Message Board Archives

Link Text

In reply to sudden

Does Gonsalves have a vote?

Oh no, not another Dottie. Please!

In reply to mikesiva

i believe he believes that he can influence a few boards. quite possibly the Windward and Guyana

What exactly is Dr. Gonsalves saying, that the 48 year old Cameron(with Nanthan) is not 'modern' personality but somehow the 62 year old Skerritt(with Shallow) is?

In reply to sudden

that's reads like a seriously terrible broadside on cousin Dave

I guess a combination of Nantham + Cameron is chronologically more modern than than Shallow + Skerritt. Since when "personalities" is limited to one?

But I digress. Modernity is not directly and only linked to age is my main point. Think thinking.

Dr. Gonzalves is correct...the plantocracy and autocratic model of cricket governance of a quasi public regional body has got to go.,

In reply to jacksprat

Gonsalves is saying that the "MODERN CARIBBEAN PERSONALITY" consists of someone who is steeped in DEMOCRACY and GOOD GOVERNANCE as opposed to the previous CARIBBEAN PERSONALITY of AUTOCRACY and SUPPRESSION of WORKERS i.e CRICKETERS. Exhibit A= Darren Bravo.

In reply to sudden

If Gonsalves believes that he's deluding himself.

Who are the 12 special apostles who alone can sit at the table and vote? Does anybody have any names?

In reply to mikesiva

Dr. Gonsalves

CWI as a quasi public entity is not a representative democracy.

In reply to Courtesy

My learned friend: WTF does that word mean to you?

In the context of CWI I suggest it means FALSE,FAKE AND FRAUDULENT

In reply to Dukes

Yep. as fake as one can get.

In reply to mikesiva

He does not but perhaps he can influence the vote?

In reply to Drapsey

Seems like you really into this Cameron guy and I am baffled

In reply to jacksprat

You can be modern in age and archaic in thinking.

No big fan of Ralph but keep the pressure on!

In reply to Emir

Why are you baffled. Droopsy is a Jamaican. Although not all Jamaicans support Super Dave, Droopsy cannot help himself.

I do not care who is the CWI president, because if the way he / she is elected isn't changed there will be no real change. But.....

....anytime I hear a politician....any politician....speak publicly about who should lead a sporting organization and / or endorsing candidates for leadership of that organization.....that is a bad thing as far as I am concerned.

Effective change at CWI CANNOT come from outside....it must come from within.

And it certainly can't come from idle chatter on this MB...

In reply to newdread

It's in that context...
I have always believed that all stakeholders must have a voice especially in a quasi private entity.

In reply to Courtesy

Where is CWI "quasi-private"? In the minds of the romantics on this MB and the rest of us who cling to the good old days when our team trampled the oppressors on the cricket fields of the world?

CWI is a very private organization, notwithstanding that CARICOM's leadership has created a sub-Committee on cricket...that Committee has more gums than teeth... to borrow your analogy from another thread

In reply to newdread

A fully private entity owns or pays for most of the outside resources. But your comment above is mainly tangential at best and adds nothing to the debate about the need for a strategic change in direction of West Indies cricket which is the theme of Dr. Gonsalves' thrust.

But in any event, disagreements over policy is not a reason for extreme partisan divide.

In reply to newdread

Why don't you just say you're all for the status quo?

In reply to Courtesy

My brother....Dr. Gonsalves and the rest of the Committee can thrust all they want...it will make not one jot of difference....THAT is the comment I am making.And if you think that that absolute truth is "tangential at best" to the debate....you are wrong.....which, I accept,would be a rarity for you.

In reply to Larr Pullo

Because I cannot let your lack of comprehension make me say something which is not true...

In reply to Larr Pullo

How did I miss this?

I will give the "dready" a chance to expound. I am assuming (that word again) he meant Cameron as leader must change his philosophy and style of mgt in the interest of West Indies cricket. So it's and individual change.

In reply to newdread

So help me out then...you're not for politically motivated change, and you well know that internally motivated change won't happen, yet you're positing this as the only way that change will happen. Then I can only suggest that you're being disingenuous...and I give you more credit that that, or you're all for the status quo.

Care to let us all know which one it is?

Or is there a third way?

In reply to Larr Pullo

Larr, as usual, you're on to something here.

In reply to newdread

The chances of "effective change" taking place if Cameron is re-elected has about as much chance the "idle chatter on this MB" effecting said change.

We are on the "HORNS OF A DILEMMA" ( I just like that phrase irregardless of whether it is appropriate)

Watch silently as the train careens towards an almighty crash or watch the train heading for trouble while we shout and scream even though we can not do anything to prevent the train crash.
It is little comfort that years later we who spoke up can hold our head up and say we did not stay silent.History will be kinder to us but as the great philosopher George W. Bush said.In the long run we will all be dead. To which I add: So who gives a fcuk.ENJOY YOURSELF IT IS LATER THAN YOU THINK.

In reply to Emir

Not really, I'm just Dottie shy.

I can vividly recall the Drs Hunter and Hilaire bringing the West Indies down to their Dottie level.

I was neutral during the previous election when deserving names were on the ballot.

In reply to Drapsey

What complex do you suffer from

In reply to Larr Pullo

I don't know any such thing. As currently structured, determining the leadership of West Indies cricket depends on the votes of persons sent there by each of the member territories.

