Zimbabwe Cricket is VERY safe

Participate in discussion with your fellow Zimbabwe cricket fans!
User avatar
encore
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:55 pm
Supports: Mountaineers

Zimbabwe Cricket is VERY safe

Post by encore » Thu Aug 08, 2019 10:47 pm

In June 2017, the Full Members voted 9-1 for the following deal:

For the 8 year cycle from 2016-2023
BCCI US$293m
ECB US$143m
Zimbabwe Cricket US$94m
Other Full Members US$132m
Afghanistan US$40m
Ireland US$40m
Associate Members share total funding of US$280m

While there were efforts to introduce administrative and perfomance clauses to retain Full Member status, this was never ever going to fly, so that idea was crushed
ICC did agree to remove one significant proposal - the potential reclassification of Full Member status to Associate membership if a set of criteria was not met when a board was evaluated. Many Full Members including the Bangladesh Cricket Board, Zimbabwe Cricket and SLC were against it.
So what does this mean for ZC:

1. Rule of Law! As much as the other 11 Full Members were so looking forward to an additional US$8m (with IRE and AFG possibly getting US11m each instead), the law is THE LAW!!!

2. Just as the grossly stupid SRC and its allies, ICC would not have dared risk losing US$1 billion to ZC in a swift and easy court loss.

3. As things stand, there is no criteria by which ICC can expel ZC or downgrade ZC.

4. ICC are unable to just immediately expel a Full Member (or Associate) for government interference. They first suspend and afford time for them to resolve issues. So ZC has nothing to fear come October. The suspensions will unquestionably be "lifted" then, or sooner if somehow there is a meeting before then. So it's not exactly a case of "restoring ZC", but rather a matter of ICC "officially re-acknowledging ZC's officiality". Legally and effectively, ZC are no longer in a state of suspension.

5. This teaches the SRC a lot of lessons:
a) A mighty organisation like ICC understands the law which is is Constitution, and no matter how much the others may want ZC out, they would never be able to pull it off under any circumstances. SRC is supposed to know its Act, and act accordingly. From the Sports Minister Kirsty Coventry right down to SRC Chair Gerald Mlotshwa and his fellow Board Members and the Director General, plus former ZC Interim Board Chair Dave Ellman-Brown and the chosen Acting Managing Director Vince Hogg, none bothered to familiarise themselves with it. They were never going to be able to succeed to get rid of the ZC Board in a court of law yet persisted, risking great financial harm to not just the Sports Minstry, but the country's coffers.

b)It's not easy to create rules just to punish one sport or certain people. Under presser from Associates and then Affiliates ICC tried it with regards to ZC, but other Full Members joined against it for their own sakes. So much that ICC did not bother to include the proposal in the vote.In fact they couldn't! Likewise SRC should know that no matter how well-meaning any changes are, the motivation behind them must be sincere orit will fail! I personally believe in performance-based remuneration, and I thought the ICC was very generous in this: "To retain Full Member status, a Full Member needs to win at least one match against another Full Member in an ICC event. Every Full Member also needs to register at least four wins against a minimum of two other Full Members in bilateral series. Both these criteria need to be satisfied every eight years.". Yet it was still rejected, despite the high unlikelihood of ZIM/IRE/AFG/BD/WI/SL failing, in a period of 8 years to either win a CWC(or qualifiers as Zimbabwe did in the qualifiers they hosted recently?), or win a total of 4 Tests/ODIs/T20s against at least two of their fellow Full Members. SRC runs sports in Zimbabwe. Likewise any effort to create a ZC-rule or ZIFA-rule, no matter how seemingly fair, will fail.

c)To see SRC being thoroughly humbled by conceding - via the courts - to misapplying its own Act, is I hope a sign of better things to come. (I expect the Sports Minister to either dissolve her board over this, or be beaten by that stick in Parliament for the rest of her tenure or simply cowardly resign and leave someone else to dissolve it. I think we can all agree that the Sports Minster and her SRC will effectively be castrated in the proverbial sense were nothing to happen. A sitting duck Sports Minister and SRC basically means ZC will never be touched again, at least for the forseable future. And yes those are Mukuhlani-Makoni high fives you hear ... and the eternal clashing of Googly-jimmy heads under the sand.)


