Search results matching tag 'USA Cricket Assocation'

USA Cricket: Alan Isaac and David Richardson of ICC complete USA leg of North American tour

openingbat — Mon, 13 May 2013 01:15:00 GMT

Now, you can get all the USA Cricket updates via Facebook. Also follow us on Twitter via @dreamcricket.

ICC President Alan Isaac, Chief Executive David Richardson and Global Development Manager Tim Anderson yesterday completed the first phase of their tour of North America, concluding their trip to the United States of America.

The delegation visited New York, Washington DC and Connecticut, where it met with a range of stakeholders including the United States of America Cricket Association (USACA), the US State Department, the New York Police Department (NYPD), the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the City of Indianapolis and the holder of ICC’s broadcast rights in the USA, ESPN.

A visit to a Public Schools Athletic League (PSAL) cricket match in Brooklyn also took place.

The trophy of the ICC Champions Trophy 2013, to be staged in England and Wales from 6 to 23 June, was also displayed at various locations. This event will be broadcast across the USA on ESPN3.

At the conclusion of the USA trip, Mr Isaac said: “The development of emerging markets is a major focus of the ICC as we strive to achieve our vision of cricket becoming a bigger, better global game. The United States is a key territory in this regard, and we believe the potential for future expansion is exciting.

“It’s been a pleasure to meet the national governing body for cricket in the US, USACA, in order to understand its plans and challenges, as well as a range of other stakeholders that we feel have an important role in the future development of cricket in the USA.”

USACA President Gladstone Dainty thanked the ICC delegation for its visit, saying: “We are delighted that the ICC leadership team has visited the USA in order to witness first-hand the current status of cricket in the country.

“USACA is establishing a new strategic direction for the development of the sport in the USA, with the vision to make cricket a sport for all Americans. We look forward to continually working with the ICC, and our other partners, to make this vision a reality.”

The delegation left the USA yesterday for the second leg of the North American tour in Canada. Meetings will take place with Cricket Canada in Toronto, while the ICC Development Committee will also be held.

[Source: ICC Media Release]

USA Cricket: American Cricket Federation registers 50 members. Online payment mechanism draws praise.

openingbat — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 13:40:00 GMT

Now, you can get all the USA Cricket updates via Facebook. Also follow us on Twitter via @dreamcricket

Two weeks after it began accepting members on March 19th, the American Cricket Federation (ACF) reported that it had registered its first fifty members.

'This is the first opportunity for US cricketers and cricket organizations to take charge of US Cricket through a truly representative body of all stakeholders. Add your voice, participate in a true democratic election this year,' ACF said in a media release announcing the milestone.

“Such early volume is heartening” commented Mike Thomas, ACF's acting Treasurer. “Together with the broad geographic spread of applicants, it gives the first indication of the extent to which there is significant resonance with the ACF’s vision, goals and principles of governance.”

The ACF was founded by a large group of experienced cricketers and administrators united in the belief that US cricket needed and deserved a new direction. Incorporated on October 9, 2012, it is currently managed by a Steering Committee whose members and biographies may be found on the ACF website.

From its inception, ACF drew praise for its inclusive approach to membership. Cricket enthusiasts can become members of the organization for as little as $10 per year. Membership forms have been made available online together with an online payment mechanism.

'[ACF's] inclusive spirit mandates the provision for several classes of members and also recognizes specific designations such as Women, College, Youth and Softball cricketers, besides Clubs and Development Administrators in order to provide them with a voice,' the organization noted in its media release announcing the adoption of its constititution.

'Our needs for development funds are great, but so are the cumulative numbers of players in the U.S. and their Clubs and the Leagues they play in. A united investment in the future of US Cricket not only will bring about change quicker, but will also provide the opportunity for you to make a tangible contribution toward that change,' the organization noted.

ACF or USACA - Who will win the race?

openingbat — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 17:58:00 GMT

Now, you can get all the USA Cricket updates via Facebook. Also follow us on Twitter via @dreamcricket

By Venu Palaparthi

In Part 1 and Part 2 of my series, I reviewed ACF's constitution. In Part 3, I wrote that, since at least 2002, USACA has repeatedly promised the world and delivered an atlas. I also explained why I feel that things have pretty much bottomed out for USACA. In this final part, I plan to explore the ICC angle and also attempt to compare ACF with similar efforts in the past. I also plan to analyze the impact of competitive rivalry in sport.

Why doesn't the ICC act?

What does recognition by ICC bring to the table? Why does the ICC not set the house in order in the US? These are questions that need to be fully explored because in the minds of many, a large portion of USACA's credibility is derived from its recognition by the ICC.

I will attempt to answer the second question first. Why does the ICC not set the house in order in the US? Does it not know that things have gotten out of control?

Firstly, things have not yet risen to a level of seriousness that warrants the ICC's intervention. According to my sources, the ICC knows about the ACF and it also knows of the complaints emanating from the election. However, ACF is too new and there are complaints surrounding every election. Also, from purely an outsider's perspective, it is too early to predict whether ACF means business.

Secondly, the ICC has nobody on the ground here, and has to rely on information it receives from the national governing body, i.e. USACA. Once again, from an outsider's perspective, if all of your interactions are with USACA and the information is sourced from them, then you are likely to believe that the suspended leagues were all delinquent and non-compliant.

Thirdly, just like God, the ICC cannot answer every member's prayers. After all, there are rumblings and gripes in every member country, so the ICC must essentially have a natural filtering mechanism.

Fourthly, it might also be a case of once bitten, twice shy. The ICC has not been particularly successful in the past when it intervened in USA's affairs. ICC's Project USA in 2004 and the events surrounding the 2007 reconciliation are cases in point, something I will explore in just a bit.

Finally, New Zealand Cricket has a skin in the game here as USACA's partner in Cricket Holdings America LLC (CHALLC). Naturally, NZC would like for CHALLC to succeed and would want to avoid upsetting USACA. The ICC therefore cannot be blamed to prefer the laissez faire approach.

Pic (Right): Too early for ICC to intervene. File photo of Sir Julian Hunte - President of WICB, Chris Dehring - Independent Third Party, Derek Jones - Attorney and Member of the Constitution Committee at the 2008 USACA election

As things develop, the ICC might gently suggest to USACA to work with ACF in the interest of the game, something it has done in the past. The most extreme step that ICC can take, suspending USACA or withholding funding, is not something even the ACF will wish for. It will undoubtedly affect American players and also create headaches for ICC by disrupting the WCL eco-system.

For ACF, all of this should come as no surprise. Members of the various ACF's committees are keenly aware of the ICC's predicament. ACF's only option at the moment is to continue their work and draw ICC's attention to actual accomplishments instead of their gripes. For USACA, the topic is bound to come up in their conversations with the ICC, but I doubt that things will get too unpleasant given that the stakes in CHALLC are high and the stakeholders, including NZC, have some influence over ICC's agenda.

Can ACF survive without the ICC's recognition?

The short answer is "Yes." ACF can survive without ICC's funding just as USACA has in the recent past. ICC's blessing is not the magic bullet it is thought to be.

For 2013, the ICC's membership grant to an associate country is $100,000 (click on the picture to read how ICC's funding works). In addition, 'Scorecard' grants, totalling $220,000 are in the pipeline for USACA. These scorecard grants are primarily determined by men's performance (35% weight); senior, youth and women's participation (collectively 41%); and non-ICC income (10%). The remaining 14% is determined by number of coaches, umpires, employees and grounds. These are not earth-shattering amounts for a country as expansive (and expensive) as the United States.