The member territories need to elect and send persons to CWI who want change and will vote for change...both in leadership and governance structure. In the current scenario, if that doesn't happen we are pissing against a strong breeze.

The big question is whether enough (or indeed any such) motivated and passionate people exist in the member territories.....outside of the folks who campaign daily on this MB...because I am not aware that the suggestions for change expressed here have ever progressed, in any meaningful way, beyond these pages. If they have been I stand to be corrected.

In reply to InHindsight

1. Vivid memories.

2. The Tail cannot wag the Dog.

3. I do not follow the crowd.

In reply to Courtesy

Corrected

In reply to newdread

Have you discounted all previous professional reports about the need for change in the CWI structure sitting on the shelves gathering dust. Isn't that sufficient evidence of overwhelming public sentiments on the matter, which have been ignored selfishly by WICB/CWI?

It is really delusional to think a person elected by the board is going to come in and dismantle the same board's interests and this board will approve these changes!

In reply to camos
What if he was elected on a platform for change? Skerritt's 10 point agenda and various pronouncements articulate this.

In reply to Courtesy

we have been there, the last three were elected on such a platform!


and that includes Cameron.

In reply to camos

It seems like you are stuck in gear and have thrown your hands in the air. I yield to you.

In the US they often talk about the past where the presidential candidate of the major parties were "brokered candidate" , party bigshots meet and trade favors for support, well that is where we are today.

The CWI presidential election is a beauty contest, to borrow a term from US politics, that is, no meaningful difference between the candidates.

In reply to Courtesy

Expressed by whom? Outsiders whose sentiments have no bearing....the territorial boards must be the agents of change, and until that common, unified ground is found.......

In the meantime, as detective Shaft said

In reply to newdread

Didn't the independent Bariteau Commissioners conduct public hearings.

In reply to Courtesy

I have to confess ignorance on this.

Difficult as it appears for the intellectual to accept. The territorial boards are an extension of CWI and the local clubs a further extension.


So to remove a CWI president who has the ability to dispense largesse to territorial boards and local clubs is nigh impossible.

How many on here are in local clubs and therefore have a vote? This is where change has to start

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

I would say it is the other way around but the relationship is correct.

In reply to newdread

It was an independent report commissioned with the blessings and concurrence of WICB and the WICB reneged on its commitment to implement the recommendations.

In reply to Courtesy

May I be so bold as to suggest that you have just proven my point?

In reply to Courtesy

and a new president will order a new report because conditions are not static, so he would be correct, and by then he starts to work on reelection.

In reply to newdread

This just fortifies our point that those self servers don't work in the interest of West Indies cricket.

In reply to newdread

I endorse your sentiments. The CWI/WICB is a private entity (they have reiterated this often enough) so any change to its structure and governance must emanate from within. For this I am not holding my breath nor do I really care anymore.

As I have said repeatedly, Cameron is merely an extension of the discredited and equally autocratic & abrasive H&H regime, so I never expected anything to change when he ascended to the presidency.

Many of these MB hypocrites pretending to clamour for "change" had no issue with the status quo ante and were willing apologists/cheerleaders for the CWI/WICB in its previous permutation.

Whether or not the individual who occupies the presidency is booted out, it will make little difference because its just a case of musical chairs. At any rate it seems the Board is little more than a sanctuary for hustlers.

NOTHING HAS/WILL CHANGE!!!

The HYPOCRITES are those who were strident in their voices for change years ago but have now swallowed moo moo pills.

In reply to jacksprat

and the president merely shares the hustlings!

In reply to Courtesy

Even the man himself Patterson

I recall his rustic voice decrying the Hunter led WICB for not making the necessary changes to WI cricket.

In reply to InHindsight
There is a history to this. Hunte and Hilaire were in favour of implementinng all the recommendations of the Patterson report but the majority of the board held out on the four main recommendations. Dr. Gonsalves et at know this and know who held out.

In reply to Courtesy

are those members still present and what makes you, Skerritt and Gonsaves think they are ready for change?

In reply to camos

Until the recommendations with regards to governance made by the Patterson report are implemented then nothing will change.

But the 12 apostles won't do it, because it will dilute their hold on the gravy train.

In reply to camos

Good question.
But does that means you stop doing what is absolutely necessary?

In reply to InHindsight

You shoulda invite him to listen to Skerritt/Shallow live presentation tomorrow. He woulda hear the term limit proposals and the priority for re-structuring CWI among many other crucial matters affecting West Indies cricket.

I always laugh when people like Gonsalves and Keith Mitchell call for transparency.

Skerritt will not be an improvement over Cameron—and I am no fan of Cameron. The only reason why Gonsalves prefers him is because he would be more responsive and tolerant of the rankings of Gonsalves.

In reply to JOJO

Do you know Skerritt? Have you worked with him? On what basis do you make that comment?

In reply to Yamfoot

I know Skerrit. I know about Skerritt’s tenure as Manager. I know about Gonsalves’ tenure as PM.

In reply to JOJO

Why would you use Skerritt’s tenure as manager to determine how he might do as President of CWI though?

Why wouldn’t you use his performance as a government Minister, where he was able to make policy decisions and oversee their implementation?