CCA President rants about fund raising dinner

Jon Harris
e-mail: hennessy.harris@sympatico.ca

Colin Mohammed
e-mail: colin_mohammed@hotmail.com

An apparently innocent message indirectly precipitated a rather ugly response to a letter posted on the caribbeancricket.com web site.

Canadian cricketers are aware that the national team qualified to participate in the World Cup of Cricket in South Africa in February and March 2003. The Toronto Cricket Club announced that they planned to send the team off,
to South Africa, with a show of support, and at the same time raise funds to assist the players in their preparation and participation for the World Cup.

This initiative by the Chairman of cricket at the TCC was greeted by a rather poorly written polemic, titled FOREWARNED IS FOREARMED.

For your information and amusement the following is an unedited copy of an introduction, as published by caribbeancricket.com, followed by a complete unedited copy of a letter sent to the web site.

Letters To The Editor
Posted by: Skipper on Oct 03, 2002 - 07:38 PM

This week's e-mail feedback was the strangest yet. Usually, our inbox is filled with definitive responses to our interpretation of
the news with fans either agreeing, disagreeing or just plain angry about something.

This week's mail had a different vibe. First, we got a strangely-worded mail in response to Dr Mike McLean's article on Viv
Richards appearing at a fund-raiser in Canada. Then, an angry rant from someone who hates the site but doesn't really tell us
why. See for yourself...

This letter was sent in response to Dr Mike McLean's article on fund-raising problems associated with the Canada Cricket
Association (CCA). It is believed to have been sent by CCA President Dr Geoff Edwards but this could not be independently
confirmed:

Editor,

FOREWARNED IS FOREARMED.

Fundraising is not easy. It is rigidly controlled and even the richest cricket association in the world recently lost their major
sponsor Sahara and probably $30 million USD.

Most countries, including the WICB, find themselves strapped for cash, even with televised games, professional teams and gate
receipts. Canadian cricket has none of these. Instead of blaming others, why don't we all pitch in and contribute to the
development of Canadian and West Indies cricket? A large number of small donations or sponsors will mean the same as one
large sponsor or donation.

The door is wide open for fundraisers for cricket -- always has been. Not many people have come forward however in the
meantime. People of means and people with many business friends and contacts should lead the way, not just talk! Let us
challenge them all to donate to Canadian cricket. Donations will be publicly acknowledged (unless otherwise requested) and
federal Tax receipts will be provided.

Let us see how much support and moneys the Canadian World Cup squad will receive. Action not talk please gentlemen.
West Indians and Canadians know better than to buy "a pig in a poke."

We have even had so called "cricket lovers" people vote against providing Canadian cricket with a token amount from the
largest ever non-televised cricket games in Canada. These were the United Way (another charity as is the CCA) Games at the
Sky Dome. What would be the justification for these malevolent acts?

Donations to the Canadian Cricket Association ( and to the WICB and its members) are most welcome and Federal tax
receipts are provided to all donors. In addition, all fundraisers are eligible for a portion of any funds raised.

The policy has been in place for 20 years or so. Not many of the illustrious crowd have bothered to support the players and
Association in that time.

Fundraising for the ICC Trophy 2001 resulted in negligible returns. Fundraisers for the Cricket World Cup 2003 have been
few and far between. Donations and workers have been sparse. We have had lots of complaints, accusations and misdeeds
however.

Canada raised $500,000 to put in the turf wickets to bid for the ICC Trophy 2001, the best one ever by ICC reports. Without
the turf wickets we would not have hosted the Event and we would probably not have qualified for the World Cup- first time in
24 years.

No workers for the ICCT or for lots of other Tournaments can be found but we have lots of Messiahs suddenly paying
attention to Cdn cricket? Why? Where will these later day savers of Cdn cricket be when the World Cup is over, I wonder?
What is this sudden mad rush to help save us?

Beware of these "saviours." Beware of "bitter fruit."

Forewarned is forearmed.

Canada has also been to the U-19 World Cup, has for the first time won two games in the 2002 Red Stripe competition and
done extremely well against the West Indies "A" team in Toronto.

Beware of these " the sky is falling " promoters. Look at the other hand - the one behind the back. Beware of "false prophets"
as the Good Book warns!

DE

We at canadacricket.com are bemused that the President of the Canadian Cricket Association would write that "The door is wide open for fundraisers for cricket- always has been. Not many people have come forward however in the meantime. People of means and people with many business friends and contacts should lead the way, not just talk! Let us challenge them all to donate to Canadian cricket. Donations will be publicly acknowledged (unless otherwise requested) and federal Tax receipts will be provided.".

Whilst we would agree that there are many "people of means", but, and this is a big BUT, it simply is not relevant to the CCA position as enunciated by its President. The reason for this is that the CCA is an invisible entity to the cricket playing public right across the country and, therefore by extension, also invisible to their "many business friends and contacts". In a country with one the highest living standards in the world, and advertisers running out of space, this suggestion is hilarious. If the good doctor is not aware, the entire North American high tech market is controlled and staffed by "South Asians". In one office, that we are aware of, the population has about 85% directly from India/Pakistan. These folks have been approached and we are advised that they are planning an inter company tournament. These cricketers do not need the CCA. The CCA needs these cricketers. However, with no communications capacity or facility within the CCA, 'never the twain shall meet'. Kipling did not say that in the context of cricket, but as a cricket aficionado he probably would have in the context of the CCA.

There are many flaws and inconsistencies in the CCA President's 'rant', beyond the disjointed and badly constructed.