As I wrote here following the Dallas AGM in 2010, a big chunk of the ICC money is spent by USACA on participating in domestic and international tournaments ($388K in 2009). Another $272K was spent for administration in 2009. Things are not going to be any different in 2013, especially with all the lawsuits that are in progress. Just to give you an idea, $5K or less than 1% was spent on development of cricket in 2009. Domestic tournaments have been few and far between since 2011 and none have been announced for 2013.

A majority of the clubs and leagues gain nothing today from USACA and will lose nothing if they break away from USACA. There is no trickledown effect from ICC grants. Yes, USACA announced a league administrative grant of $2000 for 'compliant' leagues, but everyone saw it for the 'thank you' that it was because only 15 leagues were eligible. Besides, the cost differential for league membership between USACA and ACF handily exceeds USACA's dole.

If you have grand visions of the breakaway ACF causing a huge dent in USACA's scorecard metrics and therefore grants, think again. ACF won't cripple USACA. According to ICC, the difference between a Category C performer and Category D performer is just $30K. Once again, not a huge amount.

ACF's only option is to focus on becoming self-sufficient and building a strong financial foundation based on membership fees, grants and sponsorships, especially sponsorships. For a sport where a majority of sponsors are US-based, USACA has not expended much effort on enlisting sponsors for its national tournaments.

How about the players? Is there no impact on them?

From a player's perspective, not being a USACA member definitely affects the top rung of the pyramid - those players who play for USA or hope to represent USA in ICC events. It is not inconceivable that USACA will threaten sanctions on those players or coaches who are seen to be close to ACF.

Over time, I fully expect that these players will gravitate towards leagues in their region that are already affiliated with USACA. If they are in a region where there is only one league, then the player's club may join USACA as an affiliate member. Both these options will enable the player to comply with USACA's membership requirements.

Before you jump to the conclusion that ACF is handicapped from the start, I think that ACF should look at this as an opportunity to win the players' hearts. USACA has not had a stellar record on selection matters and politics has played an oversized role in selection. Most regions have not had inter-league tournaments and there have not been any domestic tournaments in some years. As for women's and youth cricket, USACA has so far done very little for them. For all these reasons, most USA cricketers have long ago reconciled themselves to the fact that they are not going to be playing meaningful cricket beyond the league-level. Even those players who hoped to play in CHALLC's T20 professional league have had to recalibrate their expectations after CHALLC said it plans to import a majority of the players.

If ACF can create a better path for the players, it will surely gain traction.

American sports experts are also perplexed by the outsized importance placed on ICC by this country's cricket playing community. Major American sports such as basketball, baseball, soccer and football are actually focused on maximizing their potential among the American audience and growing that audience. None of them rely purely on international fixtures, international acceptance or an international ladder for their growth.

Pic (Right): The fact that major American sports take a US-centric view of the world is often ridiculed, but that has not affected popularity or prospects of these sports. Picture courtesy - OMG Facts.

I am not advocating that cricket should isolate itself like some of the other American sports, but it is undeniable that cricket is presently low on confidence when compared to the other sports. Under ACF, cricket needs to develop the more self-reliant attitude of other American sports. And there is plenty of evidence that it can be done.

What of the windfall gains from CHALLC?

It has been nearly two years since leagues were invited to townhall meetings to discuss how the windfall gains from CHALLC should be invested. Based on what has been reported in the press, CHALLC will not roll out its T20 league until 2014. There is uncertainty surrounding when the license fee payments to USACA, roughly $2 million per annum, will begin. It is also not known when Top Bloom will complete the planned purchase of the additional shares in CHALLC, USACA is said to be in line for $3 million from those proceeds.

What we do know is that, as of December 2011, USACA has borrowed over $1.87 million from Insite and Top Bloom. In its independent audit report, USACA's auditor PKF O'Connor Davies noted that USACA "has suffered recurring excesses of expenditures over revenues and has a deficiency in net assets of $1,899,368 as of December 31, 2011."

From Mark Mascarenhas' Time Out deal to Centrex, from Disney to ProCricket, from NACL to CHALLC, this is the one lesson that the entire USA cricket community must learn. Let us count the eggs if we must, but let us also wait for the chickens to hatch!

Pic (Right): Mark Mascarenhas told Rediff: "Billy Packer, my partner, and I put $ 500,000 into cricket in America and have had no returns." That was on May 22, 2000.

Each year, all leagues, both old and new, will need to review their options and do what is in the best interest of their constituents, based on the potential for cricket's development. The decision on whether to join the ACF will depend on what they know now and what their recent experiences have been in the hands of USACA. If USACA's financial situation gets better or if governance improves, or if ACF underwhelms, leagues will undoubtedly reconsider their options and do what is right based.

Is ACF different from past efforts to build alternatives such as USCF, CLP, MLC et. al.?

USACA, formed in 1961, was neither the first nor only attempt at creating a national association for cricket. USA cricket has seen many initiatives to create 'national associations' and there will be many more in the future too. The Cricketers Association of the United States was formed in 1877. The Associated Clubs as well as the Inter-collegiate Cricket Association were formed in 1895. That should tell you something.

For cricket to realize its potential, it needs an environment that is conducive for its growth. If any of the aforementioned organizations had succeeded in created such an environment, we would neither have USACA nor would I be writing this article today about ACF.

It is true that US Cricket Federation (USCF), ICC's Project USA, USACA's Council of League Presidents (CLP), Major League Cricket had the right intentions, but none succeeded in bringing about true and permanent changes. USCF merged with USACA after ICC despatched Sir Julian Hunte to persuade the two organizations to negotiate. ICC's own Project USA was suspended in 2005, after the relationship between the ICC and USACA deteriorated. Legal actions by USACA scuttled the CLP around the middle of the last decade. ICC's capitulation to USACA in 2006 grounded the MLC.

The common theme here is not ICC's eagerness to bring about a truce or USACA's rigidity. At each of these negotiations, USACA promised to change its ways, and it actually changed its ways in many instances. One might argue that what was needed was surgery and what we got was a bandage job. But these efforts were not entirely wasted.

In March of 2005, in the aftermath of the suspension of ICC's Project USA, the program's CEO Gary Hopkins (picture at right) had this to say about USACA. His observations are as relevant today as they were then: "The current perception around the world is of an organisation out of control and riddled with incompetence and petty politics. Whether this is correct or not, this is the perception. This I would think needs fixing. Hopefully a correctly run, transparent and fully inclusive election will go a way towards this."

While some think USACA has an agenda of hostility and that its leadership is corrupt, I disagree with that view. I would characterize USACA as an organization that has not articulated its vision, not been able to implement its promises, not been able to strike the right chords, and lost the trust of its membership as a result.

If ACF wishes to bring about lasting changes, it must be prepared for the long haul. It must also stay clear of any legal confrontations or premature negotiations with USACA. And ACF should not assume that it will receive ICC's support. If it wants to succeed, it must compete for the hearts of the cricketers through execution and through implementation of its own vision. There are simply no short cuts to lasting change.

Won't this battle hinder cricket's growth?

Like many who have invested a lot of time and money in USA cricket, I am acutely aware of the repurcussions of this battle. At DreamCricket, we do everything we can to unfragment the game, so cricketers can feel proud to be part of one community. Yes, the outlook is not pretty. But I am not too distraught.

Splits in sport are not unheard of in the US, whether it is among organizations that oversee amateur sports (as is the case with USACA and ACF), or among those that oversee semi-pro or professional sports, where the stakes are higher and the smell of money is intense. And yet, organizations eventually figure out a way to work together, and everyone - fans, players, stakeholders - they all come out stronger in the end. In case you don't believe me, here are some examples.

