|Posted on May 14, 2020 at 4:00 AM|
I’ve found that we don’t always agree but nevertheless from discussions agreement can be reached and plans formulated.
The same principle applies to business and cricket’s a business.
What I cannot accept though... is the changes made to the way the game is governed in Australia.
The wind of change began mid to late 1990’s at a time when Australian cricket had entered one of its highest performance eras of all time; we were the envy of the world in that sport and with so many up and coming players in reserve.
For the life of me… what was wrong with our tried and true governance structure?
In December 2011 “The Crawford/Carter Report” (CCR) was realised.
A blueprint the Game adopted in search of a better cricket governance system, whether we needed it or not.
Today, we are very nearly 10 years into this new governance structure… what do you think?
Personally, I think it’s safe to say that the implementation of this so called modernised “High Performance Board” to successfully oversee strategy and management of the game has been an absolute failure.
Can we say that the Cricket Australia Board has set the standard or has come close to demonstrating the “high collaboration level or the strong sense of common purpose” between the States?
What about the “Strategic Direction” we were promised?
I think those who were responsible for this change.., need of a good kick up the back side for the game had progressed as it had for a century under a system that was put in place by “Cricketers for Cricketers” its custodians.
For years I could not fathom the reasoning behind such change until recently when attending a Lord Taverners dinner last year; “Geoff Tamblyn” a former CA Board Member one of the men who pushed for change was attempting to justify the reasoning behind the decision.
Tambo’s explanation was that the current Board structure made it difficult to “oversee” the game; because “States” would unite to deny progressive thinking. But was this anything new I immediately thought… this is a situation no different than what goes on within the ICC.
I likened his explanation as to having given up; as if was all just too hard!
Again why change the structure… step aside and give others more capable a chance. Don’t blame the system for your failure otherwise the entire premise, for change is flawed.
Looking further into it all I’ve become down right unforgiving.
The CCR describes the rightful ownership of the game in terms of shareholdings and this is reflected as the game in Australia began to take shape. And let us face the facts here; Victorian, NSW and South Australian District Clubs were the founding members of Australian Cricket and developed the game. As it grew under their stewardship they rightfully maintained a rightful majority shareholding as they were joined by Queensland and Western Australia and finally Tasmania. The shareholding structure was Vic. N.S.W & SA Foundation District Club 3 votes each, QLD & WA 2 each & TAS 1.
However the ownership (held in Trust by the State Associations) have somehow been diluted to equal representation. How on earth did this happen?
The adopted Crawford/Carter Report recommends a Board consisting of a minimum 9 including the CEO; and that each State accept 2 votes each and if they wish to remove a Board; it would require a 2/3 majority.
But there has been no consideration for the foundation members… on what basis we’re these changes made and what was offered to the foundation District Clubs who held a greater and rightly deserved interest in the game. Such neglect to this issue is surely unconscionable unless they were offered significant reward?
So again I ask, what was presented to the foundation members for them to agree to a redistribution of the their wealth in the game?
I have asked the questions to many and have never been given an explanation