The following is presented as an example, "Fundraising is not easy. It is rigidly controlled and even the richest cricket Association in the World recently lost their major sponsor Sahara and probably $30 million USD.".

Is the author aware of the corporate and legal wrangling that took place for Sahara to pull out? The BCCI does not appear to be suffering from lack of sponsorship, for Pepsi is reported to have taken the contract over from Sahara. So we are confused by this apparent lack of knowledge of current affairs related to cricket, or should we suggest that it is a deliberate attempt at mis-information? What the author does not try do is to make a connection, about the relationship of Sahara sponsorship in India, and the relevancy to the lack of domestic Canadian fundraising. We suggest, not too respectfully, that the CCA President is not au courrant with the reality of what is going on. This is exemplified by comparing the CCA President's missive dated October 3, 2002, with the article published in ICC Cricket News 13/09/02, which in part reads as follows:-

“Yesterday, contrary to the agreement reached by all countries in Dubai,
Sahara and the BCCI announced its most recent proposal without having
obtained the necessary approval of cricket’s commercial partner, Global
Cricket Corporation.

“Despite this, the ICC is seeking to be as accommodating as possible and has
today advised the BCCI that the new brand “Subrata” is approved.

“This approval is subject to the removal from the proposed design for the
player shirts of any element that is carried over from the Sahara brand.”

http://www.abcofcricket.com/News/icc/iccarchive/icc130902/icc130902.htm

Why does the CCA President write without checking the facts, which have been in the public domain for three weeks? Hmmmmm ...... no comment.

At another juncture in the rant it is stated that, "Most countries including the WICB find themselves strapped for cash, even with televised games, professional teams and gate receipts.". This is an outrageous generalization, unsupported by any evidence. Has the author in fact examined the balance sheets of "most countries" who play cricket? What we know, for sure, is that the Canadian cricket community is not going to be made privy to the financial records of their national association. Why is that? Should we ask Revenue Canada to do it for us? Is the failure to provide the financial records of the CCA, in compliance with the Bylaws of the Association, something we should worry about? Cricketer lawyers please note and send us your views. We will be happy to report on your findings. We hope for the best, but we fear the worst.

The link, made by the CCA President, about "the development of Canadian and West Indies cricket " is both
unfortunate and insensitive, for it ignores, and therefore renders invisible, the contribution to the Canadian cricket community of "the others". What is salient is that there is no defined structure nationwide, or semblance of any, regarding critical aspects of the development of cricket in Canada by the CCA. There is no news, no press conferences, or media feeds, that would pique the interest of a sponsor. It is difficult to accept the suggestion that the Australian Cricket Board and/or the UCB of South Africa are having cash troubles to the extent the CCA President is indicating with the phrase "most countries". The ACB recently published their expansion plans, which
surely is sufficient evidence to reinforce the idea that the organization is fiscally sound. The corollary of this would be that organisations that have fiscal problems do not promote expansion. The CCA fits that model to a tee, with its massive debt and no apparent plans to get out of the hole, that the present administration have created. To date, your correspondents have never seen a single member of the CCA asking for help on the TV, or heard on the radio in the multitude of "ethnic" programmes projected to the cricket playing public. Regardless of ethnic marketing, why is the President of the CCA unable to force the issue with the mainstream? That is his job.

We are delighted that the CCA President has written, "Let us see how much support and moneys the Canadian World Cup squad will receive." You can bet Mr. President that we are going to closely monitor that particular item, for we note with particular satisfaction the words you wrote "Let us see how much ...... the Canadian World Cup squad will receive". Yes indeed, every last cent of the funds raised will be made public and the players will know .... and they will soon enough let all of their supporters know.

Finally we note that the author stated "Donations to the Canadian Cricket Association are most welcome and Federal tax receipts are provided to all donors. In addition, all fundraisers are eligible for a portion of any funds raised." Given that our information is that the CCA has not submitted mandatory returns to the Government of Canada for a couple of years, we are obliged to ask, are you sure that the "Federal tax receipts" will be legitimate? Are they going to be worth the paper they are written on? Similarly we are concerned about the assertion that "fundraisers are eligible for a portion of any funds raised...". Is that legal, for it sounds suspiciously like skimming off the top. Does that mean that the Toronto Cricket Club will be handed "a portion of any funds raised"? It is unlikely that the TCC would accept the "portion", for that would dilute the amount available for the players. However it bodes the question, will the CCA have the integrity to make the offer?.

In conclusion, it appears that Dr Edward's rebuttal is the reaction of a man caught in a situation he simply does not have the ability to deal with. Nor has he the commonsense, or street smarts, to pull the yokes together and make something of the past and coming years. He is not speaking to the public that cares about cricket. He appears to be treating them like they are uneducated and ignorant. Information via the internet is easily available to anyone, which suggest that his petty arguments will be dismissed quickly. Think of it this way, this piece will be posted on a web site and cross posted on other cricket web sites. Those who read that particular site have enough brain power to, for example, to examine the development plans of the Australian Cricket Board on the official ACB site. We suggest that a large percentage of the readership have some kind of post secondary education, be it in North America or elsewhere, and would inevitably take notice of the glaring weaknesses of 'the rant', and are quite capable of pointing out some more. We invite your comments and observations.

Please contact us with all your opinions on this article

Note: The views expressed in the Opinion pages, unless otherwise stated, are the views of those who author the pages, and are not necessarily the views of CanadaCricket.com.