Howard's position may be in doubt

[whats_at_stake]

Two articles recently specifying that RSA, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka will oppose the John Howard nomination.

Not sure, on the one hand I understand Sri Lanka's stance that it should be a cricket person (IMO the NZ person should have gotten it) but at the same time he has been nominated by the backing of Aus and NZ.

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/460964.html

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/461094.html

[alfy!]

Very interesting, and suggests that there is a bit of heat at the moment in world cricket politics.

[Bomber Bears]

Dont particularly want Howard representing our cricketing area so good from that sense.

On the other hand Zimbabwe can get ****ed. Puppet cricket organisation from a tyrannical government who treat its citizens like dirt. Australia and NZ were 100% correct not to tour there and whilst Mugabe is in charge they shouldnt have a place in test cricket.

[Ill Chicken]

How have they even got a say is the question.

Zimbabwe, South Africa and Sri Lanka are seriously kidding themselves with this stance.

[Doodlesweaver]

How have they even got a say is the question.

Zimbabwe, South Africa and Sri Lanka are seriously kidding themselves with this stance.

Regardless of the dodginess of Zimbabwe's political leaders, SA back them in more than just cricket, so it isn't a surprise that they are willing to come out in support.

Also Zimbabwe form part of the India voting bloc on the ICC. So they have some genuine pull in the politics of cricket.

The protests may seem like flying a kite but it is a serious slap in the face for CA.

I thought NZ weren't that comfortable with Howard but were going along with it to be supportive of CA.

He was bound to be a divisive choice.

[whats_at_stake]

Yesterday's Age said something about India probably not supporting Howard (an article by Roebuck) however today's said India will be supporting Howard and Sahrad Pawar has said this (although his views may not be the BCCI's- doubtful to be different).

[JimDocker]

I am generally a person that leans to the left from a political point of view, so Howard is not my cup of tea.

But frankly, if other countries do not vote for him because he said bad things about a tyrannical, murderous dictator, there is a problem !

[BarneyBent]

I am generally a person that leans to the left from a political point of view, so Howard is not my cup of tea.

But frankly, if other countries do not vote for him because he said bad things about a tyrannical, murderous dictator, there is a problem !

My view too. Hated him as PM mainly for his social attitudes, but I can't see anything wrong with him being ICC President. One thing he always did, for which I have a grudging respect, was stick to his guns, and you can bet he won't let India walk all over him.

The way these countries have reacted is beyond poor.

[frankrizzo]

Yeah im certainly no howard fan but going on some of the nutjobs they have had running the ICC in the last 10-15 years he's a saint.

[dan warna]

Australia's fault for nominating Howard.

There are plenty of great administrators in cricket and sport in general who would have leapt at the job, been strong and not been as divisive.

If you nominate a tosser that doesn't even have the general support of the cricket community or the australian community, how can you expect the world to accept him?

I'm sure he'll get in eventually but be a jerk there as well.


you propose a jerk and you get this response.

[Adrian Shelton]

...And finally the 'split' in world cricket will come

[Ill Chicken]

Australia's fault for nominating Howard.

There are plenty of great administrators in cricket and sport in general who would have leapt at the job, been strong and not been as divisive.

If you nominate a tosser that doesn't even have the general support of the cricket community or the australian community, how can you expect the world to accept him?

I'm sure he'll get in eventually but be a jerk there as well.


you propose a jerk and you get this response.

What are you, Tom Cruise?

[SonOfReep]

What are you, Tom Cruise?

I agree the ******ry is strong in that one

[Slattery_20]

Zimbabwe opposing you should be seen as a mark you're doing something right, not the other way around.

[holybishop]

Other countries are shitting themselves because they know that an ICC under Howard wont be pushovers to the sub continent like it always has been.

[whats_at_stake]

Other countries are shitting themselves because they know that an ICC under Howard wont be pushovers to the sub continent like it always has been.

Well India is supporting him according to recent articles.

[holybishop]

Well India is supporting him according to recent articles.

They're not really supporting him, they're just not going to oppose his appointment. There's enough tension between the two countries without throwing this spanner into the works.

