Now that the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) has rejected the key recommendation of the Caricom Cricket Review Panel (CCRP) for an immediate dissolution of the board the stage is set in this New Year for the ultimate test of wills.
The WICB rejection of the major proposal of the Eudine Barriteau-led CCRP is without merit or justification and one now waits to see whether the Caricom Heads are determined enough to follow through on their plan to give West Indies cricket a fighting chance to begin recovering its past glories.
In rejecting the key elements of the Barriteau report, without which it would be business as usual, the WICB has argued that it has made substantial changes to the way that the players are managed and the game run. In addition to improvements within the boundary of the game and beyond, the WICB lists a number of arguments.
It argues that the dissolution of the Board is not a viable legal or practical option and presents a major financial risk which the panel did not address.
Further, the WICB said that the Barriteau recommendations indicate that the Panel is proposing an Executive Board with powers to micro manage West Indies Cricket. The board said this would be contrary to the present legal structure of the WICB and the significant governance advancements made since 2000.
In addition, the WICB, and in particular the presidents of the Territorial Boards (‘TBs’), voiced concern that they were not consulted or interviewed and that the Panel’s recommendations would lead either to the elimination of the TBs or a radical shift of their status and rights as shareholders of the WICB. The presidents also expressed disquiet that the Panel made no mention of:
- The efforts of many of the TBs;
- The failure or inability of several Caricom member governments to provide the necessary financial and other relevant aid for the development of local cricket in the respective territories;
- The report took little notice of the role the respective governments of Caricom should play to encourage and facilitate the development of cricket, on and off the field of play.
The WICB also took issue with the implication or suggestion of the panel that sole responsibility for development lies with the WICB.
Shamefully, the WICB attempted to defend its treatment of the Patterson and Wilkin reports on cricket, contending that many of their recommendations had been implemented. As it relates, in particular, to the 2007 Patterson report, this is absolutely not the case as pointed out previously by several others. The gravamen of the Patterson recommendations was ignored or implemented in such piecemeal fashion as to be unrecognisable.
The key recommendation follows: “The West Indies Cricket Board should be re-named `Cricket West Indies’, partly to give the Organisation a new image and also to indicate explicitly that it will no longer be business as usual.
-Cricket West Indies will consist of a Cricket West Indies -Council and a Cricket West Indies Board.
The Council will be the larger of the two bodies. It will consist of about 23 members drawn from a wide cross section of stakeholders. It would meet once a year to review the state of West Indies cricket based upon a report covering all aspects of the game and its management. It will assess the way forward and indicate to the executive management what steps need to be taken to achieve the strategic goals of the Organisation.
The Council will appoint the President, the Vice President and the Executive Directors other than those appointed by the Territorial Boards.
The Board will be assigned responsibility for the executive management of day-to-day affairs. Apart from the President and Vice President, it will consist of 13 other Directors
–6 nominated by the Territorial Boards;
–a Cricket Director appointed on the basis of nominations from the Territorial Boards, past players, WIPA, WCO and WSA;
–one Director representing CARICOM;
–one Director selected on the basis of nominations by WIPA;
–three chosen for their special expertise in operational areas;
– and the Chief Executive Officer.”
The WICB just does not get it. The time has come for it to step aside for the sake of cricket. It has lurched from one crisis to the next while the West Indies – once the unrivalled pride of the people of the region – has tumbled from the top to the bottom of the rankings in the type of cricket that really counts. The transgressions that can be levelled at the WICB continue to occur with alarming regularity.
They revolve around the lack of transparency at the level of the board, poor decision-making on teams, inadequate preparation of players, distrust between players and the board leading to ignominious acts like the abandonment of the Indian tour, ineffective handling of disciplinary matters on and off the field, the absence of a viable strategy to limit the impact of T20 on Test cricket and the intent to preserve positions at the WICB and territorial boards no matter the cost to the game. This has gone on for too long.
There can be no turning back now in the efforts to halt the rot and revive the fortunes of the West Indies. The Caricom heads must now proceed to transform the management framework for the game and hopefully those who are now on the WICB can play a positive role in this process.
Caricom must now approach the International Cricket Council (ICC) and seek guidance for the action it proposes to take. The Sri Lankan government has worked closely with the ICC in ensuring changes at the level of the Sri Lankan Cricket Board and in proposing reforms to its constitution. A similar path should be followed with the WICB.
The preface to the 2007 Patterson report set out simply what has been at issue these many years for West Indian fans.
“In proposing the best structure for effective Governance, we were obliged to examine `from stem to stern’, the vessel that should be designed to carry, and, to ascertain the navigation requirements during its voyage through changing global tides.
“The restoration of the fortunes of West Indies Cricket is our aim. Our report was not designed to incriminate or exonerate. But we would have forfeited the trust placed in us were we to recommend business as usual and thereby prescribe the certain demise of a game whose primacy we steadfastly support.”
