Brave new world, same old stitch-up

As John Etheridge, cricket correspondent of The Sun, wrote on our comments board last year: “the ECB don’t leak”.

Which is why absolutely no one knew that Giles Clarke would be unseated as ECB chairman (but given a new job) and replaced by Colin Graves, the current deputy chair.

No one at all, apart from the hundreds of thousands of people who read about it last November, when the Daily Telegraph’s Nick Hoult broke the story.

Either Hoult is a clairvoyant, or the ECB’s culture of gossip, subterfuge and ill-motivated briefing continue unabated.

As you’ve probably read, the key changes were officially confirmed by the ECB yesterday.

The England & Wales Cricket Board (ECB) today completed a comprehensive structure and strategy meeting with representatives from First Class Counties and the MCC.

There was an extremely constructive discussion and unanimous agreement for various constitutional changes including the creation of the new role of ECB President. These proposed changes will be put to the 41 Members of ECB in writing later in January.

Should the Members approve the proposed changes, it was the recommendation of the meeting that the ECB Nominations Committee should put forward Giles Clarke as the first President of the ECB.

Mr Clarke thanked the meeting for their support and noted that he would complete his term of office as Chairman at the ECB AGM in May. Mr Colin Graves stated that he intended to stand for the vacated position of Chairman and received formal nominations to that effect. Nominations for the role of ECB chairman will close at the end of January.

All of which begs an obscene number of questions.

The proposals will be put to the ECB Members for ratification. There are forty one such members, and they comprise the chairs of the first class counties, the board chairs of the non-first class counties, and the chairs of both the Minor Counties Cricket Association) and MCC.

But who exactly has made the call to put this plan forward for rubber-stamping? The press release refers only, and obliquely, to the ECB – which as a nebulous corporate entity can’t unilaterally decide to change itself.

Do they actually mean the ECB Board, which is the primary decision-making tier of ECB governance but is not the same thing as the ECB itself.

The ECB Board has fourteen members, including, er, Giles Clarke and Colin Graves themselves, as well as three county representatives, representatives of the MCC, women’s cricket, and recreational cricket, plus assorted ECB executives and independent members. You can see the full list here.

Why I am prattling on about ECB structure? What I’m getting at is this: the deal is a grubby stitch-up, an impression firmly reinforced by the vagueness of the ECB’s press release.

They’ve not told us who’s made these very important decisions – or how that decision-making fits into the ECB’s system of governance.

We do know the deal is a result of a meeting between the ECB and “representatives from first class counties and MCC”. How many counties? Were they all represented? Did any dissent? If so, were they excluded from the conversation?

While we’re about it, what were the MCC doing there? What the hell’s it got to do with them?

This sounds like a private meeting – not an AGM, EGM, or anything defined by the ECB’s constitution as an official forum for decision-making.

As Monty Python’s peasant said of King Arthur and the Lady of the Lake, “strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government”. By the same token, an unknown number of unidentified county bosses brokering a deal with unknown members of the ECB top brass is no way to run English cricket.

As ever with the ECB, the entire process is furtive and untransparent, secluded from the prying eyes of the public. These people believe they own cricket, and they see no reason to tell us what’s going on.

The ECB’s statement refers to a “structure and strategy meeting” without telling us what the strategy is or what the structure will be. We’re informed that “various constitutional changes” have been agreed, but not what they are, beyond the creation of a new role, ECB President.

What is the rationale for having an ECB President? Why is it a good idea? They haven’t deigned to explain this to us.

But much we can surmise. This is a nasty, sordid deal which prioritises vanity and political expedience above the good of English cricket, and augurs ill for Colin Graves’s chairmanship.

It’s a back-room carve-up, specifically designed to serve the personal interests of Clarke, Graves, the counties, and no one else.

The agreement reminds us – as if we needed it – that given the choice, English cricket’s grandees will always plump for the cesspool of shady private arrangements above the detox of honest meritocracy and open competition.

I’m alright, Jack. Scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours. Handshakes and trebles all round.

It also underlines, starkly, the feudal nature of English cricket. Power is wielded in the manner of a medieval king and his magnates haggling over territory – the dividing out of a personal fiefdom. “Give me Kent and Northumberland, and I’ll keep quiet”.

What’s happened is this. Giles Clarke wished to stand for a further term as chairman, but a majority of the counties let it be known they wouldn’t support him (and not before time). Most people in Clarke’s position would then have done one of two things: taken their chances and stood for election anyway, or realised the game was up, and retire. But his monstrous arrogance and ego would not permit a dignified exit.

Clarke wants to become president of the ICC, a goal which would have been thwarted had he either lost an election or exited the stage into obscurity. So he proposed a bargain to the counties. “Create for me a new job, ECB President, in which I represent English cricket internationally and strut around the world, gladhanding – and in return I’ll let Graves have a free run at ECB chair”.

To their shame, the county chairmen agreed. Clarke’s grave crimes against English cricket deserve only ignominy, and the sack. Instead he’s been rewarded with the ermine robes of ennoblement.

Why do we even need an ECB President in the first place? What was wrong with the chairman doing the international work? How will the two roles now be defined and made distinct from each other? Who calls the shots, and how much power will Clarke retain?

The counties accepted the deal because they preferred a bloodless coup to an election scrap which made a mess on the carpet. They were wrong. English cricket urgently needs the cleansing process which only public soul-searching can bring.

The county chairs probably thought a contest would re-open wounds and damage the game’s reputation. It’s the other way around. By striking this dodgy deal they’ve squandered a unique opportunity for a frank discussion about the ECB’s conduct – and distanced themselves even further from the public.

It reflects badly on Colin Graves, the incoming chairman, that he bought into this plan. Did he lack the guts or conviction to take on Clarke at the ballot box? It’s been suggested that avoiding an election means Graves doesn’t have to make inconvenient promises to the counties. It also means, though, he won’t set out his vision, nor a manifesto by which he can be held to account.

It’s true that other people could still come forward to stand for ECB chairman. But any candidate must be proposed and seconded by the counties – and then, to be successful, elected by them. Judging by the press release, can you see that happening?

Giles Clarke is the man who sold English cricket to Sky, snuggled up to Allen Stanford, and devised the Big Three. He’s overseen the extortionate match-hosting bid system which has driven ticket prices through the roof. He’s presided over the Pietersen affair and a period of declining participation and attendance. Outside cricket. Right sort of family. Now he’s been forced out as chairman, and this should be a time of rejoicing. However, any joy is deeply tarnished, not only by the sleazy means of Clarke’s departure but the fact that he isn’t really going – he’ll still be there, wielding power, pulling strings, and representing our nation abroad.

As for Colin Graves, I’ve said before it’s best to keep an open mind. Remember, though, that Graves has been ECB deputy chair since March 2013. In the two years since, he has put his name and support to everything Clarke and the board have done. We have yet seen nothing to indicate he will forge a new approach to running the English game. There is so much he and Tom Harrison need to do, which we will look at in a future post.

One other line in the ECB’s statement commands attention.

Attendees were delighted to welcome the new ECB Chief Executive, Tom Harrison, who was in attendance and who has been charged with the responsibility to develop a strategy for the future of the game. This will be presented to the Board in late 2015, following a wide consultation process across the game.

Late 2015? Either Harrison will do it very slowly or very thoroughly. Most of us could tell him a dozen things which need sorting off the top of our heads, without spending a year shilly-shallying. It will be interesting to see who he consults during this process. Who does he regard as the ‘stakeholders’? Will he speak to supporters? The answer to that question will tell us everything.

Maxie Allen