[damochandler]

he should never have got the job in the first place. the kiwi bloke was the best candidate. they only gave him the job because he loves the game so much. he will be like all the other presidents. when push comes to shove with india. he will fold. he has a history of alowing to be pushed around by other countries

[SonOfReep]

he should never have got the job in the first place. the kiwi bloke was the best candidate. they only gave him the job because he loves the game so much. he will be like all the other presidents. when push comes to shove with india. he will fold. he has a history of alowing to be pushed around by other countries

Name eight.

[damochandler]

Name eight.


i will name 2. america and england

[Ill Chicken]

That is a load of crap. He maintained Australia's interest, which is to keep a strong relationship with the USA. What role has the UK played in Australian domestic policy in the last 10 years? None.

[SonOfReep]

i will name 2. america and england

England?!

Disgrace, England hasn't even had a government since 1707.

Poor show Johnny

[The Reaper]

i will name 2. america and england

This isn't the correct board for this but no Australian Prime Minister would have done any differently.

Howard had many faults but he was not a pushover.

I also fail to see why the New Zealand candidate is clearly better?
Selecting someone with a cricket background makes sense, for a coaching position. As President of the ICC, the experience and respect from the Prime Ministership of Australia for a decade makes Howard ideally suited.
Sri Lanka's real concern is Howard's previous comments about Murali.

[Indian_Hotdog]

What subcontinental pushing and shoving are you on about ? India's hold over the ICC is nowhere near the despotical monopoly that Eng and Aus had over it up untill the early 90s. :rolleyes:

[SonOfReep]

What subcontinental pushing and shoving are you on about ? India's hold over the ICC is nowhere near the despotical monopoly that Eng and Aus had over it up untill the early 90s. :rolleyes:

Turn it up Sachin.

[Ill Chicken]

What subcontinental pushing and shoving are you on about ? India's hold over the ICC is nowhere near the despotical monopoly that Eng and Aus had over it up untill the early 90s. :rolleyes:

So give me an example?

[Indian_Hotdog]

So give me an example?

It is common knowledge this.Don't need to justify myself.

The veto power Aus and Eng had on all ICC issues upto 92 or 93 is just one example.

[Ill Chicken]

It is common knowledge this.Don't need to justify myself.

The veto power Aus and Eng had on all ICC issues upto 92 or 93 is just one example.

So give me an example.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Can't you read? It's common knowledge!!!1!

;)

[whats_at_stake]

Can't you read? It's common knowledge!!!1!

;)

I have heard this used to be the case- remember hearing a few commentators on this and read a very good article in either The Age or on Cricinfo (sorry did try but simply cannot recall the title and my searching skills could not find anything :thumbsd:).

[Kram81]

What subcontinental pushing and shoving are you on about ? India's hold over the ICC is nowhere near the despotical monopoly that Eng and Aus had over it up untill the early 90s. :rolleyes:

Yeah ok Sunil.

[skipper kelly]

It looks like Howard missed out.

[Ill Chicken]

Australia should cancel their tour of India.

[eddiesmith]

Sounds good, lets have a breakaway group of Australia, England and the Kiwis

[Belnakor]

Australia should cancel their tour of India.

if positions were reversed i have absolutely no doubt India would cancel their tour.

[damochandler]

i am not surprised. the kiwi bloke was the right bloke from the beginning in my eyes. india, sri lanka and pakistan went with zimbabwe so they can get zimbabwes vote when they want something to happen or put in place at the icc

[eddiesmith]

Zimbabwe have changed their stance and were not part of the 6 countries to block it

Was South Africa, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, West Indies and Pakistan

[alfy!]

i am not surprised. the kiwi bloke was the right bloke from the beginning in my eyes.
what would anyone know about the inner workings of the election for icc president

[dan warna]

ROFL burnt Johnny :D :thumbsu:

[alfy!]

did you read the bit that i quoted of you

[damochandler]

did you read the bit that i quoted of you


i thought you were eluding to what i said about the three sub continant teams coluding to oust howard. i

[jozeph]

Did I hear right, find a different nomination, is what we were told?
And I wonder if Niel Gillespie ended up writing to all these people? (http://http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/aboriginal-campaigner-gillespie-condemns-howard-icc-nomination-20100304-plui.html)
THE father of Australia's first self-identified Aboriginal cricketer has slammed the appointment of John Howard as vice-president of the International Cricket Council, believing he was a racist and accusing his government of ''appalling treatment'' of Aboriginal people.

