Comments for en-gb 30 Mon 29 Dec 2014 07:58:10 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at Gareth Mr Bose's comments here and through other BBC media seem to suggest that the ECB was failing in its due dilligence for not having identified the potential fraud that Alan Stanford has been charged with. Mr Bose advocating that a deal with the BCCI would have been much cleaner.Whilst many did "smell a rat" in relation to Stanford, Mr Bose was not one of those who did as clearly evidenced by his previous writings on the subject as referenced in postings 31 & 2. Regardless of the other merits of the arrangement, the ECB are entitled in respect of financial due dilligence to rely on other parties, including the relevant financial regulators. It is unrealistic to expect the world's various sporting bodies to take the lead on fighting financial crime. Mr Bose would do well to recognise this and concentrate his criticism of the ECB on areas for which they are actually responsible.In the interests of complete and fair reporting I think that is also only appropiate to remind us all that Jagmohan Dalmiya, long term President of the BCCI, was also arrested on charges of fraud last year. Charged with misaapropiation of funds related to the 1996 World Cup. Does Mr Bose believe that the ECB should sever all links with the BCCI until this investigation is complete. That would appear to be the logical conclusion to his argument. Tue 24 Feb 2009 09:47:37 GMT+1 Xcalibur I personally don't believe its really a negative thing to let someone like Stanford arrange international twenty 20 matches. Whether Stanford is guilty or not is a different matter but if somebody is prepared to put money into the game and arrange matches for the spectators to watch and improve the game in certain parts of the world then can you really complain?. End of the day the ECB could have not known whether Sir Allen Stanford was involved in this alleged fraud and it's hard to turn down lots of money. In the future complying with such billionaires should be be given a lot of thought. First the game can be improved and learnt by non-test playing nations and second it brings in more of a wider audience. Only aspect you have to think about is the fixture list, it can be a bit congested but for the long term i don't see a problem at all. If the individual or organisation is legit then there must be a go-ahead for these kind of games. Now about Stanford we don't know his postiion, whether he was involved or not. We can't fire the bullte out of the gun without loading it first. Tue 24 Feb 2009 00:24:24 GMT+1 jongwinnett "It is important to note that many other cricket boards, and in particular the Indian Board, would never have considered that.Back in 1991, after the Indian team had played in matches organised by private individuals in various parts of the world..."What I think you mean is the Indian Board would NO LONGER consider that, as clearly they have done so in the past. (And learnt from their mistakes?)But that's pedantry on my part. ECB should have smelled a rat, and they didn't Mon 23 Feb 2009 13:28:00 GMT+1 trentbridgemoaner Mihir Bose, you used to be a fine journalist, now you just think it clever to kick English cricket.Clarke, Collier etc should all stay in their jobs, nobody, including you, knew what would happen with Stanford.Stop muck racking Sun 22 Feb 2009 18:34:23 GMT+1 a-e-i-o-u The old adage springs to mind.. If it looks to good to be true, it is !!!.. Sun 22 Feb 2009 10:39:30 GMT+1 Roman Philosopher Comment 81.....Yet! Sun 22 Feb 2009 10:13:10 GMT+1 chelsea_spirit There are a lot of arguments here comparing IPL and Stanford. The bottom line is that no cricket board got embarrassed for being involved with the IPL unlike the ECB and WICB in case of stanford. Sun 22 Feb 2009 07:56:04 GMT+1 Roman Philosopher Response to comment 62...........Let us say you are right about the ECB making a mistake by putting its reputation at risk with one individual. I still don't see this as any different from what the Indian Cricket Board have done with the IPL when doing business with the many individuals who bid for players. These individuals, I suspect, have not been subject to any higher level of due-diligence than Stanford. In fact I doubt many of them have any audited records.The only slight difference perhaps is that by dealing with many individuals, rather than just one, then the risk is spread, but I somehow doubt that is the Indian Board's rationale . Sat 21 Feb 2009 09:27:26 GMT+1 AndieRae Mr Bose. Surely not your best work. For shame, sir. Tis is the BBC you're writing on. This article suddenly explains a lot. Sat 21 Feb 2009 03:18:14 GMT+1 stamford8899 This post has been Removed Sat 21 Feb 2009 00:15:14 GMT+1 stamford8899 This post has been Removed Fri 20 Feb 2009 23:36:18 GMT+1 sweetsmellofsuccess Alex (#75),Thanks for the update. I'm sure we all look forward to it.I'm not sure that would cover the other points we've made about the reasoning and frequency of moderation on this blog, which seems to be way out of kilter with other blogs. The 'rules' and 'guidelines' for BBC blogs seem to be generic, and so presumably apply in the same way to every blog. So why is there a strike rate of about 30% for Mihir's blogs? If we are all (inadvertently) doing something terrible, why not tell us what mistakes everyone is making that are getting them moderated? That way, your workload is reduced, and we get more comments out in public.A blog depends partly on the blogger, but partly on the quality of the debate it engenders among the public. Doesn't it? Fri 20 Feb 2009 17:53:50 GMT+1 Alex Gubbay - BBC News Hello,Just to let everyone know that Mihir will shortly be filing a new blog that will pick up on some of the debate, comments