Basketball: In 1967, a bunch of businessmen banded together and formed the American Basketball Association. In 1970, faced with the loss of players and officials, the National Basketball Association's board voted 13-4 to work toward a merger.

After the 1970-71 season Basketball Weekly wrote, "The American basketball public is clamoring for a merger. So are the NBA and ABA owners, the two commissioners, and every college coach. The war is over. The Armistice will be signed soon." The combined NBA was stronger, benefited from the ABA's faster pace of play and the players' salaries increased as a result of the competition.

Football: The upstart American Football League (AFL) fired its opening salvo in 1960 by signing 75% of NFL first round draft picks that year. From the beginning, the AFL focused on more offense oriented rules and a generous ABC contract. The leagues agreed to a merger in 1966 and the concept of a championship game called the Super Bowl was first mooted by the AFL then.

Baseball: The National League (NL) experienced competition from the American Association, which began to play in 1882. The American Association focused on making the game more accessible organizing Sunday games, obtaining alcohol permits at the grounds and slashing the gate fee by 50%. This was enough to cause the National League to shrink 25% by 1900. That year, the NL had to fold teams in Baltimore, Cleveland, Louisville and Washington. The same year, the newly formed American League (AL) opened for business with these four cities as its initial franchisees. By 1903, the AL went head to head with the NL in the cities of Boston, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, and St. Louis. The NL was in no mood to recognize the AL, but by 1903, economics dictated that each league be accepted by the other as an equal partner in Major League Baseball and strike an alliance.

Soccer: In 1958, the American Soccer League paid USSFA $25 per club for the rights to start a professional league. In 1966, three powerful men drew up plans for soccer leagues in the aftermath of a massively successful World Cup which was televised on NBC. Seeing dollar signs, USSFA jacked up the prices to $25,000 per club. ASL's rights were revoked and the United Soccer Association obtained the rights. Sports entrepreneur and former Philadelphia Phillies owner Bill Cox pulled together several prominent baseball and football club owners and formed the National Professional Soccer League. Branded an outlaw league, the NPSL took a top-down approach, recruited players from Europe and signed a network TV deal with CBS for $1million. By the end of the year, the NPSL and United Soccer Association leagues merged at the request of FIFA, which led to the birth of the North American Soccer League.

Rugby League: This is the most recent instance of a division in USA. Here is how the story goes - the American National Rugby League (AMNRL), led by David Niu, is the internationally recognized governing body for rugby in the US. In January 2011, seeking a more democratic set-up, nine AMNRL teams split away to form a new league, the USA Rugby League (USARL).

Although the strongest players were with USARL, the trump card of recognition by the international federation was held by AMNRL. Two years later, the rugby league community still hopes for a merger, but reconcilation attempts have not succeeded.

Conclusion: Right now, USACA is a limping horse with one strong leg (ICC recognition), one wobbly leg that everyone hopes will get stronger (CHALLC), and two broken legs (poor governance and league distrust), and a new jockey (Darren Beazley).

ACF is an ambitious young foal that has just barely begun to walk. With league support and coaching, and if it gets the right management, it could turn into a race horse. Until it learns to run, ACF is better off focusing on developing its own strengths instead of thinking about the other horses in the race, the length of the race or whether it will be recognized by the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association.

As for the leagues, this country's cricket history and the leagues' own experiences will undoubtedly weight heavily on whether or not they ought to accept ACF's invitation for membership. As I wrote in Part 3, there is no doubt in my mind that ACF will attract members. But membership is only a means to an end. The end goal for ACF is to provide services to members and to develop cricket. If it shows progress in these areas, it will attract even more members. If USACA makes amends because of competition from ACF, then that too will be a measure of ACF's success.

[Disclaimer: The author is a co-founder of DreamCricket Academy, which is a former associate member of USACA (now a USACA member-in-waiting for over six months); a former representative of CLNJ on USACA's Atlantic Region board (CLNJ, which is NJ's largest league, was disqualified by USACA in 2012); and an administrator of CLNJ-Youth, the largest youth cricket program in the state of New Jersey. He also served as CLNJ's delegate to the ACF when ACF was not yet incorporated. However, the opinions expressed are his own and should not be viewed as CLNJ's or DreamCricket Academy's inputs.]

USA Cricket: Does ACF have a chance?

openingbat — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 03:01:00 GMT

Now, you can get all the USA Cricket updates via Facebook. Also follow us on Twitter via @dreamcricket

By Venu Palaparthi

Ways to keep control perpetually.

I recently came across some interesting observations by Alastair Smith on CarnegieCouncil.org. It not only makes for spectacular reading, you might see in it a reflection of USA cricket.

"We're going to tell you that all organizations, whether they are democracies, dictatorships, corporations, sports federations—I love talking about sports federations by the way - they all operate on the same principles: that people are trying to get their way and they want to stay in power, the people at the top.”

“Rule number one…is be beholden to as small a number of people as possible." Elections, he says, are "wonderful inventions for corrupt leaders. People keep thinking of elections as legitimacy - 'Let's have an election because the government will be legitimate.' It's not legitimate if what actually happens is - we know what the result is before the election."

Speaking about the purpose of such leaders, he says: “This is the whole purpose: you make people worse off except those people you choose not to make worse off. That makes them very loyal to you." His advice to such leaders: "never be nice to the people at the expense of those who matter.”

Smith then illustrates his rules with the example of FIFA. He says just 12 votes are needed to determine who's going to be the soccer organization’s president and where the location of the World Cup games will be held. "So, surprisingly enough you've got a budget of $4 billion and you need 12 votes."

If similarities to American cricket are not immediately obvious, then you should read Part 1 and Part 2 of my series.

Regardless of your affiliation, it is a fact that the American cricket community is at a fork in the road. USACA has shown us a ‘selectoral’ path, where somewhat coincidentally, 12 votes have decided the destiny of thousands of fans and players. And if you didn't miss the irony, ACF’s mission of expanding democracy by greatly broadening the spectrum of participation has also resonated with exactly 12 leagues.

Will ACF succeed? A look at the math.

It is safe to assume that a majority of the twelve ACF signatory leagues will become members of the ACF once the organization begins accepting members.

There are another 20 USACA member leagues that were disenfranchised - these are leagues that USACA has said are no longer in good standing. These leagues have not yet expressed solidarity with ACF. And there are an estimated 40 soft ball and hard ball leagues that have never been part of USACA.

These 60 leagues, and/or their constituent clubs and players are going to determine whether ACF will continue to gain traction. The soft ball leagues are both fertile territory and a solid hedge for the ACF. There have been no attempts to date to integrate these soft ball cricket leagues under a national federation. Of course, ACF's success also depends on its acceptance by individual fans and supporters.

One thing is clear, USACA can no longer take ACF lightly. There is a fair amount of curiosity surrounding ACF and many cricket organizations are considering ACF's membership invitation. I have personally received over a dozen calls regarding ACF and USACA in the past two weeks. The questions are on expected lines. Can ACF actually provide any services? Can the people that are steering ACF be trusted? Will ICC's continued recognition of USACA affect ACF's chances of success? How is ACF different from the organizations that have previously attempted to take on USACA? What if USACA builds trust, revamps its constitution and extends an olive branch?

What if USACA discovers God, cleans up governance?

In 2007, USACA revised the constitution, which was approved by only 97 of the 677 clubs then in existence (only 180 clubs voted). There were a lot of demands to make further improvements, but an ICC imposed deadline was looming. Despite the 14% mandate, USACA still obtained ICC approval and was reinstated as an Associate member. As Deb Das wrote on CricInfo: “Beyond steps to curb the most flagrant abuses of power, the new [USACA] constitution offers little safeguards against usurpation of authority and the maintenance of conspiratorial secrecy.”

