Ken Borland

Hot on the heels of the new Cricket South Africa board protesting that they inherited the mess that was the Social Justice and Nation-Building hearings, there is a second legacy of the old, disgraced board that may also cause them strife in the coming months.

I do have some sympathy for chairman Lawson Naidoo and his fellow directors when they ask with some frustration, in the wake of CSA’s embarrassing arbitration loss to Graeme Smith, “What were we supposed to do?”

The fact that SJN ombudsman Dumisa Ntsebeza chose only to make “tentative findings” on “untested evidence”, but was quite happy to make public claims of racism (surely the most damaging allegation against a White South African), meant CSA were almost damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

If they failed to further investigate the SJN allegations, then they would have been accused of ignoring the systemic racism that no doubt was part of our cricket in previous decades. But by acting on the claims against Smith, they left themselves open to criticisms of a witch-hunt and slander because the evidence was so flimsy.

Naidoo and fellow director Steven Budlender, the noted advocate, defended themselves in a Daily Maverick article this week, but what they did not mention was the way CSA’s legal representatives handled themselves in the arbitration, being criticised by the officials for “changing their tack” in the middle of the hearings and “trying to trap Smith”.

Little wonder costs were awarded against CSA.

Because the SJN was not properly set up to hear and test such inflammatory evidence in a better-controlled legal environment, the previous board certainly left Naidoo and Co with an explosive booby-trap.

The other decision of the previous board that is now causing some unhappiness in cricket circles is the automatic promotion/relegation that will apply at the end of next summer and see one of the top eight teams go down to the second division.

At the moment, one of Northern Cape, KZN Inland or South-Western Districts look set to be promoted. The Free State Knights, based in Bloemfontein, are bottom of the Division One relegation standings, with North-West (Potchefstroom) and the KZN Dolphins (Durban) tied second-from-bottom. Even teams like Western Province (Cape Town) and the Eastern Province Warriors (PE) have anxious times ahead as they are only lead the Knights by 10 points.

Do CSA really want one of those major centres to miss out as the likes of Kimberley, Pietermaritzburg or Oudtshoorn have a Division One team instead?

The problem with automatic promotion/relegation is that it is unlikely, barring a mass defection of players, that the team coming up will be better than the side going down, given the quality of cricket played in Division II.

There are many good reasons to ensure teams in the lower division can work their way up into the premier section, but the majority of fans do not want to see the Dolphins, Western Province or the Central Gauteng Lions playing in the second league. Imagine iconic stadiums like Newlands, the Wanderers or Kingsmead not hosting the best domestic players?

The only reason teams like KZN or the Lions, who would have been involved in the relegation battle before their surprise victory in the One-Day Cup right at the end of the season, would find themselves in danger of going down is because they provide most of the Proteas team.

There are many who feel automatic promotion/relegation is there to ensure the smaller unions, whose votes are often like the tail wagging the dog, share a place at the top table for at least one season before themselves being demoted.

I know CSA have a lot on their plate, but tweaking this system to ensure the Division II winners are only promoted if they beat the bottom side in Division I, is hopefully going to become a priority.

There is a massive irony in a body such as Sascoc, wracked by internal strife and lacking credibility, making an intervention in the affairs of Cricket South Africa, a federation that seems to daily provide a new definition of rock-bottom.

But one can only hope this is a rocket (a spark would have little effect on the thick-skinned people sitting on the CSA Board) that leads to a real shift in the mindsets of those arrogant directors that refuse to budge a centimetre from a place at the top table of a sport they have parasitized rather than served.

If Sascoc threatening to take over does not force the CSA Board into standing down and releasing the Fundudzi Forensic Report, then the next option has to be for them to be threatened with being declared delinquent directors. There have been a litany of governance disasters at CSA over the last couple of years and there is no way they can continue to deny their own involvement and culpability.

There is no doubt people like former CEO Thabang Moroe and company secretary Welsh Gwaza have been involved in malfeasance, but who appointed and enabled these self-serving charlatans? The directors did and they have failed in their fiduciary duties, which have a clear legal basis.

The Members Council and the CSA Board of Directors are meeting together in Johannesburg over the weekend and, as one delegate put it, this is “make-or-break” time for the organisation. Will selfish, individualistic priorities prevail and continue the death spiral into chaos and oblivion? Or will there finally be some leadership and accountability shown?

Either way, Sascoc are going to impose a task team inquiring into CSA’s affairs, which is no bad thing. But if leadership and accountability win the day then there are enough top-class people who love cricket who will be able to step into the leadership vacuum and help CSA back to stability.

One of those is Judith February, a lawyer based at the Institute for Security Studies, the former head of IDASA’s governance programme, a Visiting Fellow at the Wits School of Governance, a trustee of the Nelson Mandela Foundation and a massive cricket fan.