and questions here.Thanks Fri 20 Feb 2009 17:07:47 GMT+1 StattoCampo Guys, if you think a BBC Sports Editor has time to read through all your ramblings and respond to each one, you're going to be disappointed time after time.That said (and I don't usually like to criticise the journalists), I think Mihir has made himself look a bit foolish with his following of the Stanford affair. I remember his gushing column after he interviewed the guy, and I don't recall him questioning the ECB's dealings with a private individual back then... Fri 20 Feb 2009 17:00:19 GMT+1 Gareth After having had 2 comments removed for having done no more than qurote back previous Mihir Bose comments about Stanford I can only conclude that Mihir is busy moderating his own blog. no doubt this will be blocked also. Fri 20 Feb 2009 16:53:39 GMT+1 ya_dafty This post has been Removed Fri 20 Feb 2009 16:47:05 GMT+1 ak47 This post has been Removed Fri 20 Feb 2009 14:25:17 GMT+1 ak47 Five governments across Latin America have seized control of banks owned by Mr Stanford as savers raced to withdraw their savings, while Mexico’s attorney-general has begun an investigation into alleged links between Mr Stanford and the drug-smuggling Gulf Cartel. It also emerged yesterday that Mr Stanford is in trouble with the US taxman, with records showing that he owes more than $212 million in unpaid tax dating back to 2007. His ex-employees have cautioned authorities of fraud and this was reported in the press in 2007...only ECB ignore to look at it!! Fri 20 Feb 2009 13:27:42 GMT+1 jhfgdsaw The regular name-dropping, the 'secret sources' and the 'high-powered' meetings all combine to suggest that Mihir is much too important to enter into discussions with mere mortals. His work is mainly smoke and mirrors. p.s. My hunch: he doesn't want to write this blog. p.p.s. Mihir did respond once, about mid-December to defend his comments on West Ham or Stanford (i think). Dipped his toe in, but didn't like the feeling, I guess. Fri 20 Feb 2009 13:27:21 GMT+1 kwiniaskagolfer Something nefarious is afoot here, almost as if anything close to incendiary about Stanford or sports admnistrators is taboo.My comment (#14) about Stanford's relationship with the PGA and LPGA Tours has been "blocked"; my article alluding to the situation on the Golf Board allows it is "closed to comments".Requests to 606 Sport Host, and the BBC regular Golf contributors have gone unanswered.And Mihir Bose fails to respond to repeated requests for his comment on everyone's postings here.What's going on here BBC? Fri 20 Feb 2009 13:17:11 GMT+1 thinkstuff Lunchtime has come, and no sign of an answer from the author or anyone at the BBC on the numerous questions raised here, either on the holes in the argument of the blog, raised by numerous readers approaching it from some well-reasoned and researched angles, nor on the subject of the moderation of the blog, which is both very slow, and apparently extremely sensitive.On the subject of the criticism of the blog, I don't see how replying to the questions is anything but a good thing for Mihir to do. He can be wrong but defend and expand on his points, and he will be credited with engaging with his audience and surely that ought to lead to a rise in people's estimations of his work. Alternatively, he can be right and clarify why, and again, he's engaged with his audience and will win over some of his critics over. The longer we go without his participation, the longer people feel that they are being both patronised and not listened to - the longer the suspicion lingers that the author is more interested in mingling with the Sporting Who's Who than writing articles containing any insight or relevance. Every other BBC blogger manages to reply to the comments of readers - it's surely not beyond the Sport Editor's timetable.On the subject of moderation, I'll add my name to the other posters expressing my concern. I've noticed that a number of authors who have made extremely cogent and informed comments when published have seen their other attempts banned. It appears unlikely that they alternate between lucidity and profanity, so what's happening and why is it happening?We ought to be addressed. This blog is now 60 comments old, and almost to a man they've been the comments of frustrated and disappointed readers. Surely it is in Mihir Bose's interest and the BBC's interest alike to try to engage with their readers rather than continue having each blog torn apart by people who can at a stroke fell most of the Sport Editor's assertions? Fri 20 Feb 2009 12:15:57 GMT+1 sensibleCHARITY I said to you just after the 20/20 winner take all that something seems to be not right with the sponsor but at the same time let Viv and co. enjoyed while it last. It is a big blow for W.I. cricket at a time when I believed that the present team is showing signs of a return of determination and commitment to the game. The W.I Board and everyone who was associated with the person in question must come together quickly and put measures in place to give the players confidence and some sort of assurance. At the end of the day we all make mistakes but those mistakes must not be repeated because it is not about money alone but also integrity and pride of W.I. cricket. Fri 20 Feb 2009 12:14:35 GMT+1 Kiran This post has been Removed Fri 20 Feb 2009 11:22:40 GMT+1 Sandhirst Mihir, I'm very sorry to say this but you've made your own position simply untenable. Your reporting of this issue appears to me to have confused and reduced two questions into one. Please let me explain.It seems to me that there are two quite separate questions concerning Stanford and English cricket: first, was it wise for the ECB to associate itself with Stanford at the time it did, yes, or no? If