This is the constitution under which USACA has operated since 2007. There has been much talk of revising and improving the constitution for years now but very little action. ACF on the other hand has published its draft constitution which, as I have written in my first and second parts, satisfactorily addresses many of the deficiencies contained in USACA’s constitution.

As someone who has observed USACA for some time, I can almost predict the next act in this drama.

USACA will respond to ACF’s onward march by convening a committee or hiring an outside consultant to review its constitution. Without a doubt, a report will be produced and the board will announce that it will consider the report’s recommendations at the next board meeting, in 100 days or never. In this manner, USACA will assuage the anger of the few who care in the near term and perhaps placate the ICC as well. It will also take some of the shine off ACF’s efforts.

However, it is an inescapable fact that ACF has the advantage on the constitution and USACA has a lot of catching up to do. It is also a fact that for USACA, the trust deficit extends beyond the constitution. There is no doubt in my mind that while USACA plays defense, ACF will continue to make inroads.

USACA naysayers will find in ACF a compelling alternative. ACF will also find traction in areas and among leagues where USACA is an unknown entity.

Shouldn't this conversation really be about execution?

Alright, let's talk about execution under Gladstone Dainty's stewardship since 2003. At the December 2012 AGM, the attendees were given a document dated September 9, 2008, titled "A Vision for USACA." Mr. Dainty told those assembled that the document remained as valid in 2012 as it did in 2008. Now, Mr. Dainty is not known to indulge in theatrics. This was viewed as a tacit admission that there hasn't been much progress.

Push the dial back some more, this time to 2005. That year, under Dainty's leadership, USACA published a document titled “Strategic Development Plan for 2006-2007”. In that plan, USACA said that it would have a Junior and Youth Development Program for U-13, U-15, U-17 and U-19 and that it would also have an U-23 A squad. It also contemplated a series of national competitions for leagues, clubs and regions. Among the more notable objectives were - "improving information and communications" and "restoring USACA's image." We all know how that went.

Now, push the dial back a bit further to 2002 when USACA first published a five-year plan for the 2002-2006 period. In that plan, USACA wrote that it planned to "attain ODI status by 2006 and thereby qualify automatically for 2007 World Cup." Similar ambitions were expressed in a variety of areas: "Increase participation of players from its current 10,000 to 50,000 in a five-year period, certify 2000 umpires, 2000 coaches, [and] at least 150 advanced certified coaches." "Cricket Administration in The United States of America shall adopt state of the art technology to attain optimum results from the implementation of its strategic plan for the period until 2006." Don't even ask for an appraisal of that plan.

Were there no bright spots at all since 2002 for USACA, you ask? Yes, there were a few.

USACA Treasurer John Thickett and former CEO Don Lockerbie steered the organization in the direction of a commercial deal, which by 2010 seemed imminent. Its progress since then has been slow, but it would be unwise to write it off just yet.

Thickett also made sure that tax filings and other financial data were published on the USACA website. In another positive step, some four years after USACUA proposed to form a representative and inclusive umpires federation, the USACA president finally acknowledged that USACUA needed to be supported. Thanks to New Zealand Cricket's help, USACA also made Lockerbie's 'Destination USA' goal a reality. Both the Pearls Cup in 2010 and the two T20s between New Zealand and the West Indies in 2012 were steps in the right direction.

But if you look at the 10 years since the 2002 plan, USACA has been singularly unimpressive. It has not succeeded in shaking off its inability to build sustainable development programs and processes, has not communicated effectively, did not build alliances among the sport's many fans and followers, has not partnered with other organizations that are doing yeoman's work in promoting cricket, and has failed to align its own board members in one direction. It has placed all its eggs in one basket - everything would be alright once the commercial arrangement fell in place.

It did not help at all that this period was punctuated by lawsuits, intrigue, resignations, long periods without tournaments, suspensions and expulsions. The membership, which was never taken into confidence, gradually became alienated, especially after the 2011-12 election drama.

And yet, USACA faces no serious threat to its existence even though its current membership has whittled to a handful of leagues. Instead of mounting an Arab Spring, the dissidents have sought refuge elsewhere.

Strange as it may sound, the other thing that USACA has going for it is... things cannot get any worse! From ICC suspensions to teetering on the brink of financial doom, USACA has seen it all during the last decade. In fact, there is reason to be cautiously optimistic about USACA's fortunes in the near term. First, USACA just hired a new CEO, Darren Beazley. His resume is impressive and he will likely remedy at least some of the issues. Also, if CHALLC begins writing checks, the organization will certainly be in a better position to effect changes.

Unlike USACA, which has generally promised the world and delivered an atlas, ACF has announced very few initiatives and generally delivered. ACF’s website and social media presence may not win it Webby awards, but the organization has outperformed USACA, whose online snafus are by now part of cricket folklore. On the tournament front, the ACF T20 was much appreciated. The organization's Orlando meeting was definitely more open than anything that USACA has delivered to date.

For ACF, the key near-term challenge is to scale up its plans, set new milestones and continue to exceed expectations.

ACF is in a honeymoon period. In order to maintain its momentum, it needs to conduct U-15, U-19 and women's tournaments in addition to the T20 tournament, it needs to have open townhall style meetings in addition to the annual meeting and it needs to launch programs and services for all its members. It must also attempt to create a soft ball cricket tournament and find a way to integrate that sub-community into the national framework. Everything that ACF does must be measurable and reports must be provided to the constituents.

ACF is unburdened by the past and has more energy and passion to prove that it can succeed. Its success will be measured by its ability to set itself meaningful goals and actually achieve them.

[In tomorrow's Part 4: Does ICC care? And why competition is not such a bad thing for cricket?]

[Disclaimer: The author is a co-founder of DreamCricket Academy, which is a former associate member of USACA (now a USACA member-in-waiting for over six months); a former representative of CLNJ on USACA's Atlantic Region board (CLNJ, which is NJ's largest league, was disqualified by USACA in 2012); and an administrator of CLNJ-Youth, the largest youth cricket program in the state of New Jersey. He also served as CLNJ's delegate to the ACF when ACF was not yet incorporated. However, the opinions expressed and the inputs on ACF constitution are his own and should not be viewed as CLNJ's or DreamCricket Academy's inputs.]

USA Cricket: ACF provides answers to recent issues and impasses - Part 1

openingbat — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:38:00 GMT

Now, you can get all the USA Cricket updates via Facebook. Also follow us on Twitter via @dreamcricket

By Venu Palaparthi

On January 20, the American Cricket Federation (ACF) published a draft constitution and invited comments from the various constituents. With this, ACF took the first step into creating a role for itself. In AGMs and among Executive Committees across the country, discussions have begun on the draft constitution.

The initial reactions from most stakeholders are somewhat existential and logical. Does USA really need another cricket organization? What are the prospects of this organization? A range of questions fall out of this, such as, what will the ICC do, what impact will it have on players, and so on.

For those who have followed USA cricket over the last decade and have seen several attempts to change the system fail, the response is a somewhat cynical shrug. Depending on the level of cynicism and political awareness, their questions range from “ACF is USACA in sheep's clothing?" to "Aren't these the same people who ran the game at USACA?” For the folks who have studied USACA's history, the questions are “How can we be sure that ACF won’t meet with the same fate as the Council of League Presidents and Major League Cricket?” And for the eternal optimists, there is also, "with New Zealand Cricket and Cricket Holdings America involved, USACA will change from within."