The forum has a lesson to learn as well. Background:
a) SRC Board had just recently been put together (and mass reservations of conflicts of interest were raised by many sporting bodies in Zimbabwe)
b)Anyway, any extreme decisions SRCtook had to be legal, based on irrefutable evidence, plus had to be rubberstamped by the courts. They disregarded this.
c)There are Executives, and non-Executives. The moment they targeted Givemore Makoni alone (despite the number of other Executives in eg Finance and HR), even though Makoni was in comparison Acting, it was clearly now personal, and they had ventured beyond politics to a Labour issue they were going to lose costly and embarassingly in court! This was very amateurish. Makoni was no threat from an SRC-level perspective and could have been easily suspended by the Interim Board afterwards, not the SRC.
d) It was extremely careless to attempt to suspend a ZC elective AGM (which is constitutional) without the permission of the ICC(which demands it of their Member). I don't believe the ICC would have had an issue with granting SRC a delay in ZC elections for say 14-21 days, having being asked to do so respectfully and with reasons that the new SRC Board intend to investigate or evaluate all Sports Bodies in the country - even if there is no prima facie evidence of anything yet. How such a basic move was not made will remain a mystery. Surely within a week you could have found some technicality which rendered some of them unfit to stand for elections. Alas, zero patience and tact.
e)SRC Act gives the Sports Minister enormous power, that it was impossible for any SRC decision to be separated from her government. Sadly, Kirsty Coventry as a legislator now, was unaware of this, and her party's(?) Chief Whip seemingly knew this. Looking back, she'll feel very silly listening to or reading about herself repeatedly say or tweet "There was no government interference".

I just had to :D ...ImageImage

The simple lesson for the forum is, what we all have in common(albeit for varying reasons), is an appreciation for Zimbabwe Cricket and its wellbeing. Our perspectives of what qualifies an ideal ZC will differ. Our approaches to attaining that ideal will differ as well. However, no matter our wishes, we cannot be selective about which laws to apply or not to apply to those we don't like.


Josiah Bancroft - “If the law is malleable, if it bends and conforms to man, then man will become resolute in his flaws. The law exists to give shape to man's ideals."

Steven Cromack - "If history is malleable, then the law is malleable, and that is a scary concept."
Voice of reason.

Bertus de Jong
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:09 pm

Re: Zimbabwe Cricket is VERY safe

Post by Bertus de Jong » Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:07 pm

You've got your numbers wrong here. That's the distribution agreed by in-principle vote in February 2017, not the final numbers from June. Current numbers are roughly:

BCCI US$405m
ECB US$139m
Zimbabwe US$94m
Other FMs US$128m
Afghanistan US$40m
Ireland US$40m
Associates US$160m

Also, the rejection of the provision to downgrade a full member to associate on performance grounds has no bearing on the ICC's ability to expel any member on administrative grounds. There's never been any provision for downgrading an Associate to Affiliate status either but that hasn't stopped the ICC from expelling Associates in the past.

Googly
Posts: 4697
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:48 pm

Re: Zimbabwe Cricket is VERY safe

Post by Googly » Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:21 pm

He gets a fair bit wrong, forum members should be used to it. Let’s see his take on the next bit of news

User avatar
encore
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:55 pm
Supports: Mountaineers

Re: Zimbabwe Cricket is VERY safe

Post by encore » Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:39 am

encore wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 10:47 pm
In June 2017, the Full Members voted 9-1 for the following deal:
Bertus de Jong wrote:
Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:07 pm
That's the distribution agreed by in-principle vote in February 2017

Zimbabwe US$94m
:? why do I bother...

Neither Feb nor June but April. Plus IRE & AFG later. ZC guaranteed figure is 94m.

Last time around, ZC was almost expelled, due to indebtedness. But the government committed to a parttion of the debt, and ICC will deduct instalments payments before disbursing ZC's nett grant.

So as things stand, there is nothing that can lead to Zimbabwe Cricket's expulsion. Not performance, not administrative.

The ONLY thing that threatens ZC is government interference.

If you have anything factual to argue or disprove what I said, please share. I'm pretty sure CSA (and indeed other boards urgently need to be appraised that info).

Haiti stands a better chance of being added to the permanent members of the UNSC than for any of the 10 original Full Members of ICC dropping off. All the more reason why Mlotshwa, Hogg and Ellman-Brown will probably be laughing stocks in ICC corridors for years to come. Then again, that was preceded by BT-KJ ENG-ZIM feast for "famine" trade. So...
Voice of reason.