Neil Gillespie, father of former Test fast bowler Jason and the chief executive officer of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, is calling on the ICC to reconsider its decision, and has written to the boards of every Test-playing nation to condemn Howard's appointment.

''I am amazed that anyone would nominate Mr Howard in view of his continuing discrimination publicly exhibited against Aboriginal people by denying access to justice to our mob,'' Gillespie said.

Gillespie writes that Howard's ''history of discrimination against Aboriginal people is an international disgrace''.

''His approach to refugees was nothing short of disgraceful.''


When I read the article it seems a justified decision.

[YOTC]

Yawn, nothing new.

''history of discrimination against Aboriginal people is an international disgrace''.

jesus christ :rolleyes:

[dr nick]

yes... he should have left those kiddy fiddling parents in remote aboriginal communities alone because their tradition of raping young children dates back 40,000 years.

he should have also apologised to the aborigines because we should all take responsibility for the Myall Creek Massacre, because we are white and white people did it. Thank God Kevin Rudd did at least.. now there is a fine upstanding Prime Minister and foreign diplomat if ever i've seen one.
:rolleyes:

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Good post dr nick

[Doodlesweaver]

It's a bit of an own goal for CA.

[DIG]

Here's an interesting read from Malcom Speed on all this, someone who for all his shortfalls at least knows about the inner workings of the ICC and so is in a position to comment.

Howard would have sustained ICC MALCOLM SPEED
July 1, 2010

THE decision of the International Cricket Council to reject John Howard's nomination for the ICC presidency is a disgrace and an insult to Australia and New Zealand.

Rest assured, he was not rejected because of his lack of experience as a cricket administrator, his strong opposition to Robert Mugabe's disastrous regime in Zimbabwe or his outspoken views about Muthiah Muralidaran's controversial bowling action. There is more to it than that.

Howard did not seek this role. Cricket Australia approached him and asked him to agree to his name being put forward as the joint nominee from Australia and New Zealand. He was genuinely interested in doing it.

Cricket is his passion and he thought he could bring new attributes, wisdom and experience to the position and to the game. He would have had two years as vice-president to learn the ropes before he became president. He was prepared to work full-time in the role.

The rejection is a symptom of the wider malaise in world cricket and its dysfunctional governing body. The present system of rotating the ICC presidency is the fourth method to have been introduced and failed since 1995.

Under previous rotation systems, Australia and New Zealand have accepted nominations when they clearly had strong reservations about the candidates. They expected the same respect for their choice, instead they and Howard were insulted.

Howard has been rejected because his strong leadership would have thwarted the ambitions of several administrators to downgrade and devalue the ICC's role. The ICC board is as political as any political party. The countries that voted him down want a compliant figurehead.

The man who is to be the next ICC president, Sharad Pawar, is India's Minister for Agriculture - a serious full-time job feeding 1.2 billion people.

He is a good and fair man but he will be working part-time as ICC president and, take it from me, he knows very little about cricket administration.

So where to now? Cricket Australia and NZ Cricket should refuse to put forward another nominee. Under the rotation system, it is then the turn of Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The Pakistan Cricket Board chairman is a nominee of the country's president. The incumbent is a buffoon and cricket in Pakistan is a basket case.

Similarly, the president of the Bangladesh Cricket Board is a nominee of the prime minister. Two of the presidents during my time with the ICC ended up in jail when there was a change of government. The last BCB president I encountered was an army general who did not know the name of the Bangladesh captain.

When these two countries come forward with their joint nominee, Australia and New Zealand should not vote. In the meantime, they should make their displeasure widely known.

Let me make a prediction. The ICC head office moved from London to Dubai in 2005. Howard's rejection is a clear sign that the ICC will be based in Mumbai by 2012.

