A HOST of West Indies legends including Garry Sobers, Viv Richards, Wes Hall and Andy Roberts have called upon the WICB to dissolve the board, in line with the CARICOM cricket review panel’s recommendation, and appoint an interim committee as part of the structural reforms that would enable the region’s cricket to “develop and flourish”.On April 14 in Grenada, converging under the umbrella banner of Cricket Legends, Sobers and Co. met with Grenada premier Keith Mitchell, chairman of the Prime Ministerial Committee on the Governance of West Indies Cricket, which appointed the review panel in the wake of the crisis that emerged after the West Indies’ withdrawal from India’s tour in October 2014.

Also present at the meeting were other former West Indies players – all-rounder Roger Harper; fast bowler Charlie Griffith; wicketkeeper Deryck Murray, who was also a member of the CARICOM review panel, leg-spinner Dinanath Ramnarine, who was previously the president of the West Indies Players Association (WIPA), and opening batsman, Desmond Haynes.Rudi Webster, who was the team manager during Clive Lloyd’s time and worked as a psychologist with current World T20-winning captain, Darren Sammy, was an invited guest.

Tearing into the WICB with the same vigour that they reserved for their opponents in their playing days, the Legends decried the board’s “oligarchic structure” which has remained “unchanged in attitude and structure” for the past seven decades.

Full Story

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com

i really don't get it..........the most success we have had for decades, yet we still complaining. and your poster boy was the same person who the boards poster a few years ago. SMH.

I am all for change, but this is a bit much.

In reply to warr

Now is always a good time for a change

In reply to warr

It's the same way I felt, when one suprano and numerous falsetto voices were raised in unison here demanding the heads of HHG on a silver platter right after we won the 2012 T20 World Cup.

I sympathize with you...I know the feeling.

In reply to warr

On another note, do you recall during the cries for the removal of HHG you (warr) called supporters of the then WICB regime "insular pigs"?

Just asking?

In reply to Courtesy

Short memories

In reply to sudden

Very short indeed.

Such things never escape de Courtesy.

In reply to Courtesy

What do you make of Dinas trying to defend Hunte and Hilaire last night on Mason and Guests against Conde saying that Hunte was voted out becos of then non transparency behind the CPL 50 year deal?

In reply to Courtesy

reasons for your "out the wicb" now stronger than their "out the wicb" then?

In reply to sudden

i don't read it as a defense ...more like what you noted the other day "enemy of the enemy is a friend, for now"

In reply to sudden

I did not hear the statement. I turned in late but from what I gleaned from the contributors of your thread, Dinas was under the cosh and may have attempted to wiggle his way out of the bad weather with the statement.

What I do know about Hunte being voted out is this: some directors who had pledged their support to Sir Julian reneged mere days before the vote as a result of certain promises made to them.

Further, if the directors were so dissatisfied with the Hunte inspired CPL agreement, why then did they not seek to renegotiate the agreement after the departure of Sir Julian.

Are they saying the new WICB signed a document which short changed West Indies cricket?

I shall delve deeper into this and report my findings.

In reply to doosra

No. I have done a comparative analysis of the two WICB regimes...it's like chalk and cheese.

And who says that Dinas has not done the same analysis.

In reply to doosra

Quite so. Quite so. I was more concerned about Conde et al laying that at Hunte's feet. I would like to know what the background check reported. Someone is looking into it for me. Dinas placed a lot of stock in that transparency report or whatever he called it, as if there was something untoward therein.

In reply to sudden

Mate, regarding the CPL agreement: I am reliably informed that the decision to go ahead with the CPL Agreement and further, a vote on the Charles Wilkins report were taken during the WICB directors meeting in September 14 of 2012 at the Hilton Hotel in Trinidad and Tobago.

Immediately after the affirmative vote at the Hilton Hotel to proceed with the CPL, Sir Julian indicated to the board that he had no interest in continuing as WICB President but the vote to proceed with the CPL was already taken.

Sir Julian however had a change of heart regarding the presidency in November of 2012.

And why would the issue of the CPL be a factor in Sir Julian's removal if the directors had already agreed to the implement the proposals in the CPL agreement before Hunte stated that he was no longer interested in the WICB Presidency?

In short, there was an affirmative vote (September 14, 2012) by the WICB on the CPL long before the election of the new WICB ...

In reply to Courtesy

Conde made a big deal of it last night. In fact, if I remember correctly, he said it was the reason they voted against Hunte- becos something in the agreement made them pause, something was not kosher.

Dinas said that it was the 50 year deal and alluded to something untoward in the transparency report or background check that was swept aside.

There seems to be more in the mortar than the pestle

In reply to sudden

But the WICB directors voted for the CPL Agreement in September of 2012...long before the elections for a new president of the WICB in March of 2013 as well as before Sir Julian decided to give up the presidency.

From what I know when Sir Julian had a change of heart to return to contest the Presidency in November of 2012 he had the votes then to secure it.

Later two boards reneged...