Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

Top Contributors
OhMyGodTheChips

OhMyGodTheChips

Member
Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

What a joke, just upset because he told it like it is back when he was PM, didnt realise that being part of the ICC required you to be so perfect...

Although not sure what he did to upset South Africa?
 
Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

Not a fan of Howard the Prime Minister, I personally think he's an absolute arsehole, but he'd make a good ICC president. Poor form to block him.
 
Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

I can understand why a country like South Africa wouldn't want a race-baiting bigot with a bag full of dog-whistles to be in charge of the ICC.

Some examples of John Howard 'telling it like it is':

On immgrants (specifically, non-white immigrants)
I don't think it is wrong, racist, immoral or anything, for a country to say 'we will decide what the cultural identity and the cultural destiny of this country will be and nobody else.
Click to expand...
To me, multiculturalism suggests that we can’t make up our minds who we are or what we believe in
Click to expand...
We decide who comes into this country, and the circumstances in which they come.
Click to expand...

On Indigenous Australians:
(The concept of an Aboriginal treaty) is repugnant to the ideals of One Australia
Click to expand...

On apologising for the Stolen Generation:
No.
Click to expand...

John Howard on cognitive dissonance
I thank all of those who weren't born in this country for coming here and making a contribution to Australia. We are the least discriminatory country in the world, in my view.
Click to expand...
We won't just automatically click our heels and follow the Americans.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

I wonder if he's still got his bag of dog-whistles from his race-baiting days in parliament
 
Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

a for effort;400775 said:
I wonder if he's still got his bag of dog-whistles from his race-baiting days in parliament
Click to expand...

Did you you mean "bait- racing". Thats when he used to line up all the mullet heads in the parliament to see who could flap the fastest lap.
 
Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

But none of this matters. The overriding fact is Howard was properly chosen by the responsible boards and the ICC is duty bound to accept him. Anything else flies in the face of the very rules introduced precisely to stop these sorts of disputes arising, let alone escalating.

Howard's nomination may have been insensitive, even provocative, but it was legitimate. The conduct of the South African, Indian and Zimbabwe cricket boards shows them in the worst possible light.
Click to expand...

This is one of the very few times I agree with Roebuck.

The other countries can object to him becoming president, but downright blocking him? Australia and New Zealand come forward with a legitimate and fully backed decision, and other countries block him for, summed up, having a bad record (one that I think is cleaner than the current president).

India say they want no more politicians in the game. Hmm in the bureaucratic days of sports politics, perhaps that's not the best idea...

Oh, but wait I forgot. Maybe having a 'racist **************' running the place might cause the Australians to 'cheat' more...
 
Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

OhMyGodTheChips;400843 said:
That would have to be the biggest one sided load of shit I've ever read.
Click to expand...

They are probably a government backed news organ so that would be biased for sure.

Mention of one sided load of shit took me back to my old days riding shotgun on the shit cart in my old town. You had to watch out for a one sided load of shit or else you could end up in a real shit heap.
 
Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

a for effort;400842 said:
LankaWeb – John Howard should not be allowed near cricket

This is why Sri Lanka does not want Howard in charge. I agree with them.
Click to expand...

That's between Australian and New Zealand, it's got nothing to do with other countries throwing the idea out of the window.

Australia and New Zealand made the decision to back Howard. How well everyone from those two countries likes the idea does not matter. In the end they have agreed on that decision, and when put forth to the other countries, they should accept it as is the custom.

As said in the Roebuck article, they can object to the decision, but not downright block it.
 
Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

macca;400859 said:
They are probably a government backed news organ so that would be biased for sure.

Mention of one sided load of shit took me back to my old days riding shotgun on the shit cart in my old town. You had to watch out for a one sided load of shit or else you could end up in a real shit heap.
Click to expand...

So you were actually riding shitgun?
 
Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

I wish I can say I am surprised that CSA has supported this block move but I can't. Peter Roebucks article should be framed and given to him as it features mainly him and his good intentions, so I am in the minority here.

The support for this block is to please the BCCI and no one else. The fact is that the incumbent ICC president is from India and if Howard should have gotten numerous positive votes he could have started a power shift inside the BCCI. The problem is that CSA is in the Indian pockets as our kit sponsor Reebok is based in India(the cricket division) and the monetary consequences would be too large for them to overcome if they distance themselves from the Indians. I find it intriguing that he is too political but Sharad Powar (Minister of Agriculture in India) is OK. It is a clear case of double standards by the Indians. The big problem is that the Indian element has gotten far too much weight.

The biggest problem that I have with ex PM Howard's appointment is that he has no cricket background and if he did then he would have sailed into the position.
 
Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

hattrick;400965 said:
The biggest problem that I have with ex PM Howard's appointment is that he has no cricket background and if he did then he would have sailed into the position.
Click to expand...

He has, but ONLY with the immediate members of the past Australian Cricket team. He often gave prep talks/debriefings to the team, he would sometimes sit with the coach, he even made a speech on behalf of Bradman at his request. He's held highly amongst the Australian board, but nowhere else. He has never held any actual positions, just been highly involved.

It's like Steve Irwin applying for a position as a highly held veterinarian. He never went to university like the other applicants had, never held a position as a vet, and has no qualifications at all to be a vet. But you would say (obviously dependant on the area of study) he is definitely good enough to get the position.

Sorry for the bad metaphor, but that's how I think of it. The experience he has had has never been official, but it's there.
 
Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

hattrick;400965 said:
I wish I can say I am surprised that CSA has supported this block move but I can't. Peter Roebucks article should be framed and given to him as it features mainly him and his good intentions, so I am in the minority here.
Click to expand...

One of the reasons I stopped reading his articles some time ago. Self-aggrandizement by any other name is still bullshit. His writing style and preaching aren't pluses either.

Howard was a foolish choice, wasn't he? I couldn't quite work out why CA selected him in the first place apart from that he probably wanted the job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top