Tony Becca

ON MONDAY, the International Cricket Council (ICC) sat down in Dubai to name its new chief executive officer (CEO) to take over from the controversial Malcolm Speed. It was between Inderjit Singh Bindra and Imtiaz Patel and, in the end, after a number of 'negotiations', it was Patel.

Although I know Bindra, whom I met in 1978 as a Sikh - turban and all, again in 1987, again in 1994 - this time as the president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and without his long hair and his turban, and found him to be a nice man and a good administrator, even though I do not know Patel and my sentiments were with Bindra, it did not matter to me who became the ICC's CEO.

Cowardly, spineless behaviour

What was interesting, however, was how it all happened, how Bindra, who, apparently, was considered the more qualified and was the odds-on favourite up to a few months ago, was eased aside and the cowardly, spineless behaviour of the ICC.

In 2010, Sharad Pawar, president of the BCCI, will become the president of the ICC. Recently, during the Australia/India series, there was a lot of talk about the BCCI dictating to the ICC and ruling cricket, with the coming of the BCCI-controlled IPL, there has been talk of India, with all its money and big pay days, taking over control of cricket, and with Pawar the president-in-waiting, there was a whisper that with Pawar as the president and Bindra as the secretary, it would then appear as if India, through the BCCI, had really taken over the game.

With India pushing for Bindra; with Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, as usual, supporting India; with Zimbabwe this time around and for whatever reason supporting India, and although the West Indies, who most times had supported India, pulling away this time, with the CEO expected to reside in Dubai where the ICC's headquarters are, the ICC ruled that because of age limit concerns in Dubai, Bindra, who is 66 and one year above the limit, could not be considered, and that seemed to be that.

That, however, was not that.

It was later exposed that the rules in Dubai are for citizens of Dubai only, that on top of that, the age limit is only for workers in the public service and Bindra was back in the reckoning.

The ICC was in a box of bricks. Half of the 10 full members wanted Bindra - the man who worked with Lalit Modi to put the IPL together - and the ICC, or rather, most of the ICC wanted Patel, and something had to give.

In the end, however, nothing gave.

In one of its biggest compromises ever, in a move which it hopes will bring peace to the game, in a move which it believes will not anger the BCCI and, therefore, will not encourage it to ignore the rest of the world, the ICC, the supposedly ruling body for the game, employed both men.

Political decision

In what can only have been a political decision, the ICC employed Patel - an Indian living in South Africa, as its CEO. And, obviously, in an effort to appease the BCCI and all those who supported him, it came up with a new position and employed Bindra, an Indian living in India.

According to ICC president David Morgan, the concern over India's hold on the game was never seen as an issue, and the best of the candidates was Patel.

Not many believe him, however - not when Bindra's job as a consultant, an adviser to the ICC, involves advising the executive board and the executive council of all matters relating to the promotion of the game, the implementation of the ICC's vision, spreading the game around the world, keeping the peace among member countries, looking after tournaments like the World Cup, the Champions Trophy and the Twenty20 World Cup.

Not when, if there is a problem with the illegal ICL, it will go to Bindra to handle it, and not when he reports directly to the president, which, in June 2010, will be his Indian colleague Pawar.

"There was an absolute consensus on his (Patel) choice," said Morgan after the ICC had deliberated for about 72 hours and had made some negotiations before coming up with what, to the whole wide world, is an obvious compromise by the masters of compromise.