zimcricketforums.com

Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:22 pm

If I understand it correctly, CEO is not an elected position in any company or organization. For the CEO to be appointed, doesn't seem inappropriate. I believe the Chairman is an elected office, but the current chair has already served in that position before the Taliban takeover. Also the cricinfo article seems to suggest he was "replaced" after Afghanistan's last place finish at the 2019 World Cup. So he wasn't removed democratically, but ZCF didn't seem to have a problem with that.

There's a world of difference between the ZC - who waste, misuse, and embezzle ICC funds - and the ACB which at least puts the money to better use. Purely from a business standpoint - capitalism! - the ACB is several fold more valuable to the ICC than ZC.

Well, the point is the ICC haven't been consistent. ZC doesn't even want to make noise about it.

There is a difference though. It was pretty much ZC itself going to ICC and insisting that there was government interference and begging them to suspend us. So...

CrimsonAvenger wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:07 pm

Well, the point is the ICC haven't been consistent. ZC doesn't even want to make noise about it.

There is a difference though. It was pretty much ZC itself going to ICC and insisting that there was government interference and begging them to suspend us. So...

Well I didn't know that, but now that you've mentioned it, it does seem to be a different case altogether.

Afghanistan should not be suspended simply because its good for cricket. Cricket as a sport is already in a very precarious situation due to the pandemic, preponderance of T20 leagues, financial reliance on 2-3 major powers, political squabbling, and most importantly only a handful of serious countries taking up the sport (at most 10-12 teams).

Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:24 pm

CrimsonAvenger wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:07 pm

Well, the point is the ICC haven't been consistent. ZC doesn't even want to make noise about it.

There is a difference though. It was pretty much ZC itself going to ICC and insisting that there was government interference and begging them to suspend us. So...

Well I didn't know that, but now that you've mentioned it, it does seem to be a different case altogether.

Afghanistan should not be suspended simply because its good for cricket. Cricket as a sport is already in a very precarious situation due to the pandemic, preponderance of T20 leagues, financial reliance on 2-3 major powers, political squabbling, and most importantly only a handful of serious countries taking up the sport (at most 10-12 teams).

Yeah, in regards to cricket only, Afg should remain. I dont really understand what the difference between Zimbabwe and Afghanistan are though

Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:24 pm

CrimsonAvenger wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:07 pm

Well, the point is the ICC haven't been consistent. ZC doesn't even want to make noise about it.

There is a difference though. It was pretty much ZC itself going to ICC and insisting that there was government interference and begging them to suspend us. So...

Well I didn't know that, but now that you've mentioned it, it does seem to be a different case altogether.

Afghanistan should not be suspended simply because its good for cricket. Cricket as a sport is already in a very precarious situation due to the pandemic, preponderance of T20 leagues, financial reliance on 2-3 major powers, political squabbling, and most importantly only a handful of serious countries taking up the sport (at most 10-12 teams).

You’re right that there is a difference with the ZC case, in that it was the board and Mukuhlani themselves who flagged it to the ICC.

The USA and Nepal however (and numerous much tinier associates over the years) didn’t do that but have been suspended for less serious things than this.

I mean a group of Taliban (therefore, government) folk with AK’s storming into the office and demanding the CEO is replaced with their pick is pretty rad. You can be technical about a ceo being ‘appointed’ but I don’t think even the ICC can defend that.

I’m very confident they will be suspended in the interim. And then whenever that it settled and ‘investigated’ , they’ll find themselves as leading associates without test status again going forward.

Conveniently - and annoyingly - though it will probably all happen after the World Cup

secretzimbo wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 23, 2021 6:40 am

Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:24 pm

CrimsonAvenger wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:07 pm

Well, the point is the ICC haven't been consistent. ZC doesn't even want to make noise about it.

There is a difference though. It was pretty much ZC itself going to ICC and insisting that there was government interference and begging them to suspend us. So...

Well I didn't know that, but now that you've mentioned it, it does seem to be a different case altogether.

Afghanistan should not be suspended simply because its good for cricket. Cricket as a sport is already in a very precarious situation due to the pandemic, preponderance of T20 leagues, financial reliance on 2-3 major powers, political squabbling, and most importantly only a handful of serious countries taking up the sport (at most 10-12 teams).

You’re right that there is a difference with the ZC case, in that it was the board and Mukuhlani themselves who flagged it to the ICC.

The USA and Nepal however (and numerous much tinier associates over the years) didn’t do that but have been suspended for less serious things than this.

