the role.

[brmtaylor.com admin]

I don't think you're right zimbos_05, if it had been a Muslim that had made disparaging remarks about homosexuals the media wouldn't have touched it with a 10 ft pole for fear of being seen as culturally insensitive.