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/howard-would-have-sustained-icc-20100630-zmsz.html

Nice response Dr Nick to that baffling post too!

[jozeph]

Which part of my post was baffling, I did a search found a recent article from the perspective of Aboriginal leadership in this country and posted it, I don't have a short memory when it comes to Howard seems most on here have.
CA entered into a political process when nominating Johnnie and got rolled, now they're complaining and saying they've been insulted, talk about born to rule.
And what is the saying he who has the gold makes the rules, India's got the gold, get used to it.

[Collingwould]

and now it's time for....

iGqTayhu5QM

[Freo Big Fella]

“The man who’s about to take over as president of the International Cricket Council, is a minister in the Indian government with very little background in cricket. If Australia and New Zealand say well that’s fine, we’ve put up our candidate and you’ve rejected him, then next in rotation is Pakistan and Bangladesh. The presidents of the cricket boards of both of those countries are appointed by the government, so we see a farcical situation here.”

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/howard-got-done-again-but-this-its-not-cricket/

Laughable hypocrisy from the Subcontinent Bloc as per usual.

[Belnakor]

Zimbabwe have changed their stance and were not part of the 6 countries to block it


they aren't fooling anyone. Typical of their own unique brand of politics.

[skipper kelly]

Sounds good, lets have a breakaway group of Australia, England and the Kiwis

Wouldnt be bad actually.

Ashes every 2 years as per usual. Tests against New Zealand every year. Huge emphasis on domestic competitions with the opportunity to see Test players playing most of the shield games. Increase sheild games to 5 days. Big Bang and 50 over comps.

[Indian_Hotdog]

lol at the typical highhanded responses on here.

Learn the no.1 rule in dirty politics - what goes around comes around.

[apollo_creed]

Gee - listen to some of the sooks.

Six countries denied it. Not just India. :rolleyes:

And from what I can gather - another candidate can be nominated.

Waah waah.

[Indian_Hotdog]

Howard has been rejected because his strong leadership would have thwarted the ambitions of several administrators to downgrade and devalue the ICC's role.The countries that voted him down want a compliant figurehead.


Speed - the disgruntled ex-employee who was fired.You can count on him for an unbiased opinion :rolleyes:

Howard couldn't have lifted his finger without the approval of the executive board comprising the ten nations so strong leadership or not , he would be nothing but a ceremonial pawn at the top.

[Ill Chicken]

Speed - the disgruntled ex-employee who was fired.You can count on him for an unbiased opinion :rolleyes:

Howard couldn't have lifted his finger without the approval of the executive board comprising the ten nations so strong leadership or not , he would be nothing but a ceremonial pawn at the top.

Never any bias from you is there.

[Ill Chicken]

lol at the typical highhanded responses on here.

Learn the no.1 rule in dirty politics - what goes around comes around.

Corrupt politics is what you were actually looking for. Karma is complete bullshit.

[DIG]

Wouldnt be bad actually.

Ashes every 2 years as per usual. Tests against New Zealand every year. Huge emphasis on domestic competitions with the opportunity to see Test players playing most of the shield games. Increase sheild games to 5 days. Big Bang and 50 over comps.
Actually sounds great to me.

[eddiesmith]

Wouldnt be bad actually.

Ashes every 2 years as per usual. Tests against New Zealand every year. Huge emphasis on domestic competitions with the opportunity to see Test players playing most of the shield games. Increase sheild games to 5 days. Big Bang and 50 over comps.
Would be great, screw these meaningless 7 game ODI series every year because India want money which turn into tests when they get good at them

Would make earning a baggy green even greater as the less tests, less wearout and injuries so less lucky selections

I do laugh at some claiming its not just India, most of us know that if India approved of it then Howard would have been approved 10-0

[Selective Retention]

Actually sounds great to me.

The only downside would be not being able to see South Africa build their hopes up before we go on to crush them time and time again.

We never play Sri Lanka, Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. Haven't been to Pakistan since Tubby was captain (?). The Windies are shit and the Indians, let's not even go there.

Where do we sign?

[ManWithNoName]

Yawn, nothing new.