"Mere Paas Maa Hai"

I also spoke to a couple of stakeholders who are more closely aligned with USACA. Naturally, their reaction is based on political calculus: “I expect the ACF leagues to abandon the mother ship at the sight of the first USACA carrot.” The underlying assumption, and not entirely without basis, is that at least some of the dissident leagues are driven by short term goals. They also draw strength from the fact that a large percentage of participants of many leagues are unconcerned about anything beyond the weekend game. Long range planning and strategic thinking take a backseat as a result.

USACA's confidence also arises from the fact that the ICC and CHA continue to shower unconditional love on it. A friend and I were joking that it was like the legendary "Mere Paas Maa Hai" dialogue from the movie "Deewar." The joke goes like this:

ACF to USACA: "Mere paas cricketers ka trust hain, leagues ka support hain, turf wickets hain, achcha constitution hain, tournaments hain. Tere paas kya hain." [I have the trust of the cricket community, support of the leagues, turf wickets, a great constitution and tournament schedule. What do you have?]

USACA replies "Mere paas ICC ka mamta hai!" [I have ICC's love.]

A good start for a guiding document

In part one of this series, I will explore whether ACF's constitution provides the right starting point. In part two, I will attempt to analyze areas of the ACF constitution that are completely new territory and in part three, I will dwell on the philosophical aspect of whether ACF has a chance at all.

In order for the ACF to win the support of the cricket community, it must first be reviewed through the prism of recent impasses and issues that USA cricket has faced. Incidents from 2011 and 2012 have left deep wounds and if ACF cannot address these issues meaningfully, it won't get the traction it seeks.

The issues are well documented - the controversial handling of the last election, the heartless disqualification of two-thirds of USA’s leagues from voting, the organization’s insistence on recognizing a national board member as the vote-carrying representative of a league despite the league’s public disavowal of the said person, and the manner in which appeals and complaints were dealt with before, during and after the election.

ACF must convince cricketers that it has the answers on matters of election timelines, voting eligibility and dispute resolution. That is the first litmus test for ACF.

Election Timeline: Let’s take the issue of a timeline for elections, an area where history has repeated itself with amazing irregularity, if you will forgive the pun. USACA is no stranger to elections controversies - elections were delayed in 2002 (eventually held in 2003), in 2007 (eventually held in 2008) and in 2011 (eventually held in 2012).

ACF does not leave any room for maneuvering on the topic of elections. By stating that the terms of directors begin on January 1 of the year following an election and that elections shall be held before the first Saturday of December, the ACF constitution eliminates the election cycle vagueness that has enveloped USA elections. It also prevents any meddlesome interference in the conduct of elections - the kind witnessed in 2011.

In fact, the ACF goes one step further and enhances accountability for the conduct of elections. Section 7.10 stipulates that each director pay ACF an non-compliance penalty of $50 per day when a deadline is missed. In my estimate, USACA would be richer by a six-figure amount if it had such a provision. [If such a penalty was also imposed for missed tournaments, USACA would probably have a high seven-figure bank balance.]

Voting Eligibility: On suspensions of rights including voting privileges, the ACF constitution states that a member shall be suspended if they fail to submit membership dues as required for membership or for not meeting the terms of any agreement with the ACF.

While I agree that non-payment of dues before a record date should be the basis, there are two sides to that coin. We have also seen how holding off indefinitely on processing membership applications has impacted leagues desiring to become members. We have also seen issues like lost mail, delayed deposits or late payments leading to confusion surrounding voting eligibility.

We have also seen how the national body can lose the plot entirely when exercising its powers. As an example, my own league (CLNJ) paid $4300 for 43 clubs during 2010. But USACA's compliance consultant contended that the league should have paid for 44 clubs since it had identified 44 clubs on its website. Our explanation that the 44th club was inactive throughout the season fell on deaf ears ("In 2010 , one of the teams dropped out at the start of the season and hence dues were paid for 43 teams," our league pleaded). In 2011, we added a team and paid for 44 clubs. In any event, CLNJ was disqualified and among the reasons given was non-payment of dues. We paid $4300 for 2010 and $4400 in 2011. Another $100 was not going to break the bank, but our genuine reasoning was not accepted.

The ACF constitution attempts to solve these types of issues by making several provisions. First, the ACF constitution vests voting privileges in the hands of a broad membership, which includes players, clubs and leagues. In this manner, voting is not an exclusive privilege of leagues. And disqualifying leagues or pronouncing bogus leagues as vote-eligible does not affect electoral outcomes as it has with the national board.

Secondly, suspension of a member cannot be arbitrary. Under 3.9(b), the process of suspending a member must be conducted according to the Dispute Resolution Process.

Thirdly, the ACF constitution lays out a clear timeline for elections. The election deadline, election process and the appeals process, each have built-in notification periods and provide reasonable times for suspended members to take steps to restore their privileges.

In my view, a few additional provisions could further enhance the organization's reputation and allay fears of potential members. As an example, ACF could make reasonable attempts to notify a member approaching their membership anniversary date that the membership would be suspended unless payment is received by a certain deadline. If the fees are not received after a second reminder or after the anniversary date, suspension should be triggered. Suspension for non-payment should be lifted if payment is received (together with a penalty) within 30 days of the anniversary date. If not, membership should be cancelled.

Also, new members accepted within eight weeks of an election should not be allowed to vote. That will prevent gaming of the voting process by candidates. The ACF constitution already requires that eligibility lists be produced no later than eight weeks before an election and appeals by ineligible voters must occur no later than 6 weeks before the election. These eligibility related appeals must be heard in an expedited manner because the 45-day window under the Judicial Proceedings section may place the member at risk of being pronounced denied a vote just a tad later than needed if his appeal is upheld.

In summary, on the subject of voting eligibility, the ACF constitution gets a passing grade but should include some additional safeguards either within the constitution or through membership agreements. It should also take a more service-oriented approach by sending out reminders.

Term Limits: Term limits are not exactly a novel concept but not all organizations embrace limits with equal enthusiasm. After all, it wasn't until the 22nd amendment was ratified in 1951 that a two-term limit was placed for election to the office of the US president. Generally speaking, an organization's embrace of term limits reflects the importance the organization places on fresh ideas.

The ACF constitution stipulates a two term-limit for members of the Advisory and Judicial Committee. This is adequate.

For the Directors, it sets a 8-year cap since a length of a term may vary from one year to four years. This is a great start. In order to fully capture the spirit of term-limits, ACF should consider limiting candidates from contesting in an election if winning the election would lead to three successive terms or 8 years. In fact, ACF should consider going one step further. The maximum length of time a person should be allowed to serve in any capacity at the national level should be 8 years in any 16-year period.

USACA has no limits whatsoever - 2013 marks Gladstone Dainty's 10th year as President.

Judicial process: This area is well thought out and ACF's adoption of checks and balances through the proposed Advisory and Judicial Committee is remarkable. This committee is a good mix of representatives with no one category of members being disproportionately represented.

The judicial process is described in detail and sets timelines for submission, response, rebuttal response, and the meeting of the judicial committee. The only recommendation I can think of in this area is to set a similar timeline when additional questions or clarifications arise and when reconsideration is sought.

Duty to Recuse: ACF's draft constitution also clearly spells out the duty to recuse, something that USACA's constitution does not when it comes to the Appeal Committee. In fact, USACA's constitution empowers the Board to establish an Appeal Committee whose job is to consider appeals to final decisions by the Board. In and of itself, that presents a conflict. Without the expectation of recusal, it is up to the board to ensure that the committee that they appoint is impartial.