your argument is that no other cricket authority has ever done so (and that is a separately contentious point as other posters have observed), then why didn't you say so back then? And is (would) your answer (be) influenced by the additionally subjective point that cricket authorities simply cannot be allowed to deal with private entities - or does the principle apply simply to tacky ones (that being all that could be confidently asserted about Stanford before he landed his helicopter at Lord's)? It would have been contentious, but fair comment, for you to have said upon the announcement of the Stanford deal (rather than post-knee-bouncing), "This will end in tears...". But you didn't.The second question is much more straightforward - to what extent is the ECB and/or its Chairman accountable for choosing a backer who subsequently turns out to be someone who it is alleged may turn out to be Bernie Madoff in disguise?It is not logical, reasonable or journalistically ethical - imho - to revise the answer to the first question just because the answer to the second question puts you in an awkward spot.And it is creating this impression of confusion and reduction of the two questions into one that most of the posters on here object to.I care little what eventually happens to Stanford. And I am agnostic on whether Clark should stay at the ECB. But, to put it kindly, allowing via your blog and your report on Wednesday's The World at One the perception to grow that Clark's position was untenable based on confusing two separate issues is wrong in argument, logic, principle, reasonableness and ethic, imho.I have never, ever, responded to a blog on any subject at any time. The flawed nature of your blog, Mihir, is what's prevented so many of us from saying simply "That's not right, but life's too short...". We deserve better, our BBC deserves better, you should do better. Fri 20 Feb 2009 11:12:03 GMT+1 AntonfromLancs It is nonsense to suggest that the ECB or any other national association has power by default over all cricket on its patch. When I play a friendly village match I do not regard myself, and am not in law, under their authority. They have authority over people, not over a sport - specifically over players contracted to them.I have a low opinion of the ECB. But they are not responsible for Stanford and they did nothing wrong in dealing with him. Fri 20 Feb 2009 10:57:14 GMT+1 singhy Mihir is absolutely spot-on here; we can debate endlessly whether there was enough Financial Due Diligence, whether the ECB should have known what millions of the investors and the SEC didn't, or whether we should wait until a 'guilty' verdict, but such debates miss the point. That is, that ECB put its faith and its reputation on the line in 1 man, who didn't represent a country nor was governed by the ICC, and it therefore has to take the blame when the strategy of putting all your eggs in one basket fails yet again. There were lots of ways this deal could have sour, even if fraud is one of the most shocking, but much poorer cricket boards than us had the foresight to put their principals first. Fri 20 Feb 2009 10:40:21 GMT+1 sweetsmellofsuccess No word from the editors or moderators on why nearly one third of comments have been banned?This is an extraordinarily high ratio compared to any other BBC blogger. Why is this? It seems to happen whether Mihir is talking about cricket, money, the Olympics, whatever. So it can't be the subject matter itself, can it?Is Mihir being subjected to barrels of personal abuse? Racist abuse? Are commenters routinely breaking libel laws? I did none of those things, and I got moderated. I had the temerity to remember Mihir's previous blog on this subject.Come on, BBC. Why do we get moderated two or three times as much here as when we write on the blogs of McNulty, or Nick Robinson. Is it just a bizarre coincidence? If we're all doing something terrible, tell us what it is, so that we can avoid doing it, and get our comments into the public domain. Just referring us to the bland catch-all "rules" doesn't help. We want to know why we're being moderated. Is that too much to ask? Fri 20 Feb 2009 10:37:09 GMT+1 Rob Olivier I put it to you Mihir if the charming Richard Branson came along tomorrow and proposed sponsorship to the ECB for 5 years would not this be considered positively.There is no point crying (gratitous over post mortem) over spilt milk and the less than knowable; otherwise every heartache is like a dumped girlfiend or naive wife to a bankruptcy.Standfords money helped England through 2008, it went south and pear shape, dream is over, lets all move on! Fri 20 Feb 2009 09:46:34 GMT+1 Alan Its easy to be wise after the event, but it is a very predictable outcome, not the fraud charges necessary, but that the Stanford situation would go t**ts up sooner or later.I see a number of people (not least the media) smelling blood here, and they are looking for a scapegoat. My feelings for Giles Clarke are quite neutral, but before hanging him out to dry, we should first consider what long term damage this has done to English cricket. I understand he has honoured committments to the crazy 20/20 for 20 fiasco that took place last year, and thats where the dosh ends - so what ? At the same time we should be looking at what alternatives the ECB had at the time with English players about to jump ship to the honey pot called the IPL. Yes, the ECB acted in haste, and yes, the damage was done before this by being taken unaware by the development of the IPL. So, I agree, strategically the ECB has made mistakes before getting into bed with Stanford. As for due dilligence, well I don't know quite how thorough that was, but given that he had bank-rolled WI cricket for a number of years, it was a