''history of discrimination against Aboriginal people is an international disgrace''.

jesus christ :rolleyes:
Wait wait wait. Everyone stop.

Amongst others, South Africa voted down our candiate because of this?

SOUTH AFRICA!?

[Copernicus]

Wait wait wait. Everyone stop.

Amongst others, South Africa voted down our candiate because of this?

SOUTH AFRICA!?

They're the very souls of tolerance now, or didn't you know?

[sherb]

Gee - listen to some of the sooks.

Six countries denied it. Not just India. :rolleyes:

And from what I can gather - another candidate can be nominated.

Waah waah.
Yeah, it's not like they acted as a bloc at all is it? :rolleyes:

And it's not that much of a stretch to suspect that if India voted for Howard that the rest of them would have followed suit.

Six countries indeed......:D

[King Elvis]

Wtf is with the Saffers voting against us?

[Selective Retention]

Money.

India are more forthcoming than we are. They always have a sook about us refusing to play against them on boxing day in South Africa.

[jozeph]

Australia wants to be careful over this, or else we'll be back to our domestic comp, and thats all.

[Ill Chicken]

Ha, so now it's we have to be careful. Yeah right.

[Checkers_Nixon]

Australia wants to be careful over this, or else we'll be back to our domestic comp, and thats all.

Whats the solution? We just bend over and take it from the ICC?

The Indians are destroying the game with their antics and sadly there does not appear to be a long term solution.

[Phone]

Who really gives a **** about the ICC anyway?

Nevertheless, the president of the ICC should at least have a background in cricket administration in my opinion, John Howard doesn't and Sir John Anderson does. So good on the countries that rejected him. I don't care why they rejected him, but the right decision has been made.

[ManWithNoName]

Surely everyone here can be in agreeance that anything India don't want simply must be good for cricket as a whole?

[Ill Chicken]

Who really gives a **** about the ICC anyway?

Nevertheless, the president of the ICC should at least have a background in cricket administration in my opinion, John Howard doesn't and Sir John Anderson does. So good on the countries that rejected him. I don't care why they rejected him, but the right decision has been made.

It's flawed argument. He has a two year interim period where he is VP. Cricket administration is administration. Pawar came from a non-cricketing back ground, what is the difference?

Surely everyone here can be in agreeance that anything India don't want simply must be good for cricket as a whole?

Hardly. Ask NZ whether side lining Bond and Tuffey for three years did them any good? How bout some of Pakistan's players, along with Australian veterans who weren't allowed to take on coaching positions back here.

[Phone]

Sharad Pawar was head of the Mumbai Cricket Association and then the BCCI before becoming VP of the ICC...?



Worth noting, btw, that I think India only blocked Howard because Sri Lanka wanted to.

[Cousin Jed]

A man who was Prime Minister of a country for a decade is more than suitably qualified for a role in administering cricket

[Ill Chicken]

Sharad Pawar was head of the Mumbai Cricket Association and then the BCCI before becoming VP of the ICC...?

He had no cricket administration back ground prior to 2001. Pawar is also taking on the role part-time because he already has his position in Indian politics to attend to first.

[jozeph]

Whats the solution? We just bend over and take it from the ICC?

The Indians are destroying the game with their antics and sadly there does not appear to be a long term solution.

Destroying the game?, what with the 20/20 revolution that has engulfed India?

A country of 800 million plus living on our doorstep with similar sporting interests as ours, much wealthier than we can ever dream to be as a country and we want to tell them what to do, its no different than what Kerry Packer did but its on a world scale.

Where are all our cricketers going to play 20/20? India.

[King Elvis]

Australia wants to be careful over this, or else we'll be back to our domestic comp, and thats all.

Yea... Nah.

**** them.

Australia, England, NZ and the Saffers if they stop being pricks; could break away and sustain it.

[Phone]

A man who was Prime Minister of a country for a decade is more than suitably qualified for a role in administering cricket

A mute and illiterate child is qualified enough to head the ICC in all honestly; it doesn't really matter who is the head and what his/her experience is because he/her doesn't really do much. But I would still like someone with a history in cricket administration. I know it's hypocritical of me but...

