Would you pay for Zimbabwe Cricket Boycott ?
Discussion
On Radio 4 this morning, I heard various wallahs rattling on about the cricket world cup games scheduled to be played in Zimbabwe.
Basically, the English & Welsh Cricket Board have said that they make a distinction between sports and politics and that it is not for them to decide to boycott pthe games in Zimbabwe. The ICC has pretty much said the same thing.
The British government have quite rightly made it clear that this is the responsibility of the cricket authorities.
A likely cost to the ECB in fines and lost revenue of £10m has been floated. The govt has said they'd be highly unlikely to compensate the ECB for this loss.
So my question is this:
If the only condition under which the ECB would boycott playing cricket in Zimbabwe were that the government would bail it out to the tune of £5m, how would you feel about your tax money going to this end?
Supplementary question:
Am I alone in feeling that the ECB are a bunch of spinelsss amoral old men who should show some courage or piss off and die?
Basically, the English & Welsh Cricket Board have said that they make a distinction between sports and politics and that it is not for them to decide to boycott pthe games in Zimbabwe. The ICC has pretty much said the same thing.
The British government have quite rightly made it clear that this is the responsibility of the cricket authorities.
A likely cost to the ECB in fines and lost revenue of £10m has been floated. The govt has said they'd be highly unlikely to compensate the ECB for this loss.
So my question is this:
If the only condition under which the ECB would boycott playing cricket in Zimbabwe were that the government would bail it out to the tune of £5m, how would you feel about your tax money going to this end?
Supplementary question:
Am I alone in feeling that the ECB are a bunch of spinelsss amoral old men who should show some courage or piss off and die?
Perhaps they could write to that fine Mr Mugabe and ask him if he'll foot the bill?
Its not that long since the boycott of South Africa was in place, and even though that was established it didn't stop several players going on unofficial tours, taking up playing or coaching posts, etc. in spite of lengthy international bans.
Seems like morals take a back seat when moolah becomes an issue.
I would suggest that the ECB refuse to play, and refuse to pay any fine imposed - if necessary tell the ICC where to go.
But yes, there does seem to be a distinct lack of moral fibre - oh, please, Mr Government, we're too stupid to make up our own minds, well we think we are if there's a sniff of a chance that you'll pay us off instead...
Its not that long since the boycott of South Africa was in place, and even though that was established it didn't stop several players going on unofficial tours, taking up playing or coaching posts, etc. in spite of lengthy international bans.
Seems like morals take a back seat when moolah becomes an issue.
I would suggest that the ECB refuse to play, and refuse to pay any fine imposed - if necessary tell the ICC where to go.
But yes, there does seem to be a distinct lack of moral fibre - oh, please, Mr Government, we're too stupid to make up our own minds, well we think we are if there's a sniff of a chance that you'll pay us off instead...
[devils advocate mode]
Cricket is these guys' business. I think that many business people would continue trading with Zim until the government put a stop to it. OK, the cricket world cup may not be as big a step as, say, the olympics, but it is what the players have spent their lives driving towards
.
Two sides again. I do think that there is a bearing on the government to make the decision - but they are well within their rights to refuse to pay any compensation - same rules for all etc!
[/dam]
Cricket is these guys' business. I think that many business people would continue trading with Zim until the government put a stop to it. OK, the cricket world cup may not be as big a step as, say, the olympics, but it is what the players have spent their lives driving towards
. Two sides again. I do think that there is a bearing on the government to make the decision - but they are well within their rights to refuse to pay any compensation - same rules for all etc!
[/dam]
Sport and politics should remain seperate, politics is enough of a quagmire as it is without spreading its influence in to other spheres.
Saying that, the situation in Zimbabwe has been going on long enough for the sporting authorities to have seen the problems that would occur, experience from the past situation in S.Africa would have been a good guide. The sporting authorities should have made a moral descision a long time ago and pushed to have the games played elsewhere.
As for our 'government' calling for this boycott, what hypocritical bullshit, as usual.
I wonder how many MP's have 'interests' in companies still trading in Zimbabawe. And when will this government push for trade sanctions.
As usual blair and his cronies are the first to criticise and pass judgement on others, and attempt to take the moral high ground, but without taking their own advice. boll*cks as usual.
Saying that, the situation in Zimbabwe has been going on long enough for the sporting authorities to have seen the problems that would occur, experience from the past situation in S.Africa would have been a good guide. The sporting authorities should have made a moral descision a long time ago and pushed to have the games played elsewhere.
As for our 'government' calling for this boycott, what hypocritical bullshit, as usual.
I wonder how many MP's have 'interests' in companies still trading in Zimbabawe. And when will this government push for trade sanctions.
As usual blair and his cronies are the first to criticise and pass judgement on others, and attempt to take the moral high ground, but without taking their own advice. boll*cks as usual.
Quite right. The problem is that as usual, Billy & his mates are reacting to what's in the papers... did anyone see the cover of the Mirror yesterday for example with the mock up of Nasser Hussain shaking hands with Mugabe?
swilly said:As for our 'government' calling for this boycott, what hypocritical bullshit, as usual.
I wonder how many MP's have 'interests' in companies still trading in Zimbabawe. And when will this government push for trade sanctions.
As usual blair and his cronies are the first to criticise and pass judgement on others, and attempt to take the moral high ground, but without taking their own advice. boll*cks as usual.
Really, the govt know full well that they should butt out because they've not taken an adequate stand on much more important aspects of our interactions with Zimbabwe - ie business & dimplomacy.
It is disgraceful though, that the ECB have the brass nerve after all the dodgy shite that went on with South Africa, to say that they don't have the awareness or expertise to make such decisions.
