The FICA Executive Chairman Paul Marsh alleged that there has been ‘no action for six weeks’ on the FICA complaint about the vote for players representatives on the ICC Cricket Committee
Today a statement issued by the FICA Executive Chairman Paul Marsh alleges that there has been ‘no action for six weeks’ on the FICA complaint about the vote for players representatives on the ICC Cricket Committee. Given this untrue statement the ICC has no alternative but to refute angrily this argument and state the true facts.
In the response the ICC states: “The facts of this matter are clear. Following several weeks of communications and discussions between ICC executives and FICA, on Tuesday 25 June 2013 senior ICC executives and leading board members from ICC Full and non-Full member countries met with Ian Smith, the FICA Chief Operating Officer, in London with a view to resolving the issues which had been raised by FICA.
“It was mutually agreed with the FICA representative that major progress had been made to resolve any perceived deficiencies in the ICC Cricket Committee election system and we believed that, at the end of the meeting, we were close to reaching an outcome that was acceptable to the players and their representatives.
“Sadly, within no more than 48 hours of those constructive talks - without reverting to the ICC -FICA’s executive chairman chose to issue an emotive press release, which we believe was a breach of trust of the processes and protocols agreed at the London discussions. We also believe that this confrontational approach is not in the best interests of the game or the players worldwide, who perform so admirably in all formats.
“ICC are angry and disappointed that Mr Marsh chose to notify ICC of this change of direction only at 1.31am UK time on Thursday and then issued their misleading statement at 4.30am on the same day – when all Board members and executives, in London for ICC Annual conference, were asleep. These actions do not reflect the spirit in which ICC and, we believed, FICA entered into what appeared to be meaningful and productive dialogue nor reflect a willingness to work together to provide a satisfactory conclusion to this issue.”