Proof is in the pudding, because when the board's decision to disqualify several leagues was appealed, USACA's Appeal Committee consisted of several league presidents, some of whom had a direct interest in the eventual outcome of the appeals in question.

Membership: Article 3 titled "Membership" in the ACF constitution is by far the most elegant and simple. Section 3.2 clearly defines the eligibility requirements for the various classes of members. Section 3.5 lays out when membership takes effect: "Any person, natural or juridical, satisfying the eligibility requirements of any of the classes of membership defined in this article shall be immediately considered a member of the Federation."

In comparison, the USACA constitution has sowed distrust as the membership process is viewed as a tool for the board to pick and choose its members. Section 12 of Article III of the USACA constitution says that Membership "Applications shall be approved by a majority vote of the Board." Elsewhere, the constitution says that a member is not entitled to vote "until the Board is satisfied that the member has met the definition of good standing." These two sections give the incumbent USACA board members control over when membership is granted and when a member may vote.

You will also notice that there is nothing in the USACA constitution that requires the board to review an application for membership within a finite amount of time. Over the last several years, I received numerous emails from league administrators awaiting the fate of their membership applications. Even this website's affiliate, the DreamCricket Academy's bid to renew its existing associate membership hit a roadblock in July 2012 and the matter is still with the board with no timeline for resolution.

Broad Participation: As previously noted, this is another area where ACF sets the right tone. With several classes of voting members, membership and participation are not the privilege of a handful of large leagues. The ACF constitution provides a voice and a vote to every individual, club, league or organization. It is also refreshing to see that ACF is keen on extending a warm welcome to softball and indoor leagues. US Soccer has similar categorization and this is exactly what you would expect from a world class sports organization.

To its credit, ACF gives itself room for expanding the number of categories. I can already think of a few, such as umpires, coaches and statisticians. The constitution committee should consider including them in the final constitution.

The ACF constitution should clearly define privileges that are granted to members who straddle multiple categories. As an example, a 17-year old college level women's player should not be forced to choose between the rights of a Women's Player and Development Player. Instead, she must have the rights associated with both categories. This is largely a feature that can be explored through the membership form.

Ultimately, in order to build goodwill, ACF will need to design and provide services applicable to each category. ACF has said that it expects to release FAQs and a bill of rights. The sooner it releases these documents, the better its chances of signing up members.

Delegates/Agents: This is another area where cricket has not been served too well in recent times. In one instance, a league publicly disavowed an individual who continued to be recognized by the national board as that league's representative. The league's wishes were completely ignored. Instead, the league was notified that the USACA president would take the "matter to the [national] board for resolution."

In other words, the USACA board was going to rule on who would represent a league. This is akin to the US Congress determining who should serve as the representative of a New Jersey district. To make matters more interesting, the league representative who was questioned now sits on the USACA board.

The ACF constitution avoids such conflicts by placing the responsibility squarely in the league's hands - "In the case of League and Club Members, the individual registered as the member's agent shall vote on the member's behalf."

[Disclaimer: The author is a co-founder of DreamCricket Academy, which is a former associate member of USACA (now a USACA member-in-waiting for over six months); a former representative of CLNJ on USACA's Atlantic Region board (CLNJ, which is NJ's largest league, was disqualified by USACA in 2012); and an administrator of CLNJ-Youth, the largest youth cricket program in the state of New Jersey. He also served as CLNJ's delegate to the ACF when ACF was not yet incorporated. However, the opinions expressed and the inputs on ACF constitution are his own and should not be viewed as CLNJ's or DreamCricket Academy's inputs.]

USA Cricket Association hires Darren Beazley as new CEO

openingbat — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:13:00 GMT

Now, you can get all the USA Cricket updates via Facebook. Also follow us on Twitter via @dreamcricket

USACA Media Release

Florida (December 31, 2012) – The United States of America Cricket Association, Inc. (“USACA”) is pleased to announce the appointment of Darren Beazley as its new Chief Executive Officer.

This appointment concludes an extensive international search by a sub-committee comprising Gladstone Dainty, Ahmed Jeddy, Sunil Kumar of USACA, Tim Anderson of the International Cricket Council (ICC) and Ali Khan of Management Alternatives.

During the recruitment process Mr. Beazley demonstrated strong sport development experience with a close working knowledge of industry best practices, extensive organizational and professional skills critical to the development of a professionally managed USACA, and a keen understanding of strategic planning and resource management.

Mr. Beazley brings two decades of high-level experience in various sports – including cricket –and international commerce to USACA. Further details are included in a bio of Mr. Beazley below.

Image (right) - Darren Beazley, USACA's new CEO.

Commenting on the appointment Gladstone Dainty, President of USACA, stated: “This appointment marks a key moment for the growth and development of cricket in the United States as USACA looks to take better advantage of the sport’s widening global appeal for men, women and youth.

“The appointment of a competent and motivated chief executive to lead our operations was a vital component of an action plan agreed by the USACA Board during 2012, and after completing a rigorous recruitment process, I’m delighted that someone with Darren’s skills and experience has agreed to join us.

“The Board can now focus on developing policy and relationships with partners who share our vision for the success of cricket in the USA.”

Mr. Beazley noted: “Cricket has always been a major part of my life and I am therefore thrilled to have the opportunity to assist its growth and improvement in one of the most important emerging markets in the world today.

“I look forward to leading USACA’s national efforts, as well as working closely with the member leagues, clubs and partners to ensure cricket’s vast potential in the US is realized.

“There is a rich, diverse and long history of cricket in the US. One of my first key projects will be to talk to a wide selection of league presidents, stakeholders and partners about that history and the future. My hope is that this will help encourage the levels of collaboration and compliance critical for the development of the game at all levels and in all forms in the US.”

Tim Anderson, the ICC’s Global Development Manager, added: “It is critical that cricket continues its growth path globally and helping ICC Associate and Affiliate Members put in place more professional management structures is an important corner stone in that progression.

“Having been appointed through a highly competitive recruitment process, Darren will now have a key role – together with the USACA Board – in developing such a structure for cricket in the USA.”

Mr. Beazley will commence as the CEO of USACA in February 2013 and will be based in Florida.

USACA's support base erodes further

openingbat — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:44:00 GMT

Now, you can get all the USA Cricket updates via Facebook. Also follow us on Twitter via @dreamcricket

By Venu Palaparthi

In an affidavit in opposition to the order to show cause in the petition filed by Kenwyn Williams asking that USACA be dissolved, Gladstone Dainty claimed that the board's decision to suspend Kenwyn Williams was approved by nine leagues in good standing, constituting two-thirds majority of the twelve USACA leagues eligible to vote.

For the first time since the controversial election, USACA acknowledged that its membership was down to twelve good-standing leagues, down from the fifteen leagues that voted in April 2012. But that is not the whole story.

Attached to the affidavit were nine ballots from leagues indicating approval of the board's November 1 decision. At least two league presidents have since disputed the authority of the signatories.

Michael Dupigny signed the ballot on behalf of Washington Metro Cricket Board (WMCB) claiming to be the Acting Chairman of the Board of Directors for that league. When reached for comment regarding his league's support of the USACA board decision, WMCB President, Avinash Varma, denied knowledge of the ballot. Responding via email, Varma wrote that "Mike Dupigny does not hold any office with the WMCB league since March 24, 2012." Varma noted that WMCB's BOD was dissolved by the membership at a special session held in March.