Well, if it is about money, business, sponsorship or whatever, what would any sensible business do if it needed to be able to make a decision, but had no internal expertise? Either defer to the advice of the foreign office or hire in someone who does have the necessary expertise - if they are talking about £10m being at stake, they could at least bring someone in with the experience to take a view and make a recommendation.
CarZee said:Well, if it is about money, business, sponsorship or whatever, what would any sensible business do if it needed to be able to make a decision, but had no internal expertise? Either defer to the advice of the foreign office or hire in someone who does have the necessary expertise - if they are talking about £10m being at stake, they could at least bring someone in with the experience to take a view and make a recommendation.
How about Graham Gooch? He's got the experience - from all sides.
This shouldn't be a matter for cricketers. There is a clear moral case for having nothing to do with Mugabe and his repugnant regime and for imposing sanctions preventing any sort of business contact with Zimbabwe whilst he is still in (rigged) power.
Blair won't do anything decisive unless Dubya tells him to and Dubya doesn't give a monkeys about Zim. (Doesn't know where it is for a start).
The cricketers are not diplomats and shouldn't be made the pawns here because our politicians don't have the balls to take action.
Blair won't do anything decisive unless Dubya tells him to and Dubya doesn't give a monkeys about Zim. (Doesn't know where it is for a start).
The cricketers are not diplomats and shouldn't be made the pawns here because our politicians don't have the balls to take action.
paul-b said: This shouldn't be a matter for cricketers.
It's a matter for anybody.
The government have washed their hands by saying that legally they have no jurisdiction over the ECB, and cannot prohibit them from going.
They have said it might be nice if they didn't go.
The ECB are saying that without government 'direction', they don't know what they should do.
I don't discharge myself of moral decisions and obligations because the government doesn't tell me what to think. Why should they?
Sorry, I meant not just for cricketers. Why should they take all the shit because the politicians and the cricket authorities haven't got the bottle to deal with the issue.
By the way CarZee - that photo in your profile looks suspiciously like it may be doughnut city. In which case I think you've misspelt your name. (Just joking).
>> Edited by paul-b on Tuesday 31st December 15:54
>> Edited by paul-b on Tuesday 31st December 15:56
By the way CarZee - that photo in your profile looks suspiciously like it may be doughnut city. In which case I think you've misspelt your name. (Just joking).
>> Edited by paul-b on Tuesday 31st December 15:54
>> Edited by paul-b on Tuesday 31st December 15:56
Isn't it the other way around?
paul-b said: Sorry, I meant not just for cricketers. Why should they take all the shit because the politicians and the cricket authorities haven't got the bottle to deal with the issue.
Why should the government take the shit because the cricket authorities haven't got the bottle to say no?
As Size Nine Elm says - if they have no legal jurisdiction over the ECB then why should they prohibit them going?
Most of the time we winge about the Government taking away our liberties & choices - here is an example of them letting people make their own decisions - we should be applauding them (much though I hate them for other things)
At the end of the day we should all be able to make our own choices - the fact that there is this debate here, suggests that enough people have been brainwashed into wanting the government to take all the hard decisions, so that we can then comply & winge later if it didn't turn out to our total satisfaction....
All IMHO of course
I agree Craig (and that doesn't contradict what I said earlier 
).
It's the ECB who should unilaterally withdraw the team from this match. Where we lead, others (eg Australia) may well follow.
One other point has not been mentioned yet which is that there are contingency plans in place to play the match in South Africa. So why not do that?
). It's the ECB who should unilaterally withdraw the team from this match. Where we lead, others (eg Australia) may well follow.
One other point has not been mentioned yet which is that there are contingency plans in place to play the match in South Africa. So why not do that?
Size Nine Elm said:
paul-b said: This shouldn't be a matter for cricketers.
It's a matter for anybody.
The government have washed their hands by saying that legally they have no jurisdiction over the ECB, and cannot prohibit them from going.
They have said it might be nice if they didn't go.
The ECB are saying that without government 'direction', they don't know what they should do.
I don't discharge myself of moral decisions and obligations because the government doesn't tell me what to think. Why should they?
Because they are representing the country and you're not. They are there representing me, you, and themselves. This is a decision that the govt should make and it should be no.
But the ECB are not going to be seen to make that decision themselves for fear of not getting the 'compensation' from the govt.
I'd gladly pay a quid so they didn't go to Zim. Just tell me the address to send it. Twats, Lords, North London probably.
Just give the cup to the Aussies now (depending on what Pakistani side turns up, mind).
>> Edited by MikeyT on Tuesday 31st December 19:31
Well that's certainly one way of looking at it. Personally I don't think they (English Cricket team) are representing me, even if I were English, which I'm not.
MikeyT said:
Because they are representing the country and you're not. They are there representing me, you, and themselves. This is a decision that the govt should make and it should be no.
The Government represents me (badly), a solicitor I appoint may represent me, but a bunch of guys playing Cricket? I don't think so.
They are big enough to make their own decisions, without hiding behind Blair's legs.
If I were in their position, I would have no problem in making a decision over what to do, & it would annoy me if someone else tried to take that decision away from me.
From what I have heard on telly, radio etc, evreyone is washing thier hands of the decision.
One prominent guy says its safe to play there, so not on morals will he make a decision.
Another bloke on radio for whoever said we are running a business. So no morals there either
Aussie prime minister has already called for a pull out, according to the BBC sport web site.
As to the thread title, yes I would.
One prominent guy says its safe to play there, so not on morals will he make a decision.
Another bloke on radio for whoever said we are running a business. So no morals there either
Aussie prime minister has already called for a pull out, according to the BBC sport web site.
As to the thread title, yes I would.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff