Grassroots suffer from Stanford demise
I have just learned something very interesting about Chance to Shine - the Cricket Foundation's drive to regenerate competitive cricket in state schools - Sir Allen Stanford and the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB).
In June 2008, when the ECB did the deal with Stanford on the $1m-a-man match it was announced that Chance to Shine would benefit from it.
This was widely welcomed given the initiative's worthy objective of bringing cricket to two million children in a third of state schools by 2015.
Two years ago, when I compiled a BBC Newsnight piece on cricket, I was very impressed what was being done in places like Coventry to introduce youngsters to the game and since then, the ECB has, at every opportunity, made much of the fact that one of the beneficiaries of its Stanford involvement would be Chance to Shine.
That point was made in November 2008 during the Stanford match and earlier this week Giles Clarke, in interviews following his re-election as ECB chairman, said some of the money received from Stanford had already gone to the scheme.
However, a spokesman for the charity has now told me that no money has been received and I understand they are seeking clarification from the ECB as to what exactly Clarke meant.
The charity may have received some money had this summer's Stanford series taken place at Lord's - £1,000 for every six hit had been proposed - but since that series itself has been hit for six now it will receive nothing.
All in all one side-effect of the whole Stanford saga is that is has led to the charity which runs Chance to Shine having to reassure its UK donors and supporters.
And the charity has also had to make it clear that talk of Chance to Shine providing help and expertise in some 170 schools in the Caribbean, raising fears that its UK funds may be diverted, is wide of the mark.
If Chance to Shine was to be offered any Stanford money the decision whether to accept or not would be a matter for the Cricket Foundation's trustees.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~17~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"I have just learned something very interesting"
I'm glad to found it interesting............
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
HOLD THE FRONT PAGE.
If I understand corectly, charity Chance to Shine which is aiming to raise a total of £25million, will not now be receiving £1,000 they may have received from each six hit at 3 matches at Lords this season (lets say £25,000 - £50,000). Giles Clarke in an interview a couple of days ago said he thought CtS had already received some money, but an annomomous spokesperson for the charity said they hadn't seen the cheque yet.
THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! Giles Clarke should resign immediately.
Certainly helps to put all those thousands of people who have lost their jobs and/or life savings as a result of Stanford into perspective.
Maybe someone as well connected as Mr Bose could find an alternative way of raising some money for a worthy charity.
Complain about this comment
How about a sponsored dontwriteanyblogsathon.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#1. At 6:29pm on 27 Feb 2009, MihirBase
This comment has been referred to the moderators
This is a joke, can I ask why? The message appear before but now it has been removed?
Complain about this comment
For those who didn't get the chance to read comment #3 i suggested that dissapointing though it is, for a cricket charity to lose approximately 1% of its target budget as a result of the stanford fall out is small fry compared to the thousands of people who have lost their jobs / and or savings.
Complain about this comment
In response to #6 there was nothing offensive in your posting. Just a little humour that was perhaps closer to the truth than you realised.
Complain about this comment
Can the BBC please change the house rules to reflect the reality, ie that only comments which agree with the sports editor will be tolerated.
Complain about this comment
My letter to the BBC:
Can you please tell me why the large majority of comments that disagree with Mihir Bose are now blocked from his website. I know that from my own postings, and from those of others which are published before being removed that there is no justifiable reason for the behaviour. In short there is no abuse, no foul language, no racism, just an attempt to have a two sided debate. It is clear that many do not have a high opinion of Mr Bose's contributions, but I do not see why those who diasagree with him should be prevented from being able to do so.
This behaviour has seriously damaged my perception of the BBC as a whole. A media organistion that allows a journalist to effectively run a one sided campaign against a public figure, with who knows what hidden agenda, without giving any reasonable opportunity for the other side to comment cannot make any claims of impartiality.
Complain about this comment
I don't really see what is so terrible about Bose's blogs. I don't agree with things that he says, of course, and there is always room for improvement, but the way some people criticize his work, you'd think it was completely embarrassingly bad, which it isn't. When I talk about criticisms, I don't mean the comments expressed especially in this particular blog post, but the previous ones.
Criticism is of course healthy, but some people do nothing but moan about the man, rather than offer constructive counter points. A lot of posters bemoan the fact that Bose doesn't mention who his "sources" are, and that this is indicative of someone making BS up and disguising it as inside information. Well, to be honest, I don't expect him to reveal his sources, and while you may find it annoying, repeating this point ad nauseum gets tedious after a while.
