Woolf Report

Interesting findings from the Woolf report

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/551836.html

I cant say im surprised by it, but doubt the recomendations wil be introduced

Seems the ICC is very much an in-house 'members club', doesn't it. Disgusting that their duty of care for the game almost comes secondary.

Unfortunately it is a trait rife within many governing bodies - FIFA, anyone?

yep IOC was the same...because these bodies are not rly accountable to any1 or the general public thy can do what they want. I think the only way there can be a complete clean-up is that there is a scandal such as what happened at FIFA.

For me this makes interesting reading -
"The distribution model should be revised so that amounts distributed to Members are on a needs basis as opposed to an automatic entitlement," the report said. "The current distribution model acts a barrier to the admission of new Full Members. For instance, if an eleventh Full Member were admitted, this would reduce each existing Full Member's share of the distributions from 7.5% to 6.8%.
May i play devil's advocate and say this is the real reason, no new full members are introduced?

Excuse me whilst I celebrate a little at the publication of an extensive, complete, fair and accurate review.



Many of the points (genuine pathway to full membership, allowing a...ny two willing sides to compete in a test match, global tournaments open to all and no exemption from qualification for the full members, fairer voting system on the ICC board, and of course that the ICC has a responsibility to make decisions in the interest of the game at large and not just that of the chosen few) which I have made at length on various places (including this boards and of course by my own submission) have been hammered home in it.

Of course, I await the ICC's response which I'm sure will put a damper on the mood, but for now:

have one from me, too, mate. It is excellent news for the time being.

no surprise the BCCI rejected the ideas put forth by the Woolf Report....but wot else was to be expected

Oh I know, didn't expect anything less from those cretins.

No surprises there, so the battle must go on. Pressure will be being put to full members countries from both parties as we speak. However if the ICC does reject its own commissioned report's findings there are surely questions to be asked?

Already, I reckon if any team trying to qualify for the T20 WC took them to CAS they'd win. Any move to sweep the whole report under the carpet may just bounce the more powerful associates into action. The ICC knows this, so expect at least a few of the recommendations to be acted on in order to placate Ireland and others.

Fascinating times ahead.

The all-important ICC executive board meeting is happening today.

This report from cricinfo suggest that Bangladesh will also back India. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/561272.html
I am not so sure, they will need more support than just India for their vice-president.

Given their financial status I am fairly sure Sri Lanka will back India also. Australia and Pakistan will both back a lot of the review (all?); no idea about South Africa, England (although I'm not optimistic for them) and New-Zealand (who my gut feeling is will back the report). West Indies could end up holding much of the power, which would be unusual for them.

Reminder: 7 out of 10 full members need to back any changes...

I suspect the board will again be inconclusive. Probably accept the demands in principle but not take action for years.

I suspect they will implement a few of the changes (they've already more or less agreed to those on the president's role for example) which won't give them less power, and try to buy off Ireland with a couple of others. Hopefully the associate world will stay strong. I just wonder if we are genuinely prepared to take this to CAS if the ICC does whitewash it completely.

I've had it on good authority that Ireland stand a very real chance of being admitted to Test cricket as early as next year. It may not happen, but it is a possibility. Now that'd be a huge surprise.

Results are in:

T20 WCs will be open to 16 teams in the future (good).
Funding will be reviewed and awarded on a "needs" basis rather than the equal funding according to status system which exists now - potentially good unless the ICC decide all the test-playing nations need a bigger slice of the pie (which of course they can do as they hold all the cards).

As I said the role of the president will be implemented.

The other findings apparently need further consideration to reach a consensus. To me this is actually encouraging, it suggests there was a genuine split in how the test nations wanted to enact the proposals and India didn't manage to bully enough people to just squash them. No doubt there will be pressure put on smaller nations between now and the next meeting in june...

Fists: first I've heard of that rumour, well well well.

Mike Selig wrote:Results are in:

T20 WCs will be open to 16 teams in the future (good).
Funding will be reviewed and awarded on a "needs" basis rather than the equal funding according to status system which exists now - potentially good unless the ICC decide all the test-playing nations need a bigger slice of the pie (which of course they can do as they hold all the cards).

As I said the role of the president will be implemented.

The other findings apparently need further consideration to reach a consensus. To me this is actually encouraging, it suggests there was a genuine split in how the test nations wanted to enact the proposals and India didn't manage to bully enough people to just squash them. No doubt there will be pressure put on smaller nations between now and the next meeting in june...

Fists: first I've heard of that rumour, well well well.

