The International Cricket Council (ICC) began the first of four 2015 meetings in Dubai. They will continue through the week.
As ICC meetings go, it is likely to be one of their lower-intensity ones, more typical of its reactive style of governance.
Player behaviour, a topical bugbear, will be discussed with umpires no doubt asked to clamp down.
Player safety, in light of the death of Phillip Hughes, is also on the agenda.
As stewardship and strategy goes, it is as clever as placing a fielder in the spot where the ball has just sped through to the boundary off the previous delivery.
There will also be progress reports on illegal actions, the Future Tours Programme and preparations for the World Cup.
Rest assured, though, nobody will mention what went down in India’s highest court last week.
The headline of a 138-page judgement is that N Srinivasan was found to be in conflict of interest in his dual roles as the head of India's Board of Control for Cricket (BCCI) and an Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise owner. He cannot continue as both and has been ordered to choose.
Srinivasan is no longer the BCCI head but remains that of world cricket, as chairman of the ICC.
Nobody seems to think this is a problem, not even in light of the Supreme Court’s judgements.
The ICC had no comment on the matter.
If pushed, it would be fair to speculate that the ICC might say it does not comment on or interfere in the internal matters of member boards, or say that the ICC management are separate from the ICC board of directors.
That is par for that course.
The ICC, after all, is barely capable of interfering or commenting on its own matters these days.
But there is a problem with Srinivasan being head of the ICC while he is the owner of the most successful franchise in the most successful and powerful domestic Twenty20 league in the world.
His IPL role directly affects his duties as ICC chairman. That should be clear from a reading of the ICC’s code of ethics by which its directors are expected to operate.
Here is the third paragraph of the introduction.
“The overriding objectives of the Code are to enhance the reputation of the ICC, to foster public confidence in the ICC’s governance and administration of the sport … and in particular to strengthen its authority to deal with corruption.
“As the guardians of the sport internationally and because Directors operate in the public spotlight, they are expected to conduct their affairs on a basis consistent with the great trust that has been placed in them.”
Or how about the second clause on fiduciary duties directors have as representatives of their own boards but also as ICC directors: “Directors shall at all times serve the interests of the ICC and the sport of cricket as a whole.
“Directors shall not promote their own [or a group of] cricket board’s interests at the expense of the dignity, integrity or interests of the ICC or of the sport of cricket in general.”
Here, magically, is a supporting clause on “Conflicts of Interest” from the same ICC code.
“Directors must be free from any influence which might interfere or appear to interfere with the proper and efficient discharge of their duties, or which might be inconsistent with their duty of loyalty to the ICC.”
In relation to this, look at the accompanying table detailing the number of international matches played in the period in which the IPL is usually contested – between April and June – before and after the inception of the IPL.
Note the stark decline and its implications. For most boards, international matches remain the primary source of revenue.
Reducing them reduces revenues. Reducing revenues hurts the game.
As owner of the Chennai Super Kings and as a continuing influence on the board that owns the IPL, it can be argued that Srinivasan’s motivations as a franchise owner have detrimentally affected the international game that is also in his care. That his actions as an IPL franchise owner “might be inconsistent with” Srinivasan’s “duty of loyalty to the ICC”.
There is no need to go to the clause on “betting, gambling and gaming” on which more reasonable cases for the unsuitability of Srinivasan being on the ICC board could be built.
This code, by the way, was amended after the Big Three takeover last year. Yet it remains capable of indicting the man who, along with Giles Clarke and Wally Edwards, instigated those changes.
No, this will not be on the agenda this week.
osamiuddin@thenational.ae
Follow us on twitter at @SprtNationalUAE