reasonable assumption to suggest it wasn't a high risk strategy in the short term, even if not quite "the english way". We must remember that the Stanford influence whatever we might think about the individual has had a positive not negative impact on the ECB P&L. Also, I cannot recall many of the chairmen who are calling for his head now being overly public at the time.Where do we go from here - I am not sure that Giles Clarke should stand down, but the ECB need to think strategically and quickly if they are to avoid a situation where we are paying lip service to the ICB. In conclusion, yes, I agree that mistakes have been made, but ousting a chairman over this issue doesn't seem right. Now, if there is no progress in respect of a credible strategy to address this money infected situation, then we should clearly look at his and the Boards position. It looks as though one or two chairmen are trying to settle some old scores - its a pitiful mess really. Money as ever is the route to all evils Fri 20 Feb 2009 00:24:33 GMT+1 ak47 Here we go..he was found in florida and arrested by FBI today. all the reports of his fraud allegations...these is a mention of english cricket promoter...what a shame on ECB and centuries old english cricket...these images,pictures of Giles clark with his bloody money will haunt english cricket for decades..or may be cunturies.. Thu 19 Feb 2009 23:54:06 GMT+1 AlanSD This post has been Removed Thu 19 Feb 2009 23:10:30 GMT+1 Isaac This post has been Removed Thu 19 Feb 2009 22:59:13 GMT+1 RONALDOMILESAHEAD This post has been Removed Thu 19 Feb 2009 22:49:40 GMT+1 AndyPlowright This post has been Removed Thu 19 Feb 2009 22:34:08 GMT+1 ak47 This post has been Removed Thu 19 Feb 2009 22:12:44 GMT+1 dudepod45 What do you expect? Blazers protect their own. Thu 19 Feb 2009 18:49:29 GMT+1 ak47 ECB...what does that stand for once more I sometimes forget. The ECB are a bunch of stuffed shirts who could not stand the fact that something other than England was better and more sucessfull(I mean in terms of money) than English County Cricket. They were so irritated that the IPL stole their idea and made it so sucessfull that they went to bed with the first person who flashed them some money. Now that has come back to haunt them. England, both its cricket administrators and its policitians need to realise that the days of Rule Britania are over and behave accordingly. Then they might find that this Island is still great in many aspects.. Ian Botham in mirror on this scam:Some one has to be accountable. Giles Clarke pushed for this and he has to face the music. He was the one telling everyone Stanford was the way to go - and it has been a huge mess.From England's point of view and the ECB, there are some questions that need to be asked. Why did the ECB turn down a 16.5 per cent share of the 10-year Û975million pot for the Champions League? They wanted a bigger slice of the cake and I don't see how they were justified in asking for that when the Indian cricket board were the driving force.They turned their backs on the real financial powerhouses in the world game, India, and it has bitten them on their backsides. Thu 19 Feb 2009 18:25:45 GMT+1 ak47 on Allen stanford...“We are alleging a fraud of shocking magnitude that has spread its tentacles throughout the world”… United States SEC Director (Fort Worth, Texas) Rose ... he tried to hire a private plane otAntigua and his credit card crashed...he is now missing and running from the law..Is this not enough to for some english fans here,who thinks he will come back clean and save ECB and your cricket.. Thu 19 Feb 2009 18:05:51 GMT+1 ak47 Its now confirmed that the epicenter of the game has moved to the sub-continent led by India, which already generates four-fifths of the world game's income. IPL's great success and ECB's failure to replicate the model proved that Indian sub-continent is now the undisputed home of cricket. ECB was desperate to stop this shift in change of power toward India and blinded by greed, ECB sold its national game and team to a fraudster. What a pity but India will make sure 20-20 cricket will survive. IPL is a global event in the international cricket calendar and will become even more appealing to the global audience including English cricket fans in the coming years. The IPL is the brainchild of Lalit Modi, cricket-mad scion of one of India's richest families, who is also vice president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India. Modi spent several years in the U.S. studying sports marketing and has brought the international sports agency IMG in to manage the league. Signs of American pro sports influence can be seen all over the IPL from its city-based team franchise system to a televised player draft.The ECB may have bet on the wrong American model!!If you cannot beat them join them(which ECB is moving in the right direction now) instead of getting frustated and blaming the messenger here.The worst thing is because of ECB greed,west indian boad is in major problem now.Stanford convinced 4 or 5 playes to invest their USD 1 million earned in that disaster 20-20 game with more bad news will follow.. Thu 19 Feb 2009 17:36:05 GMT+1 thinkstuff Another blog, another series of irate posters with reasonable criticisms of the article, and 24 hours have passed without a single response to any of the assertions made. Grimly predictable.I'll put myself firmly in agreement with charliewebb (post 4), who took you to task on your assertions that private individuals cannot organise cricket matches. Clearly they can - the ICC didn't intervene in the Stanford Superseries - it happened. So it's not a law of the game, and the thorny issues of getting involved with the Zimbabwe board and issues of the ICC XI suggest