Intent fine, execution may be tough
The Woolf Committee seeks to give more teeth to the International Cricket Council, widely considered a toothless tiger, by diluting the powers of the full-member nations in the ICC Executive Board. HT reports.cricket Updated: Feb 04, 2012 01:07 IST
The only glitch is, the decision will be taken mainly by the full members, whose power the committee wants to curtail. In that backdrop, it's not difficult to see where most of the recommendations would end up.
The most radical recommendation, perhaps more important than even reducing the president to 'ambassadorial' head and replacing him with an independent chairman, is one regarding the complete overhauling of the ICC Executive Board. As opposed to the current set-up where each full member appoints one member to the Board and the affiliate and associate members jointly nominate three members, the Woolf committee recommends the appointment of independent directors with an obvious view to ridding the Board of biases towards home boards.
The directors, as per the recommendations, will have to relinquish any executive or leadership role they hold within their parent boards.
As much as the reports seems pro ICC, Justice Mukul Mudgal (retd), advisor to Lord Woolf in the committee, says it's nobody's case to completely curtail full member's power. “The BCCI, for instance, should continue to have a significant say, without being the decisive voice. The BCCI generates maximum revenue for the sport and it can't be seen as a disqualification,” he said.
While only time will tell what happens to the recommendations, there's a need to throw some more light on the proposals, especially regarding the appointment of the independent chairman, the election/selection of the presidents and formation of the nomination committee.
There's little clarity on the tenure and candidature of the chairman, along with grey areas in the selection process of the president and the composition of the nomination committee?
“These points indeed need some more clarity,” concurred Justice Mudgal?