New Jersey Cricket Association's newly elected president, Govind Itwaru told DreamCricket.com that he had not seen the ballot and could not comment on its contents. However, Itwaru said that Sheldon Mollineau, who had signed on behalf of the league, had resigned as the president of NJCA on November 16, 2012 and could not claim to represent the league following his resignation. The undated ballot had an electronic signature of Sheldon Mollineau whose title appears as President of NJCA.

Interestingly, even though the ballots had to be faxed or emailed no later than 9PM ET on December 9, 2012, at least three of the ballots had a facsimile date following that date.

If USACA had twelve leagues in good standing, then eight leagues would have constituted a two-thirds majority. It is apparent that USACA had trouble meeting that basic requirement by December 9th.

USA Cricket: USACA meet bereft of workable ideas

openingbat — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:42:00 GMT

Now, you can get all the USA Cricket updates via Facebook. Also follow us on Twitter via @dreamcricket

By Venu Palaparthi

The USACA Annual General Meeting was generally bereft of ideas, a participant who was at the meeting told DreamCricket.com on condition of anonymity. There were roughly 16 attendees at the AGM including a handful of league presidents, he added. Interim CEO Nabeel Ahmed, 1st Vice President Michael Gale and South East Regional Representative Owen Grey were absent at the AGM. USACA Treasurer John Thickett attended by phone.

The number of attendees and the tone of the meeting were both a far cry from the 2010 edition, which saw greater participation amidst an optimistic outlook for USA cricket.

As has become the norm at recent USACA meetings, hotel security was instructed to block the entry of certain people. Leighton Greenidge, President of the Southern Connecticut Cricket Association and until recently the chairman of the erstwhile USACA North East Region, was denied access.

Just for comparison, my league's AGM is attended by over 100 eager participants. Other US-based national level cricket organizations including United States Youth Cricket Association and American Cricket Federation (ACF) have held meetings during 2012 that were generally more inclusive, featured a constructive agenda and encouraged divergent views. In stark contrast to the USACA AGM, the ACF meeting was open to the public and participants were asked to join in-person, via WebEx or through a conference bridge.

The most important topic on everyone's mind at the AGM was the status of the T20 league. According to the DreamCricket.com source, USACA President Gladstone Dainty was hopeful that the league would be launched and left the participants with the impression that more details would be shared in a month or so. If you thought that cleared the air on this very important topic, please hold your breath. ESPNcricinfo reported yesterday that stakeholders were informed by Dainty that the board's partnership with the primary investor was nearing an end, a claim that the investor aparently denied.

Updates were provided at the AGM by the President, the Treasurer and from three of the four functioning regions. To the utter dismay of those in attendance, Dainty handed out a document dated September 9, 2008, titled "A Vision for USACA" and told those assembled that the document remained as valid in 2012 as it did in 2008. Before you jump to conclusions that this reflects the President's far-sighted vision, you must spare a thought to the other possibility - USACA's inability to deliver.

In 2008, Dainty wrote of the need for USACA to adhere to a few tenets (1) a short term business plan (2) a long term business plan (2) player development and (4) marketing and promotions. Under Dainty's leadership, these 'tenets' remain largely unfulfilled. If you are in the mood to cut some slack, let us move the dial back some more. Cricinfo's Deb Das presciently wrote in 2004, "It is not clear that the USACA even knows how to proceed on a national basis with such goals. There are no professional marketers or sports managers at the board or executive level in the USACA, and no indication that there will be any in the near future."

At the very minimum, Dainty should have revised the 2008 document and set new expectations. The 2008 document still talks about a team participating in ICC sponsored ODI matches by 2013. And how about the goal that talks of a national championship with marketing, TV and other media coverage? What has USACA delivered on this vision? Why is it that American College Cricket was able to achieve some of the same objectives in a much shorter period but not USACA?

The Atlantic Region's report should give everyone an indication of what the regions were able to accomplish during 2012, a year in which no national tournaments were held. The slide deck makes it clear that the region has chosen to duplicate efforts instead of strengthening existing programs. As an example, the region describes an initiative to introduce cricket to Maryland's public schools beginning with Prince George's County. Well, that's a novel idea... except that the US Youth Cricket Association (USYCA) has already made considerable headway with schools in Prince George's County and, for good measure, the following other Maryland counties as well - Baltimore, Wicomico, Howard, Carroll, Queen Anne’s and Kent.

The Atlantic Region's proposal was devoid of concrete timelines. The words "TBD," "Funding Needed," or "submitted proposal" appear on most slides. Thankfully for USYCA, its efforts have been recognized by folks outside of the regional administration. As far back as 2010, USYCA's Prince George's County program was featured in an article in the Bowie Patch (read here - Part 1, 2). USACA would be glad to know that USYCA received $63,000 in donations in its very first year including $22,000 from Appleseed Foundation.

The Treasurer's Report by Thickett confirmed what we have read in the news recently. USACA had a 2011 net deficit of $1.9 million and a receivable of $1.5 million.

The 100-day Plan itself did not come up for discussion, according to the DreamCricket.com source. However, some of the themes were touched upon.

On the topic of the CEO, the participants were told that USACA had shortlisted four candidates and that a CEO would be announced once the interview process was completed. In a press release titled 'Status Report - USACA 100 Day Plan' dated October 5, 2012, USACA noted that they had shortlisted five candidates and expected to select a final candidate by October 19, 2012. In summary, there has been little progress. Likewise, no plans were put forth by compliance and governance committees.

At the 2009 AGM, the USA Cricket Umpires Association (USACUA) was tasked with creating a representative and inclusive umpires federation that was in step with aspirations of umpires across the country. USACUA provided an update at Saturday's AGM outlining progress and Dainty acknowledged that the organization needed to be supported. This perhaps was one of the few bright spots during the AGM.

USA Cricket: USACA will do well to introspect on its record at its AGM

openingbat — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 03:10:00 GMT

Now, you can get all the USA Cricket updates via Facebook. Also follow us on Twitter via @dreamcricket

By Venu Palaparthi

USACA announced that it would hold its Annual General Meeting at the JFK Hilton in Jamaica, New York, on December 15, 2012. Included on the agenda are reports from the board and USACA's four remaining regions.

USACA did not respond to an email asking whether the AGM was open to public. However, in an article that appeared on ESPNCricinfo last week, USACA Treasurer John Thickett said: "All USACA members are welcome to attend the AGM. On voting matters, all members in good standing are eligible to vote."

The last AGM held in Dallas (TX) in April 2010, was not only open to public, it was well attended and well organized (pictured right). The Dallas AGM served as a state of the union and USACA set some important goals for itself at that AGM.

To give credit where it is due, USACA achieved two of those goals with the help of New Zealand Cricket and others.

“I am hopeful that real soon we will reward them [Lauderhill stadium] with cricket at the highest level," USACA President Gladstone Dainty said in his address in 2010. USACA kept that promise with the Pearls Cup series between New Zealand and Sri Lanka. In 2012, West Indies played two T20s against New Zealand at Lauderhill.

Also at the 2010 AGM, John Thickett and then CEO Don Lockerbie spoke of the progress of the commercial deal, which was imminent. The agreement was eventually signed in December 2010 and has given USACA access to much needed funds. In the aforementioned ESPNcricinfo article, Dainty is quoted as saying: "We get advances against the rights for the professional league, but we should have been getting revenue from them of about $500k per quarter; we've been getting about half of that."

"In booking that revenue the independent auditors are saying: 'You are owed a massive amount of money by an entity which does not have that money right now… we won't recognise that revenue right now but we are convinced you will get it'," Dainty said.

Although these two accomplishments are definitely historic, they might just be the sum total of the list of USACA's accomplishments since the last AGM that was open to the public. On the other hand, the list of unkept promises continues to grow and USACA will do well to introspect.