that cricket is neither always better for being organised between two boards nor always a fixture between recognised nations. So yes, your point sounds grand, but it's full of holes, and you should clarify.Whatever the chairmen may say about Stanford himself, their biggest concern is being linked to tainted money, not the game was played in the first place. If it were any other way, they'd have stuck the boot in to Clarke last week when he was up for reelection, not this week in the fallout. So yes, it is a question of whether due diligence was done, and frankly I agree with the ECB here - they correctly ascertained that Stanford could pay them, and they cannot be expected to know more than the SEC, who only uncovered suspicious goings-on this week. My point is simple - if the ECB have a case to answer, then they've had the same case for months, and Stanford's troubles are a symptom but not a reason for fresh inspection.And, like others here, I do find it hard to stomach that you could write such a glowing report of Stanford's Mandela-like charisma and the robustness of his finances, and still feel that you are in a position to stick the knife in to the ECB. Thu 19 Feb 2009 16:51:45 GMT+1 Roman Philosopher Poor poor article..........I am no fan of Giles Clarke, and let's face it, the ECB struggle in their role to adminster and regulate cricket, but the idea that they are supposed to now become a financial regulator is proposterous. The question that should be put to the SEC is why did it let so many years go by before taking action against Stamford, their role is to protect investors and counterparties such as the ECB and they have not done so.Furthermore, the praise of the Indian Cricket Board is sickening. This is the same establishment that continues to support the regime in Zimbabwe...........shame on you Mihr. Thu 19 Feb 2009 16:43:59 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Hmmmmmm time for a re-think?;-)ed Thu 19 Feb 2009 15:54:18 GMT+1 rgh1066 Once more, Mihir's blog proves to be fascinating reading - not so much for what he writes himself, but certainly for the well-informed and stimulating responses to his assertions. Thu 19 Feb 2009 15:53:28 GMT+1 Sinaha This post has been Removed Thu 19 Feb 2009 15:48:39 GMT+1 AndyPlowright I've had two comments removed today for breaking the House Rules. neither of which were offensive but did question how Mr Bose could change his views so radically from his October Stanford piece and this piece. What is even more interesting is the BBC's point of view on all of this and how it is treating this blog and those posting on it. 1. The BBC is allowing criticism of Stanford, a man who currently is accused of crimes but has not been found guilty by a court of law. At present, the presumption of innocence applies to Stanford.2. The BBC is allowing criticism of the ECB as a whole and isn't deleting comments asking for various people to be dismissed from their positions. .3. The BBC is allowing criticism of Giles Clarke. The link entitled 'ECB chief Clarke under pressure' ( shows this. However the BBC is not allowing criticism of one of its own journalists for doing a complete 180 in terms of his opinions when you compare this blog to his October piece of Stanford. From the current blog, i find this quote most interesting:"It is easy to see how Stanford could have charmed Clarke. I myself, during a brief interview, found the Texan charming, but then I was not doing business with him. "But you were, Mr Bose. You are employed by the BBC as a journalist. You meet Stanford. You gain an interview and written or spoken article from that. Stanford gets more media column inches. That's how the transaction goes down. Each side gains from that meeting. If you are employed as a journalist then that interview was you earning your money and that sounds like 'doing business' to me. I'm certainly not going to call for anyone to resign over this. I disagree with a fair number of Mr Bose's articles but he does come out with some interesting points at times and his use of the English language is pleasing to read. However I do feel a journalist with a world renowned institution like the BBC should have a bit of conviction about him and actually speak on his own blog. If the like of Tim Vickery and gavin Strachan can talk on their blogs, both blogs attracting way more comment than this one, then I believe Mr Bose should do so as well. Thu 19 Feb 2009 15:47:58 GMT+1 jhfgdsaw For those interested in Mihir's inside line on Mayweather's suit, see.... Thu 19 Feb 2009 14:15:27 GMT+1 Lineandlength Question One for the ECB is surely 'what due diligence work did you do before agreeing to work with Stanford, who did it, and how detailed was it?' Thu 19 Feb 2009 14:14:07 GMT+1 redrobb I read a lot of John Grisham novels, I can't help thinking this emerging story has some interesting similar themes. Does this genteleman have a huge fancy boat, perhaps a Robert Maxwell in the offing then? Hate this elitist sport anyway, serves them right if the've been stung ! Sorry for the poor masses that might have lost any hard earned do$h. Who gave him his title, was it a HRH variety? Thu 19 Feb 2009 12:40:20 GMT+1 Matttt This post has been Removed Thu 19 Feb 2009 12:21:39 GMT+1 sweetsmellofsuccess Chardinho:Thanks for digging that out. The BBC seem strangely reluctant to allow everyone to read for themselves how Mihir was on the case so 'assiduously'. My memory was right, then - Mr Bose was very taken with Mr Stanford. No mention of digging into his past at all, really. Mr Bose expects the ECB to do considerable due diligence, but seems to have a slightly lower standard of background checking on his own behalf. Strange that around one in three posts on this blog have been banned by