Lorgat set for ICC role
Haron Lorgat, the South African accountant and former convenor of selectors of , is now the frontrunner to become the next chief executive of the in
This follows He had been offered a three-year appointment paying slightly more than the $700,000 a year that Speed earns.
As already revealed in my blog, Lorgat was one of the six short-listed and the choice of David Morgan, the former chairman of the England and Wales Cricket Board, who takes over as ICC President in the summer.
When the appointments committee met in Dubai two weeks ago, Morgan was unable to persuade his colleague on Lorgat's merits. Now he should find it much easier.
Patel's decision not to accept cannot come as a surprise, given how nothing was heard after the ICC announced its job offer.
The offer was announced with much fanfare two weeks ago following an ICC Executive Board meeting. Normally after such a job offer you would expect the chosen one to be available and talk gushingly of how thrilled he is by his opportunity.
Instead, for almost a week after the offer nothing was heard from Patel, not even long-standing associates could get hold of him. He only surfaced on Sunday saying he had been on a family holiday outside South Africa. This clearly provided much time for reflection. I understand he rang Morgan on Sunday to say he could not accept. Friends say the reason given is that his heart is not in the job. I am told he was under pressure from his employers not to accept the job.
Morgan flies off to South Africa this week and it is expected that the ICC executive board will meet, probably via a telephone link, to decide on Lorgat's appointment.
It will be interesting to see how the Indians - the money men of world cricket - react.
Initially it had been thought that India was against Patel. But then they reconciled themselves to it after Inderjit Bindra, who currently represents India on the ICC, was appointed special adviser to the President. One of his tasks will be promoting cricket in China and the United States.
The Indians saw the double of Patel and Bindra as a winning ticket putting them in charge of ICC.
ICC sources have told me that while the Indians are not happy with Patel not taking up the job they may live with Lorgat.
Curiously, while both Lorgat and Patel are from South Africa, the appointment could have adverse effects on .
I have been told by well informed ICC sources that when the ICC appointment board came to the ICC Executive Committee meeting with their recommendation in favour of Patel, Arendse abstained arguing that it was wrong for them to come with only one name.
This matter has raised a storm in South African cricket with Arendse now writing letters to his board members denying that he did any such things.
Arendse already faced problems due to other issues and if he cannot convince them that he did not abstain on Patel's recommendation his position as head of South African cricket could be under threat.
Mihir Bose's blog is no longer being updated. You can read recent entries about ´óÏó´«Ã½ Sport's coverage and insights into the latest issues on the 
Comments
The machinations of the ICC eh. Would it be foolish to hope that the next boss of the ICC can do some real good for the game rather than purely chasing the next quick buck. One can but hope. At least restructuring the Future Tours Programme and ceasing funding the corrupt regime in Zimbabwe would be a start.
As for Norman Ardense's position - if these allegations of him absenting are indeed true then surely his position is now completely untenable.
As ever with these things, once such a level of perceived power is reached, the politics become ever more complicated.
Whist India are it seems currently the financial super power of world cricket, they obviously feel they should have more control of the game, however it is not always in the best interests of any game if the ones with the most money have all the say for an extended period, or any other country for that fact.
Perhaps the structure should change & be established in a fashion similar to the EU, where all countries are represented at a 'board' level and the presidency rolls around the board heads of the respective test playing nations, giving each nation a chance to oversee the whole organisation?
Whislst no-one can argue that England (my home) had an unyielding grip on the game for so long, it should not be a case of "well england did it for so long, why can't we", it should be a case of "well it didn't prove too successful in modern times, let's try something different".
Cricket is a world game & all parties should have an opportunity to influence how the game is managed & developed for the future..
This is certainly nothing new. I read articles along the same lines in both Sydney, NZ and Dubai papers in the past few days.
Perhaps your sources are supplying many others before you Mihir.
Headlines in the Sri Lankan newspapers say Roshan mahanama has been appointed already as the CEO
Well, if I was head of Africa's biggest broadcaster, I wouldn't even entertain the thoughts of another position. Patel has and does an awesome Job at SuperSport.
I don't know if I've missed something, but why is Arendse in so much trouble for abstaining for what seems a perfectly reasonable argument especially given that Patel didn't take the job? Also a more general question, what is the chief executive actually responsible for? And what difference is this likely to make to world cricket?
I think is a bad decision to appoint Haroon Lorgat to the Head of ICC. Ehsan Mani was bad but this is ridiculous. His record with the UCB is highly questionable and he has hampered the careers of many a potential star in south Africa. Once such loss was Kevin Pietersen lost to England. Secondly was Goolam Bodi, who was never given an opportunity under Lorgats' reign and due to this he is getting older and the selectors are reluctant to noe to give him a full opportunity. Nick Pothas and many others left under his reign because he was a man who held long term grudges and if he did not like you personally you had no chance no matter what your stats said. I feel that he is the wrong man for the Job. But then again with the recent decisions of re-appointing Daryl Hair as an elite umpire its obvious the ICC are not thinking straight. Haroon Lorgat is the wrong man to give cricket back its credibility on the world stage.
Rubbish Shiraz
Lorgat was chief selector from Nov 04 to May 07.
Pothas lef in the 90s, while KP left in 2000. You may have a point with Bodi, but he had one good domestic Twenty20. Its not if he was knocking on the door with a flood of runs.
I think is a bad decision to appoint Haroon Lorgat to the Head of ICC. Ehsan Mani was bad but this is ridiculous. His record with the UCB is highly questionable and he has hampered the careers of many a potential star in south Africa. Once such loss was Kevin Pietersen lost to England. Secondly was Goolam Bodi, who was never given an opportunity under Lorgats' reign and due to this he is getting older and the selectors are reluctant to now to give him a full opportunity. Nick Pothas and many others left under his reign because he was a man who held long term grudges and if he did not like you personally you had no chance no matter what your stats said. I feel that he is the wrong man for the Job. But then again with the recent decisions of re-appointing Daryl Hair as an elite umpire its obvious the ICC are not thinking straight. Haroon Lorgat is the wrong man to give cricket back its credibility on the world stage.