The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has rejected almost all the key recommendations made by the ICC’s Pakistan Task Team (PTT) aimed at introducing good governance in the PCB.
The PTT, headed by England and Wales Cricket Board chairman Giles Clarke, had presented 63 recommendations to the ICC in the last meetings held in Hong Kong in June. Later, the ICC also made those recommendations public, though the PCB was not happy with that decision.
It seems that in a tit-for-tat reply, the PCB also made public its response to those recommendations, rejecting almost all key recommendations — mainly relating to the PCB chairman’s powers — including removal of his veto power in the selection matters, his appointment by the patron-in-chief, any role of chairman PCB in appointing captain of the national team, separate working of the two important posts of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and chief auditor.
“The PCB has sent its observations to PTT/ICC on Pakistan Task Team Report, presented in the last ICC board meeting held in Hong Kong. The observations pointed out a number of factual errors in the report,” the PCB announced through a press release issued on Wednesday comprising a detailed reply to all those recommendations.
The way the PCB has responded to the ICC/PTT recommendations is a clear reflection of the strained relations between the two cricketing bodies.
The ICC-PCB relationship began to get sour when the ICC ousted Pakistan as the co-hosts of the World Cup 2011 in the wake of the terrorist attack on the Sri Lankan team in Lahore in March 2009.
Things went from bad to worse between the two organisations after the eruption of the infamous spot-fixing scandal on the last tour of England which resulted in the suspension of three Pakistan players from international cricket including captain Salman Butt and fast bowlers Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Aamir.
“The entire report has been prepared without PTT ever visiting Pakistan (except for a brief chat for a few hours that David Richardson had with a few ex-players during his visit to Karachi in January 2011 or perhaps some input to PTT from Ramiz Raja (one of the members of the PTT). This raises serious questions on the observations given in the report,” the PCB press release added.
About the recommendation on the authority of the president of Pakistan in appointing the chairman PCB and members of the Governing Board, the PCB stated, “The circumstances in Pakistan are unique and cricket administration requires and deserves government support without which international cricket may not be able to return to Pakistan.
“Keeping in view the extraordinary security situation in the country, having the president as patron of the PCB adds tremendous value and comfort. This system is in place since the PCB became full-member of the ICC. It should be appreciated that a system which has propelled Pakistan to the top of the cricket world has been in place for approximately 60 years and cannot certainly be labelled as ‘faulty’,” said the press release.
About the iconic series between Pakistan and India, the PCB believes the PTT adopted a weak stance. Whereas the Indian government issued favourable statements regarding resumption of cricketing ties between the two countries, the BCCI is still awaiting formal signal from its government in this regard.
“We feel that perhaps PTT/ICC should have taken a lead role in ensuring that all bilateral tour commitments are honoured by India vis-à-vis Pakistan. We do not have anything to suggest on record that PTT/ICC made any efforts to engage with the BCCI or the government of India in this regard.”
The PCB is also not satisfied with the role of two former cricketers — Mike Brearley and Greg Chappell — in the PTT and responded by stating: “While we appreciate that Mike Brearley and Greg Chappell were made ambassadors to support Pakistan cricket, we are yet to observe any endeavours from their side. With their standing in international cricket, they could have gone a long way in supporting cricket in Pakistan. We still welcome them to come to Pakistan and expect that they will now play a proactive role in supporting return of international cricket to Pakistan.”
The PCB, in its reply, has also pointed out that a number of recommendations made by the PTT are either incorrect, superfluous or redundant.
“For instance the number of contracted players mentioned in PTT’s report (45) is incorrect and the observation of PTT that PCB does not have a ‘Public Comment Policy’ is also incorrect,” said PCB release.
Regarding the objection over the PCB chairman’s veto power in selection matters, the PCB clarified : “The selection committee is independent and the procedure of their appointment, their domain, functions and duties are documented, quite contrary to what the PTT report asserts.
“Regrettably, the PTT did not meet the chairman of selection committee to get his views. The process of selection is such that the selectors finalise a team which is sent to the chairman PCB for his formal approval. In case there are any queries with regard to any player, the same is sent back to the selection committee for their comments and it is entirely up to the selectors to finalise the squad. They in fact sign the final squad before submitting the same to chairman PCB for his formal approval,” the PCB stated.
“We, therefore, feel that the recommendations of the PTT that chairman PCB has the right of veto are not based on facts. The process of selection is a time-tested one and has worked for Pakistan. It ensures that there are proper checks and balances in selection matters. The view that there is interference in the selection matters is, therefore, factually incorrect, devoid of reality and henceforth rejected.”
Over the objection on the status of the selection committee members, the PCB stated: “All members on the selection committee are either former international or first-class cricketers. The chairman of selectors is also a reputable international cricketer. The PCB, therefore, does not agree with PTT’s recommendations that there should be a clear process for nomination of selectors and criteria when, in fact, the above is a process already in place.”
About separate roles for the CFO and auditor, the PCB clarified that the position of Internal Auditor and CFO were already separate.
Responding to the demand of Internal Auditor being responsible to the audit committee, which should be independent, the PCB responded that “it is interesting to note that even ICC’s own audit committee chairman is not independent.”
“The PCB hopes that now when the weaknesses in the report have been identified, the required amendments will be made in the report to reflect the true facts and reality”.
news covered by dawn sports
No comments:
Post a Comment