I stress that this only refers to some posters, not all, because a lot of people do take the time to debate the issue well, and rightly feel annoyed when Bose doesn't respond. However, there are several posters who just take digs at Bose, and complain about him rather than dissect the actual content of the blog. This is a common theme amongst other blogs as well, including Chick Young, who gets abused to an even larger extent at times. This serves no purpose and does little to stimulate debate, which is what a large number of posters want, based on the comments I have read.
If people find this blog so bad, and don't want Bose to continue writing blogs (as indicated by post number 4) then perhaps they should stop reading it. The effect is the same. Of course, there are those who argue that taxpayers money is being used and wasted on a poor blog, but again, this is just subjective at the end of the day, and it is unrealistic to suggest taxpayer's money is being wasted. If the piece was grammatically poor, covered dull material and was shoddily written, then I would understand such comments. However, as far as I can tell, the articles are written professionally, and while you may disagree with his opinion, or his conclusions, you can't use the "taxpayer's money" as a stick to get Bose with. He is doing his job, which is to write the blog.
Maybe he should be responding to the comments, as other bloggers do this, and it makes the experience much better, but I don't think that is part of his job description, so we shouldn't be too harsh on him for this.
Complain about this comment
#11- I meant licence fee.
Complain about this comment
In response to #11.
First of all thank you for time in putting forward a thoughtful response.
My chief objection is generally not to the opinion expressed in the article, but to the quality of the journalism. Take the above article as point of reference. As was highlighted in previous comments before they were removed, there is very little of journalistic merit in the article itself. As the sports editor of the BBC, who prides himself as an investigative journalist, this and many other efforts frankly appear lazy. The story in this case appears relatively inconsequential relative to other issues in sport and certainly relative to other people who have lost much more in the stanford fiasco.
There is little in the article to establish the facts of the case. For example whilst I share Mr Bose's concern for what appears to be a very worthy charity, how much were they expeting to receive from the ECB (maybe £25k-£50)? What is their total fundraising budget?
The answer to the last question according to the charities website is £25million. In which case is the lack of the £1k per six really that big an issue. Were they expecting to receive more money from the ECB? I don't know because the article doesn't establish these facts.
I expect the sports editor to be tackling the big issues of the day and providing me with thought provoking argument. This just looks like an opportunity to have a cheap shot at Giles Clarke. I am no supporter of Mr Clarke, but I do find the way Mr Bose appears to be taking cheap shots distateful and below the standard of journalism I expect. In particular it is unfortunate that Mr Bose continues to criticise the ECB for doing insufficent due dilligence, when depending upon your perspective it is either not the role of the ECB to police the financial system, or if it was that obvious (which it was) then Mr Bose should not himself have written such a glowing article about Mr Stanford in October when he was already under a widely publicised SEC investigation.
I agree with Mr Bose in his opinion that the ECB have performed very badly in their handling of the 20/20 affair, but I also believe that Mr Bose is guilty of many of the same charges. If anything I would have expected an investigative journalist providing us with the "inside track" to have done his homework better than the ECB.
Mr Bose is perfectly entitled to express his opinion, but as a journalist whose salary we are paying for I also expect him to show evidence of having researched his stories. Otherwise at best he is no different from you or I, and at worst is pretending to be something he is not. That he appears to quote anonomous sources to reveal information that has often already being published by other journalists leads me to my own conclusions.
I expect better, and believe i have a right to do so. I can of course stop reading Mr Bose, as I did when he was a journalist for the Daily Telegraph. Unfortunately he tends to pop up on other BBC media to express the same view repeatedly, and as someone who enjoys sport and generally enjoys the BBC coverage it is difficult to avoid him.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I fear the BBC is the Big Brother Corporation. Any criticism of its beloved blogger, however mild and unoffensive it is, has been deleted from the early posts. If we do not like the quality of Bose's writings then why can't we say so?
Complain about this comment
bose is more style than substance. and i don't particularly like his style
Complain about this comment
I think in the present financial climate it may be just aswell to let the dust settle over the Sanford saga before too many opinions can be expressed. I think we should just be grateful for any money that gets put into cricket via buisness and wealthy individuals especially Texan ones.
Complain about this comment
Mihir Bose:
I have to agreed with your sentiment that, Grassroots organisations are suffering because of the Stanford demise....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS