Guyana lose bid to host Australia test

Jan 27, 2015 Sports

---

– Minister Anthony failed to provide guarantee

Already a cricket starved nation, Guyanese will not be able to witness international cricket at home in 2015 since the Guyana Cricket Board (GCB) has lost an opportunity to host an Australia test match. According to the GCB president Drubahadur, the board’s failure to secure the test is no fault of theirs.
Speaking at a press conference held on Sunday last at the Georgetown Cricket Club pavilion just after the GCB annual general meeting, Drubahadur informed that they lost the opportunity because of the Minister of Culture, Youth and Sport Dr Frank Anthony’s failure to provide the guarantee to the GCB bid document. The GCB head stated that the guarantee is providing the national stadium free of cost and duty free concessions for hotel rooms for players and match officials. The GCB head indicated that they are trying to negotiate for India in 2016, but the minister’s failure may very well jeopardise their bid.
Drubahadur pointed out that the board will continue with its cricket development programme adding that level one and two coaching programmes are on the cards for 2015.
He informed that the board has lodged a complaint to the International Cricket Council through the West Indies Cricket Board in relation to the Cricket Administration Bill which he said contains a number of flaws.
Territorial Development Officer Colin Stuart informed that the Scotiabank programme will be launched shortly, while the schools cricket will be played at the U-13, 15 and 17 levels using the Guyana Teachers Union zones.
GCB statement regarding its AGM
Meanwhile, the GCB issued a statement on the issues:
“The Cricket Administration Act, which became law on August 4, 2014, is fraught and with numerous inconsistencies and contradiction and will create more chaos than which currently exist. The Bill, which was passed in Parliament in May 2014, after a careful examination by our experts, was found to be severely flawed and was, thus, rejected by both the GCB and WICB. Both boards supported the section of the Bill that dealt with the creation of the national and the county boards as corporate bodies. At the time, the GCB made it known that the Bill was very flawed and inadequate as the other subsets of the county boards, such as the clubs and area committees, still remained as unincorporated associations.”
“In June, prior to the Bill becoming law, the GOG agreed to meet with the GCB and WICB in the presence of the attorneys from all sides. All the contentions including the minister’s role were fully ventilated and it was generally agreed that a clearly outlined procedure will be followed to bring the situation to an acceptable state. There were a few email exchanges among the parties with the MOA before a satisfactory document was produced for all.
The joint GCB/WICB delegation had also met with opposition parliamentary parties, APNU and AFC, in an effort to update them on the discussions held. Both parties agreed to the contents of the MOA with the amendment, but the GOG refused to sign any MOA with the opposition as part of the process.”
“Reluctantly the GCB agreed to delete the said opposition parties from the final MOA submitted to the Minister, but the GOG went silent and the matter virtually died when parliament went into its summer recess. In September, the GCB learnt that the President had assented to the Bill and it was back, gazetted in August even though the President was saying that the bill had not yet reached his desk. In the circumstances the GCB had no choice but to mount their legal challenge at the Act based on several publicly stated issues, such as Government intervention, seizure of assets etc. The GCB constitution appended to the said Act states that its AGM is due in January each year.”
“The GCB strongly feels that they have and continue at act within the strict confines of the laws and was fully prepared for any eventuality should the Judiciary had made a ruling to overturn the Cricket Administration in the lead up the AGM. The GCB made a conscious effort to proceed with its legally constituted AGM as was advertised a month ago, and upon reviewing the GCB constitution in the said act, the executive realized that there was no need for an election component for the AGM. Clause of that constitution provides that nomination for all positions that make up the executive committee must be done at the October OGM preceding the January AGM with resumes for the nominated persons. There was only a single nomination for the elected officers of the GCB hence there was no need for an election.”

---

---