User avatar
encore
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:55 pm
Supports: Mountaineers

Re: Zimbabwe Cricket is VERY safe

Post by encore » Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:28 am

Googly wrote:
Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:21 pm
He gets a fair bit wrong, forum members should be used to it. Let’s see his take on the next bit of news
I've gone through a few threads. Surprise surprise, those stats which were said to be "crazy" and ridiculed, are now widely accepted here.

There were silly talks of "a compromise board" and "a deal board" on the back of a "re-instate unconditionally" instruction. To be fair you are the last person I expected this jibe from Googly. I think I've gotten more right than wrong to be fair.

Liam and Tristan will eternally misread ZC because they are stale Williamson echoes. Facts on the ground have consistently been in opposition to wish-filled journalism which overrides professionally reporting events, with doomsaying.

We suffer from the same in SA. Firdose started off well then toed the line and it's been unfortunately handed over to Liam. Sadly readers reason according to the slant and tone of journalism used.

This kind of reporting towards SA, ZIM, WI (and Kenya if you remember), is not used elsewhere if you notice (eg IND, ENG, AUS, PAK etc). For example Cricinfo and other media treat Fletcher and Shastri the same in India. Same applies to Inzamam and Arthur in Pakistan despite their flaws. But a Mangongo or Chawaguta is shortchanged compared to a Waller or Marsh.

This was a big fail from DEB and VH. In other countries they would have been ripped apart on Cricinfo for their judgement on this matter. If Alistair Campbell was a Kiwi or ECB, his Pakistan tour stunts would've damaged his reputation beyond repair. Throw in his son as well.

Mukuhlani became a devil to you because of the media you consume, which is allergic to facts and balance.

He was the first ZC Chair to submit to ICC pressure to install their man. He brokered a deal with the Government to clear debt he did not cause. He also secured qualifiers ahead of other competition because of how he roped in the country's President, Vice President, Sports Minister and other officials to convince ICC Chair Manohar and his team. Mukuhlani did this - made mere qualifiers appear like a FIFA WC bid.

He agreed to break the bank to bring back KJ and BT at KW's retainer - upfront. He acceeded to mass retrenchments at ZC and salary cuts for the top earners not low earners. He also ensured domestic players are guaranteed salaries(late or not) throughout the year not just inseason.

He also allowed SRC all access. SRC are the ones who failed to release results of the last checks they did, not him. Most probably because they were positive.

In another country, Mukuhlani would be a hero that is lauded and respected. Instead the media and certain fans villify him.
Voice of reason.

Googly
Posts: 4697
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:48 pm

Re: Zimbabwe Cricket is VERY safe

Post by Googly » Sat Aug 10, 2019 3:33 pm

Encore you don’t honestly believe the stuff you write, do you? You make Jonathon Moyo look like a rank amateur as a spin doctor. Have you read the agreement that ZC have supposedly signed with the SRC?

Googly
Posts: 4697
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:48 pm

Re: Zimbabwe Cricket is VERY safe

Post by Googly » Sat Aug 10, 2019 3:36 pm

Do you defend CSA on other sites? Have you seen the looting going on there as well. ZC are junior dorm compared to those tsotsis.
Mukhu is and always has been up to his neck in this. Anyway it looks like he’s on a much shorter leash now, and there’s a possibility of Makoni being moved either out or sideways. I’m doubting out, there’s obviously going to be some serious haggling over the next few weeks, but this wasn’t the complete climb down by SRC that you waxed lyrical about. :lol:

Googly
Posts: 4697
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:48 pm

Re: Zimbabwe Cricket is VERY safe

Post by Googly » Sat Aug 10, 2019 3:47 pm

The media here are brown envelope guys, which media are you talking about? :lol:

Googly
Posts: 4697
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:48 pm

Re: Zimbabwe Cricket is VERY safe

Post by Googly » Sat Aug 10, 2019 3:50 pm

I suspect a few of those mass retrenchments were ghost workers as well :lol: and I’ll bet they got some decent packages :lol:
I think they’ve still got more staff than players :lol: a lot more need to go.

Googly
Posts: 4697
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:48 pm

Re: Zimbabwe Cricket is VERY safe

Post by Googly » Sat Aug 10, 2019 3:54 pm

The qualifiers were used to fleece a chunk of cash, especially from refurbishments. If you see what they did and how much it cost you have to question why it was not queried. Maybe the scale of it was so vast that they’re still shaking their heads in disbelief and haven’t gotten around to the actual audit? Maybe it’s on DEB’s and Hogg’s things to do list? :lol:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jemisi and 3 guests