I mean a group of Taliban (therefore, government) folk with AK’s storming into the office and demanding the CEO is replaced with their pick is pretty rad. You can be technical about a ceo being ‘appointed’ but I don’t think even the ICC can defend that.

I’m very confident they will be suspended in the interim. And then whenever that it settled and ‘investigated’ , they’ll find themselves as leading associates without test status again going forward.

Conveniently - and annoyingly - though it will probably all happen after the World Cup

How does the ICC benefit from delaying this?

CrimsonAvenger wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:07 pm

Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:22 pm

If I understand it correctly, CEO is not an elected position in any company or organization. For the CEO to be appointed, doesn't seem inappropriate. I believe the Chairman is an elected office, but the current chair has already served in that position before the Taliban takeover. Also the cricinfo article seems to suggest he was "replaced" after Afghanistan's last place finish at the 2019 World Cup. So he wasn't removed democratically, but ZCF didn't seem to have a problem with that.

There's a world of difference between the ZC - who waste, misuse, and embezzle ICC funds - and the ACB which at least puts the money to better use. Purely from a business standpoint - capitalism! - the ACB is several fold more valuable to the ICC than ZC.

Well, the point is the ICC haven't been consistent. ZC doesn't even want to make noise about it.

There is a difference though. It was pretty much ZC itself going to ICC and insisting that there was government interference and begging them to suspend us. So...

Thsi is where we need a globally recognised cricket media outlet to put pressure on corruption like this.
Someone like a Piers Morgan or Tucker Carlson to do a segment on it in front of a worldwide cricketing audience to expose the BS

It’s strange that there is no cricket tv shows that I know of. Nothing like ‘The Footy Show’ in Australia that has an NRL and AFL equivalent or NRL360 or the millions of NFL shows where you can discuss the controversies in the game.

ZIMDOGGY wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 23, 2021 7:08 am

Thsi is where we need a globally recognised cricket media outlet to put pressure on corruption like this.
Someone like a Piers Morgan or Tucker Carlson to do a segment on it in front of a worldwide cricketing audience to expose the BS

It’s strange that there is no cricket tv shows that I know of. Nothing like ‘The Footy Show’ in Australia that has an NRL and AFL equivalent or NRL360 or the millions of NFL shows where you can discuss the controversies in the game.

If you're looking for a pundit who is actually not dishonest, who's already touched on the issue, Hasan Minhaj is the best option.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5DWJv1hiwM

slcricfan1 wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 23, 2021 7:00 am

How does the ICC benefit from delaying this?

I reckon it would cost the ICC a lot of money to alter the format and structure of the WC at such a late stage. Afghanistan are actually in the main draw. I am fairly certain that any changes made to the lineups will have adverse affects on sponsorships and broadcast deals which were long sold. The ICC would probably stand to lose a lot of money.

secretzimbo wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 23, 2021 6:40 am

You’re right that there is a difference with the ZC case, in that it was the board and Mukuhlani themselves who flagged it to the ICC.

The USA and Nepal however (and numerous much tinier associates over the years) didn’t do that but have been suspended for less serious things than this.

I mean a group of Taliban (therefore, government) folk with AK’s storming into the office and demanding the CEO is replaced with their pick is pretty rad. You can be technical about a ceo being ‘appointed’ but I don’t think even the ICC can defend that.

I’m very confident they will be suspended in the interim. And then whenever that it settled and ‘investigated’ , they’ll find themselves as leading associates without test status again going forward.

Conveniently - and annoyingly - though it will probably all happen after the World Cup

Its not technical. A CEO is never elected, he's hired throughout whatever process that particular organization uses. The Chairman or Board President is an elected office, and in this case this particular chairman was removed by the board in 2019, and has merely been re-instated, albeit by a different regime.

None of the white countries will play Afghanistan, they might even forfeit their games at the WC, which would really be embarassing for the ICC. But I suspect all the non-white countries will have no issue playing against Afghanistan. The players aren't members of the Taliban afterall.

AFG under 19s just beat Bangladesh in a youth Test in BD. Not an easy feat. Would be a shame to strip them of status merely over politics.

Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 2:22 am

AFG under 19s just beat Bangladesh in a youth Test in BD. Not an easy feat. Would be a shame to strip them of status merely over politics.

They should never have got status in the first place if we are going by the official ICC criteria and rulebook.

Let'a hope they lose it soon.

I always knew handing Afghanistan test status was going to come back to bite them. Asking for trouble.
You would probably find posts from years ago saying it.

I’d steer clear of anything Afghanistan related in any discipline.