Here is a refresher on some of the themes from the 2010 AGM that USACA won't be so proud of:

In his 2010 report, Dainty observed that USACA was communicating better, was becoming more purposeful and was moving rapidly in a positive direction and said that this was possible because he was "empowering more stakeholders.” Some two and half years later, nothing could be further from the truth. From a cricketer's perspective, USACA continues to drift listlessly. A majority of the stakeholders have actually been silenced, not empowered as Dainty asserted in 2010. USACA's communications continue to be sporadic and unreliable. More recently, its social media efforts have provided comic relief to cricket writers around the world.

Pic (Right): A screenshot of USACA's website from July 12th advertises an imaginary "U-15 national tournament" starting July 13th at a location to be determined. No such tournament was held.

Despite Dainty's recent proclamation that "In terms of the noise you are hearing this has not affected a single player," the fact is that the lack of progress has affected cricket. Try explaining to a 15-year who has not had a chance to play in a national U-15 tournament in 2012 that he has not really lost any time or opportunity. Try persuading an U-19 cricketer that he has had a chance to display his skills before next year's ICC Americas U-19 tournament, even if no actual tournaments were held in all of 2012.

Another area that was discussed at the Dallas AGM was sources of funding. Former CEO Lockerbie emphasized that a healthy level of internal funding was a factor whenever external funding bodies were approached. What happened since 2010 was that USACA has continued to rely heavily on two baskets for its eggs - grants from the ICC and advances from CHA. For his part, Thickett listed two initiatives - development of individual membership options and a way for members to use credit cards to pay fees. Two years later, these initiatives remain on the drawing board.

Dainty said in 2010 that supplemental resources from USACA would be available for all noteworthy regional initiatives such as a project to build a turf wicket. This idea was pushed further in town hall meetings called by Thickett. One league president called it as he saw it. Following the town hall, then NCCA President Ganesh Sanap told ESPNcricinfo: "It's election-time talk. USACA has never given any money to anyone so why would it give it now?"

Well, he was both right and wrong. Aside from the offer for administrative grants of $2,000 per league to the 15 'compliant' leagues that voted in the 2012 election, which coincidentally were announced ahead of the election, there is no evidence of USACA actually providing supplemental funding to leagues or regions for wide-ranging infrastructure projects that were strategic in nature.

These are just a few of the promises made in 2010 that were broken. There are many more that were made in the months that followed that remain unfulfilled.

Whether USACA uses the December 15 meeting to check off a box on its to-do list or the board actually reflects on plans and progress, only time will tell. Whatever happens, you will read about it on DreamCricket.com.

USA Cricket: It is time for ICC to act

openingbat — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:22:00 GMT

Now, you can get all the USA Cricket updates via Facebook. Also follow us on Twitter via @dreamcricket

By Venu Palaparthi

After the April election, Gladstone Dainty got his wish for a friendly board of directors and a majority of the incumbents were reelected. Well, almost! The bonhomie lasted exactly six months and then emails began to surface suggesting that all was not well. From that point on, it was a matter of time before full-blown political strife returned to USACA.

On October 8th, Kenwyn Williams, the Executive Secretary, sent out an email alleging "unethical behavior" and "greed" exhibited by some board members. In reply, Dainty wrote that communications by Williams were "rude and demeaning."

A week later, Williams began posting on the official USACA Facebook and Twitter pages questioning the credentials of ESPNcricinfo reporters. What followed was a social media farce of epic proportions. Acting with uncharacterestic promptness, USACA held an emergency meeting of the board on November 1st and sacked Kenwyn Williams.

Nobody should be surprised if a friendly figure is now anointed the Executive Secretary. After all, Williams had done the unthinkable - he had dragged the disfunctional USACA from mere disrepute to complete ridicule.

In all of this, let us not forget how Williams was elected in the first place. It is common knowledge that Williams was a beneficiary of the same block of votes that saw the reelection of the President and three others allied with him. It is also common knowledge that Dainty had no love lost for John Aaron - Williams' opponent in the controversy marred election.

As I have written elsewhere, and as history is replete with examples, a flawed election begets a flawed leadership. When just eight leagues constitute a majority in an election that should really have at least forty participating leagues, you should expect the worst.

The choice of tools and the machinations used by the regime in the run-up to the election have damaged USA cricket in unforeseen ways. That this was all done with the quiet acquiescence of ICC, an organization that was in a position to reinforce the importance of a democratic process but instead showed that it does not yet have the courage to put governance first, is worrying.

At a critical juncture in USA cricket's history, the ICC chose to ignore the interests of the larger cricketing community in the US. ICC has never objectively reviewed the circumstances that caused a majority of the leagues to be excluded in the election.

ICC's actions following the election suggest that it continues to unconditionally support the arbitrary regime. A USACA press release dated August 11th noted that Jon Long, Head of Executive Programs at ICC, had joined the USACA Governance Review Committee. Ironically, the aforementioned farce occured after Long joined the USACA Committee, thus giving him a ring-side view of the action.

ICC should understand that the most troubling aspect of USACA is that it does not represent USA cricket. In DreamCricket's estimate, fewer than one-third of all hard-ball cricket leagues in the US have paid membership dues to USACA during 2012. USACA, as we all know, does not publish any useful information - opacity being its first principle. But it is a fact that lights remain turned off in four erstwhile USACA regions due to insufficient number of leagues. Under USACA's constitution, a region must have three leagues and in four regions, and USACA does not have the allegiance of the minimum number of leagues.

Of the four remaining regions which continue to have representatives on the USACA board, one region, Atlantic, is represented by a man who was publicly disavowed by his own league (WMCB). USACA not only disregarded the league's request before the election, it has also chosen to ignore the fact that the Atlantic Region has just two full-member leagues after WMCB's much publicized exit from USACA. Of the remaining three regions, the Central West, which comprises three leagues from Texas, is disproportionately represented on the USACA board with three seemingly influential board members.

Picture above: In large swathes of the country, USACA has little or no support. Place a cursor on the map to find out estimated % of hard-ball teams or clubs that are affiliated with USACA. [Source: DreamCricket.com]

"Compliance" which was the USACA mantra that led to the disenfranchisement of well over 21 leagues ahead of the election, has taken a back seat after the election. Appeals of the 'non-compliant' leagues remain unheard and promises to restore membership status remain unkept. One person familiar with the compliance management plan noted that a proposal was submitted to the board during the first week of June. Four months later, the USACA's October 5th release noted that "activities of the [Compliance] committee are currently awaiting full board approval."

According to the source, USACA board was to restore membership rights to leagues by September 31st if certain perceived deficiencies were remedied by that date. Of course, that date has come and gone.

The most disturbing part of the membership issue - one that all leagues must pay close attention to - is that the board is still the final arbiter of who is a member and who is not. This perpetuates the biggest structural weakness in the electoral system - the board ultimately decided who could vote in the April election, and since a majority of the directors were up for re-election, their decision could not be seen as impartial. In fact, the results of the election only strengthened that belief.

Even if the board were to restore full membership status now, it could just be a matter of time before the non-pliant (or non-compliant, depending on which side of the fence you are) leagues are once again shown the gates.

The ICC (and USACA) should review this entire situation carefully. Every once in a while, there is a loud and embarrasing explosion like the one we have just witnessed, but it is merely a symptom of a deeper problem. Throughout its history, the national governing body has chosen not to be inclusive and has shrouded its incompetence by maintaining a wall of silence. For as long as these issues remain unaddressed, cricket's reputation in USA will continue to suffer.