the moderators. Compared to Nick Robinson or Mr McNulty, this is a very high ratio, even though both those blogs attract many people who disagree with the original blog. Once again, we are all asking for an editor (or Mihir himself) to explain why so many messages are cut, when other bloggers seem to be able to withstand a bit of criticism and debate. Thu 19 Feb 2009 12:19:04 GMT+1 smellslikesalmon Unfortunately Mr Bose is the only BBC journalist who comes across as more pompous than Robert Peston. And in this case he was flattered, charmed and taken in by Stanford, as many others have pointed out, but now claims to have had reservations all along. The ECB were also flattered, charmed and taken in by Stanford, and heads will surely roll. Mr Bose needs to look at himself too, and consider why we send him on these jaunts around the world. Thu 19 Feb 2009 11:39:49 GMT+1 Zulu Warrior Oh dear Mihir.Sadly, once more the negative comments you attract give a more insightful view of the topic than your blog. Please try to get to know your audience Mihir. They are an informed, diverse group of savvy sportsmen. They enjoy a well constructed assertion/analysis even if they do not agree with it. But if you leave too many gaps they will drive a bus through them. And please try to answer at least some of your critics. Other bloggers do a good job of engaging. Thu 19 Feb 2009 11:31:02 GMT+1 BakedBeans Count of rejected comments keep on increasing....I think Mihir has touched some nerve ..... Thu 19 Feb 2009 11:09:40 GMT+1 AndyPlowright This post has been Removed Thu 19 Feb 2009 11:09:40 GMT+1 IL_LEONE This post has been Removed Thu 19 Feb 2009 10:54:55 GMT+1 Richard James Joyce And on other thing...a lot of this is just, as ever, regurgitating the facts from what is already in the public domain, it is not the inside line.Take this line:"The ECB claims it did it to revive cricket in the Caribbean and promote the Chance to Shine initiative, which attempts to expand the youth game. These reasons are a fig leaf."Seems to me very much a rehash of the Telegraph article posted the evening before Mihir Bose before which reads as follows:"One potential loser from the collapse of the tournament is the cricket charity Chance to Shine, who were expecting to receive £1,000 for every six hit during the three matches.In fact, Chance to Shine have regularly been used by the ECB as a PR fig leaf to cover up the more embarrassing aspects of their involvement with Stanford.In November, Clarke told this newspaper that the deal would lead directly to the scheme being rolled out to 170 schools across the Caribbean." inside line on sport? You heard it here second. Thu 19 Feb 2009 10:24:02 GMT+1 Richard James Joyce sweetsmellofsuccess,I recall Bose comparing Stanford to Mandella and the outrage from readers at the time! What is more, I found the link! quotes include: "He has something in common with Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and even Nelson Mandela...When we met, he took off his dark glasses and asked me several times what my name was and how I pronounced it. And throughout the interview he took great pains to use it to emphasise his point. Of course, this does not make him a Blair, a Clinton or a Mandela or anything remotely like that. But I give this example as an indication of the sort of man he is and how he seeks to reach out to people."And..."As he put it to me, he had dinner with David Collier on Wednesday night on his boat, and if Lord's wants to change things and bring Stanford and his cricket into line with how the home of cricket would like it - that is certainly the view of MCC chief executive Keith Bradshaw - then he has no problems."And..."Perhaps the most striking thing he said was that the credit crunch and the coming economic collapse does not affect him.He was not in the sub-prime market, he is full of cash, his business is growing and he is confident that even if the world crashed around him, the Stanford brand would be secure."Hmmm, seems his world has crashed around him and the Standford brand is far from secure. Furthermore, for Mr Bose to give such a high profile platform to Mr Stanford's supposed good deeds, he hardly gave the impression he was sceptical of Stanford's financial dealings and wouldn't do business with him given the chance. Thu 19 Feb 2009 10:19:17 GMT+1 kwiniaskagolfer Andy Plowright,My comment, #14 above, questions just that, the judgement of Finchem and Bivens.But, as you can see, it has been blocked out. Nefarious goings on here methinks. Thu 19 Feb 2009 10:16:43 GMT+1 maxmerit Well, in this culture of greed that has overwhelmed cricket I have to say I am ecstatic at these recent developments. A terrific result. Thu 19 Feb 2009 10:11:17 GMT+1 Gareth This post has been Removed Thu 19 Feb 2009 10:03:38 GMT+1 Matthew Cain It's a shame that Mr Bose doesn't come on to this blog to respond to some of the criticism. Thu 19 Feb 2009 09:41:35 GMT+1 AndyPlowright This post has been Removed Thu 19 Feb 2009 09:23:55 GMT+1 MickGatting I must agree that Stanford has only been charged, not yet convicted of any wrongdoing,so it is morally objectionable to assume guilt before the trials.However, I do not think the cartel of national cricket boards that collude under the auspices of the ICC to enrich themselves deserve a world monopoly of 1st class cricket.The ICC champions trophy for me ranks as the least interesting event on the first class calenderThe ICL has shown the cricketing world that BCCI & ECB needed to be inspired by the ICL before allowing star players a reasonable share (compared to soccer,basketball or ice hockey) of the wealth generated by international cricket. I am delighted that the West Indies players each have their Stanford million $. Twenty20 is finally shifting