Ken Borland

I suppose one should pay Cricket South Africa’s Members Council their dues for the sort of sheer bloodymindedness and obstinacy that, if our batsmen could replicate it at the crease, would ensure that the Proteas never lose another Test match.

But now, with the game in this country teetering on the precipice, it really is time for them to give up the stonewalling and save us all a lot of time, effort and frustration, by accepting the inevitable changes in governance that will bring a majority independent board. Ultimately, they are trying to defy the sports minister, which is a pointless exercise reminiscent of when the SA Rugby Union, through their bombastic president Louis Luyt, took Nelson Mandela to court in 1998.

You may win the odd legal battle, but you are most certainly not going to win the war.

Dr Stavros Nicolaou, the chairman of the Interim Board, this week detailed every step in the negotiations with the Members Council and it reminded me of those World War I soldiers who would fight for days in the muddy, bloody trenches to add just a metre or two to their frontline.

And now, the handful of recalcitrants on the Members Council who scuppered the Special General Meeting last weekend are considering legal action to stop both a new constitution and Minister Nathi Mthethwa’s punitive action that is yet to be announced. CSA is an organisation that has spent millions and millions on legal fees in the last couple of years, robbing the game itself of much-needed resources, so it might seem a bit unfair that the Interim Board (their antagonists) now have to give their approval in order for the Members Council to enlist the help of lawyers in their battle, but thank goodness it is the case.

Much of the Members Council’s delaying tactics seem to have revolved around deliberate misrepresentations of what the Interim Board’s new Memorandum of Incorporation actually says. And Nicolaou confirmed this week that, apart from a majority independent board and an independent chair, everything else is negotiable. Which has not been the picture portrayed by the recalcitrants.

Do the Members Council want a 15-person board? That’s fine, then the equation will be eight independent directors, five non-independent and the two executives (CEO & CFO). Or a 13-strong board? Then the make-up will be 7-4-2; even a board of 11 is possible, with six independents, three non-independents and the two executives.

In terms of the criteria for directors, the nominations committee can decide whether they want an emphasis on a cricket background or skills in legal affairs, accounting or finance. There is no need for these criteria to be stipulated in the MoI.

What has been put in the MoI is the make-up of the all-important nominations committee that will select the independent directors. It is pleasing to see the six-person panel will include either a men’s or women’s former international player nominated by SACA, alongside a former CSA president nominated by the Interim Board, a Members Council representative and people from the Institute of Chartered Accountants, Institute of Directors and the Legal Practice Council.

And the definition of an independent director precludes anyone involved in the administration of the game at provincial or national level, not everyone involved in the game such as coaches or former players.

This MoI has been debated and pored over and modified since the first meeting of the working group, made up of three representatives each from the Members Council and Interim Board, on January 31. According to Nicolaou, on April 15, two days before the ill-fated SGM, the Members Council had agreed to the new MoI.

Their sudden about-turn, orchestrated in the most scheming, underhand manner, has meant all those months of effort have been wasted. As Nicolaou pointed out, “the Members Council continuing to kick this can down the road has awful consequences on the hard-working employees of CSA and the players”.

And think of Anne Vilas, the Central Gauteng Lions president who has been at the forefront of taking a public stand against the recalcitrants. In fact, think of her husband Doug, who has hardly seen his wife for the last few months such has been the number of late-night meetings she has had to attend as the Interim Board and the Members Council have wrangled.

For all our sakes, let’s hope the Members Council relents while there is still time.