The London International Court of Arbitration (LICA) has made its ruling.
Sir Allen Stanford and Denis O’Brien, the Digicel boss, have settled on an agreement that left the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) little alternative but to rubber-stamp, for the second time, the 20/20 for US$20 million match between the Stanford Superstars and England in Antigua two weeks hence.
So, tropical depressions, upper level troughs and category one hurricanes willing, all is set for the six-match Stanford Super Series, of which the US$20 million showdown is the highlight, to get going on Saturday when the Superstars take on Trinidad & Tobago, one of the designated “warm-ups”, in an all Caribbean clash.
Yet there are still rumblings in the background and the after shocks from the legal wrangle that put the whole expensive exercise in doubt are set to persist for some time. Another full blown tremor, with several resulting casualties, is not out of the question.
Far from being daunted by the arbitration in favour of Digicel’s claim that its “exclusive rights as principal sponsors of West Indies cricket” were breached by the WICB’s original sanction of the Stanford match, chief executive Donald Peters disclosed during the week that the WICB would “have to review its relationship with Digicel and look at the content of the MOU (memorandum of understanding)” with the Irish mobile phone company.
In its statement on the court’s decision, the WICB explained, somewhat confusingly, that the arbitrator found that the WICB was in breach of Clause 3.2.3 (a) of its agreement with Digicel because the Stanford Superstars “may reasonably be perceived as representing the West Indies but not on the grounds of the composition of the team as mentioned in the media.”
According to Peters, the WICB remains adamant that the Stanford Superstars was not the West Indies team since it had a different manager and coaches and was chosen by different selectors. Indeed, he said, it is anxious to determine the basis of the arbitrator’s decision.
He added, almost as an after-thought, that the WICB would continue to work with Digicel to try to “ensure that the home series (next season against England) and the away series (in Dcember and January in New Zealand) are in order.”
Given the acrimony between the two over the Stanford match, hardly diminished by Digicel’s use of the WICB’s sacked corporate secretary to give evidence on its behalf in London, such an expectation appears overly optimistic.
It does not need a magnifying glass to read between the lines that the WICB would rather end its links with Digicel with whom it has a US$25 million, five-year agreement recently extended to 2012. It would not be surprising to find that the feeling is mutual.
The association has been filled with controversy from the time the WICB chose Digicel to replace Cable & Wireless as its principal sponsor. They were, and are, fierce and direct competitors so it simply lit a stick of dynamite.
The blast reverberated throughout the Caribbean to the extent that the WICB was obliged to create a commission, headed by Justice Anthony Lucky, to review the negotiations that led to the switch.
When it reported that Digicel’s contract was “legally flawed” and that C&W had been unfairly treated, the WICB rejected both criticisms.
It was, it proclaimed at the time, “confident that the agreement with Digicel is in the best interests of West Indies cricket”. It clearly does not believe so now.
The original contract was extended 15 months ago from 2010 to 2012 with, according to the WICB’s then chief executive Bruce Aanansen “some fairly significant amendments.” Yet the directors were reportedly so divided on the issue that it required the president’s casting vote to approve it.
Even if the agreement runs its full course to 2012, the turmoil that has surrounded it, up to the latest fiasco, would not have filled future prospective sponsors with confidence.
Stanford’s comment in an interview in yesterday’s London Times makes a telling point.
Referring to the chaos over the 20/20 for 20 million match, for which he is paying the WICB US$3.5 million, he said he was “very disappointed to go through all that legal crap – but I do not blame Digicel.”
The WICB was the only other party in the dispute.
Sachin Tendulkar had a heap of questions to answer in Mohali on Friday evening.
To one of the first, from Ravi Shastri on television at the end of the day when he passed Brian Lara as Test cricket’s leading run-scorer, he pointed out that it had been 19 years in coming.
It was not so much intended to indicate that the record was just a matter of time, which it was, but more to convey that his satisfaction at maintaining his love for the game, his commitment, his fitness and health for so long, even with the immense pressure of expectation among a billion avid worshippers who have regarded him from the start as a cricketing god.
These are attributes Tendulkar shares with Lara and those who preceded them. They are required for those who seek to emulate them for, as vital as it is, talent alone will not get them there.
History is strewn with examples of those similarly gifted, perhaps even more so, who have not managed to stay the course. None is more striking than Vinod Kambli, a left-hander whose precocious talent was every bit as evident as a schoolmate of Tendulkar with whom he once shared a partnership of 664 as 15-year-olds.
Kambli resumed his association with Tendulkar in the Test team, aged 21. In his first seven Tests, he reeled off scores of 224, 227, 125 and 120 before the lack of discipline required for success at any level led to his demise. Ring a bell with any recent West Indians?
His career ended after 17 Tests. As he watched his friend’s record on Friday he might have wondered just what could have been.
There have always been comparisons between Tendulkar and Lara, even more so now. It is a pointless exercise.
They are two entirely different players, two entirely different personalities. It is their god-given ability to master the art of batting, their passion for the game, their longevity and, of course, their phenomenal numbers, that set them and all record holders apart from lesser mortals.
Let’s just be thankful that their careers have coincided to provide us with so much pleasure.