the balance of power more in the favour of the players, and giving them a fine incentive to perform at a higher level than ever before.Administrators not elected by players or fans need to be much more accountable if they wish to have their monopolistic cartel supported by players and fans.If Stanford is found innocent, I hope he will link up with the ICL to give us more and better cricket featuring multi-national sides Thu 19 Feb 2009 09:05:05 GMT+1 AndyPlowright Mihir, I doubt you ever answer on your blogs but check the list of sports Stanford is involved in, particularly golf: you should also be mocking the PGA Tour for being involved with Stanford and query the future of their chief executive. As an organisation, the PGA Tour is massive, way bigger than the ECB. I don't see the same calls for heads to roll in that organization as there are with Clarke and the ECB. Thu 19 Feb 2009 08:38:40 GMT+1 sweetsmellofsuccess Could the BBC post up (or provide a link to) Mihir's previous fawning article about Mr Stanford, lording his wonderful 'people skills'? Or perhaps we could be reminded of the articles Mihir has written questioning the origins of Stanford's money? Oh, wait, he hasn't questioned it before, has he?Now the US authorities have uncovered problems, Mr Bose has piled in and suggested that he somehow knew all along. In fact, many of us took Mihir to task for his previous article, for seeming to be taken in by a few lines of flattery from a conman. My previous attempt to mention this fell foul of the moderators, who continue to be zealous on behalf of Mihir in a way that other BBC bloggers can only dream of. Why doesn't Mihir come back and explain to us why his attitude to Stanford has done a complete 180? Then we could learn why he previously thought Stanford was charming, and worthy of comparison with Nelson Mandela. Yes, he really did compare Stanford to Mandela - let's have the link so that we can all read it again. Thu 19 Feb 2009 08:33:57 GMT+1 thefrogstar ....and my question is a serious one, even if I don't expect to hear their reason for doing so. Thu 19 Feb 2009 05:43:35 GMT+1 thefrogstar Ooooo....I think someone needs to add a touch of humour to this "inside line", Mihir.Choosing my words carefully:Has anyone noticed the uncanny similarity between the photograph of Mr Clarke, and a certain well-known European who died in 1945.Who chose this photograph for the BBC? Thu 19 Feb 2009 03:33:22 GMT+1 Northern_Villan Mr BoseWhen did you know about the approaches to other boards that failed?Did you make it public knowledge as soon as you did know as I cannot remember reading about it? If you did I apologise but if you didn't, why not?Surely Giles Clarke's future is closely linked into whether this knowledge was publically known and whether he chose to ignore it in the interests of "making money". Thu 19 Feb 2009 01:27:13 GMT+1 Stargazer Dear Giles ClarkePlease, do the honourable thing and resign before you are pushed out. Your credibility is now somewhat below zero and dropping. There has been one mismanagement after another; this has to stop. Thu 19 Feb 2009 00:49:34 GMT+1 levdavidovich How much checking has been done on the franchise owners of the Indian Premier League teams? Wed 18 Feb 2009 23:10:48 GMT+1 AndyPlowright Oh yes. The BCCI has the moral high ground in that it said they'd only ever play matches organised by countries affiliated with the ICC. Lawksamercy! Do you want to question how the IPL can come about and get the ICC blessing and yet the ICL matches are still treated as some black sheep and players banned from international cricket? That is absolute cronyism of the highest order."The issue here is very simple. A cricket board is the regulatory body for cricket in the country or territory it covers. A private individual or company can use a match to advertise its products. It can also sponsor games. But it cannot be an organiser. In other words, matches or series must be played between recognised bodies, ones that possess similar, if not the same, regulatory powers. However, the ECB decided to ignore this principle. While the ICC was prepared to explore Stanford's proposals, only to be ultimately put off by his demands, the ECB jumped into bed with the billionaire."So do you think the ICC jumped into bed with the BCCI then? Go on man, dare to criticise the IPL. I haven't seen one article from you that is even vaguely critical of the IPL aka the wealthy playboy/playgirl's fantasy cricket league that makes Stanford's dreams seem low-key. Denounce Kerry Packer too then. WSC bucked trends and went against the establishment and it made the game of cricket better for both players and spectators. I'd also like you to discuss the ICC hypocrisy after it launched a much heralded series in 2005, the ICC Super Series. Contrary to what you write in the quote above, that was not a series between recognised bodies possessing similar regulatory powers. There are any number of differences in regulatory powers between Cricket Australia and the ICC. "A private individual or company can use a match to advertise its products. It can also sponsor games. But it cannot be an organiser."Then how could the ICC, a corporation that, as far as I know has no shareholders and therefore is a private company, and one that ran off to Dubai for corporation tax reasons, have been allowed to organise the ICC Super Series? Holy conflict of interests and mass hypocrisy, batsman (sic)!The ICC has been a greedy organisation for years with its useless Champions Trophy and other cash grab opportunities such as the last World Cup that spluttered so dismally and the Super Series. The BCCI has been immensely greedy and self-interested and the ICC bent over backwards for them. Can anyone blame Stanford and the