What you have missed is that the World Cup will be reduced to 10 teams again for 2019... poor decision - a World Cup needs more than a handful of teams

Shelsey93 wrote:
What you have missed is that the World Cup will be reduced to 10 teams again for 2019... poor decision - a World Cup needs more than a handful of teams

That was already going to be the case, as was announced at the time of changing their minds for 2015. Nothing new there, just more fighting required.

Fists:
Its admisssion to be able to play 10/15 Odis against full members and thus become part of the ODI section of the Future Tour's Program effectively. I think it might happen. However I think it should not just be restricted to Ireland n the top assocs shud play some of the test nations more, rather than the current once a yr stuff. Unfortunately Fists under the current structure of the ICC there will not ever be another test nation unless something drastic happens. I am a bit of a cynic of the system & unfortunately the top dog's (test nations) do not want to give up their current share of the revenues.

It is rumoured Ireland are to play Bangledesh this summer as well as d ODI against Australia. Also South Africa A are meant to tour as well

atletico86 wrote:Fists:
Its admisssion to be able to play 10/15 Odis against full members and thus become part of the ODI section of the Future Tour's Program effectively. I think it might happen. However I think it should not just be restricted to Ireland n the top assocs shud play some of the test nations more, rather than the current once a yr stuff. Unfortunately Fists under the current structure of the ICC there will not ever be another test nation unless something drastic happens. I am a bit of a cynic of the system & unfortunately the top dog's (test nations) do not want to give up their current share of the revenues.

It is rumoured Ireland are to play Bangledesh this summer as well as d ODI against Australia. Also South Africa A are meant to tour as well

I would love to see Ireland play Test cricket... but not until they get their planned FC setup up-and-running. More ODIs are good from Ireland's point-of-view but the issue is that the calendar is already jam packed - what is needed is a series against Bang or Zim, something which they aren't too keen on as they think it could undermine their 'superior' status

the problem is shelsey that the full members of the ICC do not want to share the money they currently recieve. Thus full member status wil remain a closed shop until something drastic happens within the association or the 10 full members see a massive potential market bein opened by a country becoming a full member. This latter point is why the ICC always bang-on about stepping up their efforts in developing the game in china & the USA. The promotion of countries to full member status has little to do with sporting ability, and the 10 team ODI world cup that was mooted last year perfectly illustrates the ICC's attitude to the associate game.

For me ireland should be allowed to play full members more reguarly as they have somewhat hit a glass ceiling. They have won 30 of their last 33 ODI & T20 matches against other assocs, and 3 of the last 4 intercontinental cup's. Thus they have been a dominant force in the 2nd teir of international cricket for a sustained period and should be allowed challenge above this level. This summer the West Indies, South africa & Australia travel to England; is it too much to ask them to play a total of 2ODIs each against Ireland? It would constitute the addition of 3/4 days to their current tour schedule. I think there is space.

Lastly for me a country should be allowed to play every form of the game. In no other sport is there such a segregation between 1 tier of teams being permitted to play one form of the game while others cannot.

atletico86 wrote:the problem is shelsey that the full members of the ICC do not want to share the money they currently recieve. Thus full member status wil remain a closed shop until something drastic happens within the association or the 10 full members see a massive potential market bein opened by a country becoming a full member. This latter point is why the ICC always bang-on about stepping up their efforts in developing the game in china & the USA. The promotion of countries to full member status has little to do with sporting ability, and the 10 team ODI world cup that was mooted last year perfectly illustrates the ICC's attitude to the associate game.

For me ireland should be allowed to play full members more reguarly as they have somewhat hit a glass ceiling. They have won 30 of their last 33 ODI & T20 matches against other assocs, and 3 of the last 4 intercontinental cup's. Thus they have been a dominant force in the 2nd teir of international cricket for a sustained period and should be allowed challenge above this level. This summer the West Indies, South africa & Australia travel to England; is it too much to ask them to play a total of 2ODIs each against Ireland? It would constitute the addition of 3/4 days to their current tour schedule. I think there is space.

Lastly for me a country should be allowed to play every form of the game. In no other sport is there such a segregation between 1 tier of teams being permitted to play one form of the game while others cannot.

I don't know whether you read it at the time but it is worth posting my article on this subject again, which I wrote a couple of months back - http://v2journal.com/the-glass-ceiling.html

I agree largely with what you say, and certainly believe that full-member status needs to be extended. I disagree with your last point - I think Test cricket has a special place as the very highest level of the game and needs to be kept to a limited number of nations (at least until other nations have the required structures in place). The main issues is governance - Peter Chingoka, a Mugabe ally banned from England and Australia, gets a seat on the ICC Executive Board when Ireland don't.