He had no cricket administration back ground prior to 2001. Pawar is also taking on the role part-time because he already has his position in Indian politics to attend to first.

Yes, when he became head of the Mumbai Cricket Association he was "from from a non-cricketing back ground", but by the time he got appointed ICC VP and president he was well and truly involved with cricket.

But I don't like Pawar as president either, with that shadow of corruption hanging over him....


Really the ICC president should just be some old, respected cricket administration who is about to retire from work.

[skipper kelly]

Yea... Nah.

**** them.

Australia, England, NZ and the Saffers if they stop being pricks; could break away and sustain it.


this

[apollo_creed]

Yep - shame on the Asian countries for voting against someone with wait for it.... a shitty history with Asians. :rolleyes:
(and that's a fact - goes right back to his early days)
Or should they just blindly accept any candidate put forth?

The racist bigoted liar has been denied. And his followers are seemingly heartbroken. Get over it. And take your childish (oohhh lets have a breakaway competition because 6 countries didn't want Howard) dreams elsewhere. It is such a stupid idea with absolutely no chance of happening.
And from here it's borne from a couple of immature people unable to accept democratic defeat. So they've picked up their toys and thrown them out the pram! Childish behaviour.

Maybe he go and fabricate some more children overboard?
How could we trust him with such a history of dishonesty? (or do we conveniently ignore that because he isn't Indian?)

And you have to love the assumptions that just because 6 countries voted against Howard it was all down to India. :rolleyes:
That is nothing more than childish speculation and reading the regular bouts of crap on here it's borne from an irrational hatred.
Each country has the right to vote as they so choose - unless you people suddenly have something against democractic processes? (or is it only when it doesn't work in your favour?)

He was denied. Move on. And stop with the tantrums.

[Buddy]

So glad he isn't going to be President. The NZ bloke will end up doing a far better job.

[eddiesmith]

Well India is the only country with enough power to have 2 countries change their minds at the last minute

[Ill Chicken]

Yep - shame on the Asian countries for voting against someone with wait for it.... a shitty history with Asians. :rolleyes:
(and that's a fact - goes right back to his early days)
Or should they just blindly accept any candidate put forth?

The racist bigoted liar has been denied. And his followers are seemingly heartbroken. Get over it. And take your childish (oohhh lets have a breakaway competition because 6 countries didn't want Howard) dreams elsewhere. It is such a stupid idea with absolutely no chance of happening.
And from here it's borne from a couple of immature people unable to accept democratic defeat. So they've picked up their toys and thrown them out the pram! Childish behaviour.

Maybe he go and fabricate some more children overboard?
How could we trust him with such a history of dishonesty? (or do we conveniently ignore that because he isn't Indian?)

And you have to love the assumptions that just because 6 countries voted against Howard it was all down to India. :rolleyes:
That is nothing more than childish speculation and reading the regular bouts of crap on here it's borne from an irrational hatred.
Each country has the right to vote as they so choose - unless you people suddenly have something against democractic processes? (or is it only when it doesn't work in your favour?)

He was denied. Move on. And stop with the tantrums.

I don't think I've read anything more childish, tantrum like and immature as that spiel of crap.

[SonOfReep]

I don't think I've read anything more childish, tantrum like and immature as that spiel of crap.

Strongly agree

[apollo_creed]

And I see in the news my suspicions are correct he has been labelled a 'closet racist' and there is evidence around which supports that theory.

They are well within their rights to reject it on those grounds. It is an obviously suitable reason for Asian nations to contest/reject his appointment.

You people are sooking over India - and while in other cases it's justified - in this case it's simply not. It's a democratic process and they object to his appointment on those grounds.

If the NZ bloke gets in good on him it will only prove Howard was rejected for the simple but obvious reasons stated above.

No one likes a racist. And sadly you people are letting either your own political beliefs/support and/or your bigotry dictate your opinion on this matter when there's absolutely no cause for outrage. I would go further but I won't and hope I'm wrong but for ****s sake - there's absolutely nothing to see here.

From what I'm reading the NZ guy will get in?