ECB for trying to form their own thing? The simple fact is that there has been a lack of true authority from the ICC. The vile way that the IPL was given the ICC blessing and the ICL dumped upon shows how pathetic the ICC is. I have absolutely no confidence in the ICC and believe it is an organisation that is not fit for purpose, that of governing international cricket in a fair and non-biased way. "The Indian board can be difficult to deal with at times, but they are a proper board and infinitely preferable to a private entrepreneur whose background may well prove dodgy. It is a rocky road but the only one left for the ECB."The Stanford witch hunt is faintly disgusting if one believes in the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. As far as I know, Mr Stanford has not been judged in a court of law yet. The evidence is damning, undoubtedly so. I will reserve judgement on him until the verdict has been reached though. Wed 18 Feb 2009 23:07:48 GMT+1 5fttasmanian Those around in business circles during 2000-2001 may remember Giles Clarke - he was at the helm of online recruiter StepStone during the dot-com boom and bust, leaving the company "giving no reason" in June 2001 after mounting losses ( November 2001 the UK business was liquidated with the loss of 525 jobs ( a 2007 article the new (and current CEO) of StepStone explained the dire straits (225m euro loss) the business was in after he took over from Clarke. ( same person who led StepStone to near ruin is the man that is now running English cricket. Not much more needs to be said. Wed 18 Feb 2009 23:04:30 GMT+1 Peter David Jones I was just struck by the headline " the inside line in sport".When did you provide that please? What evidence is it based on? Wed 18 Feb 2009 23:00:26 GMT+1 kwiniaskagolfer This post has been Removed Wed 18 Feb 2009 22:47:42 GMT+1 JobyJak This article is purely written from a hindsight point of view. I don't remember Mihir expressing any concerns about Stanford's finances prior to this week's revelation.Does this week's revelation make the West Indies cricket board look like amateurs too? This could easily have been an Indian millionaire in the IPL, and then you would probably write an article condemning Indian cricket.This is just a piece of opportunistic, sensationalist journalism designed to provoke a reaction.Shame on you Mihir!PS If this does not get through the "impartial" BBC, I give up! Wed 18 Feb 2009 22:41:06 GMT+1 sweetsmellofsuccess This post has been Removed Wed 18 Feb 2009 22:00:29 GMT+1 Matthew Cain @splendidcricketnut (comment #10) Mr Bose may indeed be "on the money as usual".The point is that unless there is some evidence to back up the assertions, we'll never know Wed 18 Feb 2009 21:47:39 GMT+1 splendidcricketnut On the money as usual Mihir. Well done Wed 18 Feb 2009 21:33:27 GMT+1 Hitcho As usual, the Bose Blog is full of speculation, rhetorical questions and virtually no substance. How did you ever get to be the BBC Sports editor? Wed 18 Feb 2009 21:23:27 GMT+1 arnie_99 Mihir,Exactly how much authority did the ECB have to go rooting through Stanfords accounts? Surely they have to put their faith in the US bodies to make sure everything is above board with Stanfords companies?I don't remember many people standing up for the ECB when they wanted to look through Zimbabwe crickets accounts. Wed 18 Feb 2009 20:59:59 GMT+1 hooptastic This post has been Removed Wed 18 Feb 2009 20:57:54 GMT+1 stevejohnson72 I Mr Bose,your critics have missed the point somewhat,Whether Stanford is guilty of corruption or not, such exhibition matches in an all ready intense international programme do nothing for cricket as a whole.It would be nice to revive the game in the Americas for instance,but couldn't the relevant boards achieve this by a more conventional route?I fear heads were turned by the Texan dollar! Wed 18 Feb 2009 20:54:37 GMT+1 JobyJak This post has been Removed Wed 18 Feb 2009 19:34:58 GMT+1 charliewebb "The issue here is very simple. A cricket board is the regulatory body for cricket in the country or territory it covers. A private individual or company can use a match to advertise its products. It can also sponsor games. But it cannot be an organiser. In other words, matches or series must be played between recognised bodies, ones that possess similar, if not the same, regulatory powers. However, the ECB decided to ignore this principle. While the ICC was prepared to explore Stanford's proposals, only to be ultimately put off by his demands, the ECB jumped into bed with the billionaire."This is a very strange argument (set of assertions), rounded off by a further lazy regurgitation of the "jumping into bed" metaphor.As a matter of organisational practicality it may well be better for tours and matches to be arranged through "recognised bodies". But I see no reason for saying that such a recognised body should in all instances refuse to deal with private individuals. The Stanford saga has been a mess and it's clear now that the ECB would have been better off steering well clear of it. But I don't think that this is because Standford is a private individual with his own (cricketing and non-cricketing) interests. It depends on the individual and on the proposal. There can be as many, if different, problems when dealing with other recognised bodies, as Zimbabwe has amply shown.No doubt there are plenty of lessons to be learned from this, but your argument is largely off point. Wed 18 Feb 2009 19:24:59 GMT+1 fergaljpc This post has been Removed Wed 18 Feb 2009 19:17:54 GMT+1 Gareth This post has been Removed Wed 18 Feb 2009 18:07:01 GMT+1 Matthew Cain I can see that this article is full of bold assertions but is there any evidence to substantiate these claims? Wed 18 Feb 2009 18:05:00 GMT+1