“You cannot be on a board and not take responsibility, resigning just before the AGM is too little, too late because they have presided over matters to that point. Directors have left in silence or written letters, but it was because they did not flex their muscles that Thabang Moroe was allowed to operate in that way. CSA’s Memorandum of Incorporation is very clear and they have breached it on every front.

“We can join the dots intelligently and see that there is something deeply wrong with the system and the people who manage it and the people who oversee them. A clean break is the best option and clearly we need to interrogate why someone of such integrity and capability as Jacques Faul could find no space to work in CSA. The players’ statement about the boardroom shenanigans was also really important,” February said this week in a Daily Maverick webinar discussing cricket in South Africa’s fight for survival.

Does February, a governance specialist and former executive director of the HSRC’s Democracy and Governance unit, not just sound like the perfect candidate to be an independent director on a new-look CSA Board?

There are also some brilliant, impressive people on the Members Council – one thinks of Ben Dladla, Craig Nel, Anne Vilas and Tebogo Siko – who are dong their best to restore the credibility of CSA, but their efforts are being stymied by the presence of seven directors of the Board in the 14-strong Members Council itself.

The Nicholson Inquiry, which the CSA Board have now committed to return to eight years after its release, called for change in how the Board was constituted, recommending nine of the 12 directors be independents.

But in 2013 it was the selfsame Sascoc who refused to accept that and pressured CSA (although it probably suited their Board back then too) into going with a 7-5 split in favour of non-independents. And that’s a major reason why CSA are in the mess they are in now.

Directors without the competence, skills or experience to run a billion-and business have been voted in to ensure certain powerful figures enjoy support and can dispense patronage in return. In some cases, these directors have been earning twice as much from Board fees as from their ‘main’ source of income; no wonder they are desperate to keep their noses in the CSA trough.

In the coming weeks, Sascoc have a vital role to play in supporting the efforts of those who want to change this system and put cricket back in the control of people who firstly love and serve the game, and secondly have the expertise to run it properly.

You don’t need to be an economist to realise that Cricket South Africa (CSA) is in deep financial strife, but unfortunately their response looks set to come straight out of the socialist economics playbook used in Venezuela.

CSA’s Members Council will meet this weekend to rubber stamp a proposal to do away with the franchise system of six teams that, most stakeholders will tell you, has actually been working quite well, both in terms of keeping their heads above water financially in tough economic times and in ensuring the standard of domestic cricket is high enough to ensure a steady flow of quality players reach the Proteas.

They want to return to the system that was in place pre-2004 of having 12 teams, returning sides like Border and Northern Cape to the top table. There will no longer be two levels of domestic cricket – franchise and semi-professional.

Apparently, according to the figures CSA have been distributing to the provinces, that will mean 71 less players getting contracts and CSA will save R71 million over three years. That’s the sort of neat co-incidence that makes me suspicious.

My problem with this move is that it is not about cricket, but more about playing politics and ensuring the six franchises, a couple of which are growing strongly, are not in a position of power to challenge the many hare-brained schemes CSA come up with as their senior management lead their merry lives of excess.

CSA’s own reviews have stated that only seven fully professional teams are financially viable, so why would they want to increase the number to 12? My cynical thought is that they want to create a dozen dependants who will always do CSA’s bidding and not challenge the wayward administrators that so often populate their board.

In the current economic climate, fully professional teams in East London, Kimberley, Potchefstroom and Benoni are not viable and there is no way they will be able to keep up, in the long term, with the sides based in Johannesburg, Centurion, Cape Town or Durban.

Think of all the sponsorships and investments in their brands and stadiums those four franchises – the Lions, Titans, Cobras and Dolphins – have made in recent years, which will now be undone on a whim of CSA senior management. I predict that CSA is going to have to spend much more than R71 million in order to keep cricket alive and competitive in the six smaller teams they want to promote to the top table.

The actual workings of this new 12-team system have not been properly conveyed to CSA’s stakeholders and obviously the South African Cricketers’ Association (the players’ union) are going to want a lot more details as to how, when and why this dramatic change is taking place.

Perhaps the most laughable aspect of this new plan is that CSA chief executive Thabang Moroe repeatedly told the media this week that “as CSA management we don’t know what the Members are thinking until they tell us. The Members asked us to look at domestic cricket again and we need a directive from them, we need them to tell us what their concerns are. We merely play an advisory role, we cannot say no to the Members.”

Which is completely at odds with what the provinces have been saying, with one senior administrator telling me the plan was formulated by CSA. “When it comes to CSA, nothing starts with all the stakeholders sitting and discussing pros and cons, they just come and present us with the plan”.

It would seem the campaign promises of Moroe in his bid to be appointed CEO and by president Chris Nenzani in his efforts to secure another term are now due. Provinces like Border, Boland and Northern Cape are calling in their debt.

The CSA leadership, instead of trying to sort out some strained relationships in the franchises, most notably between Boland and Western Province at the Cobras, or making the tough decision and only adding one or at most two new franchises, have opted for the easy way out. Which will sadly be the road to ruin, with the smaller centres closest to the precipice.