I'm quite mixed politically - and have no preference between Labor and Liberal (but sadly from reading the SRP board, I know how blindly ideological some of the respondents in this thread are :rolleyes:) but there's nothing I detest more than racial intolerance and bigotry.

And for this reason - I'm particularly glad that someone with a history of this has been denied a position because of it.

[apollo_creed]

I don't think I've read anything more childish, tantrum like and immature as that spiel of crap.
On what basis? You can't argue the points so you attack the man.

I have no doubt this is nothing more than a political fanboy issue on here. Unrelenting Liberal voters and former Howard megafans are upset because he wasn't approved.
Denial doesn't change fact.

The hatred towards India for rejecting an appointment on the basis of racism is quite ridiculous.
An issue which remains strongly prevalent in our society and seemingly underpins irrational crap on here.

He has a poor history with Asian people/opposing cultures and it cost him this position.
That is the reason. End of story.

[SonOfReep]

And I see in the news my suspicions are correct he has been labelled a 'closet racist' and there is evidence around which supports that theory.

They are well within their rights to reject it on those grounds. It is an obviously suitable reason for Asian nations to contest/reject his appointment.

You people are sooking over India - and while in other cases it's justified - in this case it's simply not. It's a democratic process and they object to his appointment on those grounds.

If the NZ bloke gets in good on him it will only prove Howard was rejected for the simple but obvious reasons stated above.

No one likes a racist. And sadly you people are letting either your own political beliefs/support and/or your bigotry dictate your opinion on this matter when there's absolutely no cause for outrage. I would go further but I won't and hope I'm wrong but for ****s sake - there's absolutely nothing to see here.

From what I'm reading the NZ guy will get in?

I'm quite mixed politically - and have no preference between Labor and Liberal (but sadly from reading the SRP board, I know how blindly ideological some of the respondents in this thread are :rolleyes:) but there's nothing I detest more than racial intolerance and bigotry.

And for this reason - I'm particularly glad that someone with a history of this has been denied a position because of it.

To paraphrase Johnson, the call of "racism" is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Recess is over for you AC

[apollo_creed]

Strongly agree
I've read your stuff on the SRP board and such over time mate - and your opinions could only be described as far, far right.

So your defense of Howard is quite meaningless.

[apollo_creed]

To paraphrase Johnson, the call of "racism" is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Recess is over for you AC
Is it?

Explain the children overboard stuff then mate?

What would you call that?

A cultural misunderstanding? Unforunate? Regrettable? Lemony snickets a series of unfortunate events?

[SonOfReep]

Is it?

Explain the children overboard stuff then mate?

What would you call that?

A cultural misunderstanding? Unforunate? Regrettable? Lemony snickets a series of unfortunate events?

And that was based on race was it? That it was OK to fib because they had a touch of the tar brush about them?

Turn it up.

And your comment about me being "far, far right" - what are you trying to say?

[apollo_creed]

That your ideologies are shaping your opinions on cricket administration.

When it's simply a matter of accepting the reasons behind 6 countries rejecting an appointment by means of a democratic system.

[eddiesmith]

Ah yes, he is a racist, that is the only reason they all rejected him! Of course nothing to do with the fact he might do a good job as ICC president which is what India is most afraid of

But it is funny how no one will come out and say why they voted him down, obviously dont think the racist angle is good enough and they will never admit the real reason of being afraid so they will all remain in silence

[DeadlyAkkuret]

I would have thought being a racist would be the only qualification necessary

[Phone]

Of course nothing to do with the fact he might do a good job as ICC president which is what India is most afraid of


Much more likely he'll be like every ICC president before him.




He won't really do much at all. He can't do anything without the support of the cricket boards.

[Ill Chicken]

On what basis? You can't argue the points so you attack the man.

I have no doubt this is nothing more than a political fanboy issue on here. Unrelenting Liberal voters and former Howard megafans are upset because he wasn't approved.
Denial doesn't change fact.

The hatred towards India for rejecting an appointment on the basis of racism is quite ridiculous.
An issue which remains strongly prevalent in our society and seemingly underpins irrational crap on here.

He has a poor history with Asian people/opposing cultures and it cost him this position.
That is the reason. End of story.

No I am not attacking you, I am saying what you have written, in both instances now, is childish, immature and tantrum like. Just like you have generalised in a swipe at the Howard supporters in this role.

You want to equate the decisions of ICC President to a PM accepting illegal immigrants at numbers that will adversely affect the current population, in a position that is constantly challenged by all parties and platforms in society.

India have not given a formal explanation for the rejection of Howard and the rejections that have been cited so far are completely absurd considering the same instances have already and continue to occur in all cricketing bodies around the world.

For these boards to use the race card (which they haven't), which you are using, is honestly laughable.

[Freo Big Fella]

I would have thought being a racist would be the only qualification necessary

Certainly worked for Sunil Gavaskar.

[ManWithNoName]

And I see in the news my suspicions are correct he has been labelled a 'closet racist' and there is evidence around which supports that theory.

They are well within their rights to reject it on those grounds. It is an obviously suitable reason for Asian nations to contest/reject his appointment.

Yes. India and South Africa are the ones to point the finger and call others racist.

For crying out loud get a clue.

[sherb]

That your ideologies are shaping your opinions on cricket administration.

What's shaping your opinion on cricket administration then?

When it's simply a matter of accepting the reasons behind 6 countries rejecting an appointment by means of a democratic system.
Six countries, lol.

More like 1 country, with 5 playing follow the leader. :D

[Kim Hagdorn]

And I see in the news my suspicions are correct he has been labelled a 'closet racist' and there is evidence around which supports that theory.

They are well within their rights to reject it on those grounds. It is an obviously suitable reason for Asian nations to contest/reject his appointment.

You people are sooking over India - and while in other cases it's justified - in this case it's simply not. It's a democratic process and they object to his appointment on those grounds.

If the NZ bloke gets in good on him it will only prove Howard was rejected for the simple but obvious reasons stated above.

No one likes a racist. And sadly you people are letting either your own political beliefs/support and/or your bigotry dictate your opinion on this matter when there's absolutely no cause for outrage. I would go further but I won't and hope I'm wrong but for ****s sake - there's absolutely nothing to see here.

From what I'm reading the NZ guy will get in?

I'm quite mixed politically - and have no preference between Labor and Liberal (but sadly from reading the SRP board, I know how blindly ideological some of the respondents in this thread are :rolleyes:) but there's nothing I detest more than racial intolerance and bigotry.

And for this reason - I'm particularly glad that someone with a history of this has been denied a position because of it.

Serious question, do you have complete shit for brains or is this some kind of a piss take?

This is probably the most idiotic and irrational drivel I've ever read in my life.

I've heard Tom Cruise or even Joaquin Phoenix on the meds speak more sense than this.

[apollo_creed]

No I am not attacking you, I am saying what you have written, in both instances now, is childish, immature and tantrum like. Just like you have generalised in a swipe at the Howard supporters in this role.

You want to equate the decisions of ICC President to a PM accepting illegal immigrants at numbers that will adversely affect the current population, in a position that is constantly challenged by all parties and platforms in society.

India have not given a formal explanation for the rejection of Howard and the rejections that have been cited so far are completely absurd considering the same instances have already and continue to occur in all cricketing bodies around the world.

For these boards to use the race card (which they haven't), which you are using, is honestly laughable.
Your second sentence sums it all up.

You've completely ignored the exposed lies of the boat people scandal by making the issue about immigration when it that instance it's a completely distant/secondary issue.

So you've exposed your hand by avoiding the issue mate. And definitely outed yourself as a racist.

That issue is about demonising a group of people to befit your agenda with a known lie accusing them of the most disgraceful of acts to paint them as awfully as possible and score cheap political points/justification with the public (which obviously worked on you and even after the admission hasn't ceased to) and not where one stands on the issue of immigration.

Unbelievable mate. And I do know where you stand now so well done.

[apollo_creed]

Certainly worked for Sunil Gavaskar.
And you'd obviously support his appointment. :D

Otherwise you'd be a hypocrite.