Dave Richardson to the Cricket Ireland board - why all the fuss?
Richardson's experience has been hailed by many, but the process surrounding his election has shined a discerning light on CI's corporate governance procedures
The former global leader of the world’s second biggest sport has taken up a voluntary role with little old Ireland.
For comparison’s sake, David Richardson’s election to the board of Cricket Ireland is akin to Seb Coe working with Athletics Ireland, Bill Beaumont helping out the IRFU, Gianni Infantino offering his services free of charge to the FAI.
“Today, I feel Irish…”
On paper, it’s a cause for celebration, a major coup for Irish cricket. Richardson is the former CEO of the International Cricket Council. He is a man with an intimate knowledge of the organisation keeping Irish cricket afloat, financially speaking. He’s also going to help out without being paid.
On Sunday, Richardson was formally elected to CI’s board at the organisation’s annual general meeting (AGM). He replaces former captain William Porterfield, who, according to CI, has left due to his coaching role with Lancashire.
In many ways, this appointment makes an abundance of sense. As well as Richardson’s ICC experience, his 150+ caps for South Africa render him logical fit for the role of independent board director offering high performance expertise. Plenty hold this view, Cricket Ireland included.
However, the process by which Richardson was elected has led to questions focusing on everything from poor corporate governance to suspicions of “a cosy little club”.
The crux of the problem is, who initiated Richardson’s arrival? In a podcast interview last week, CEO Warren Deutrom acknowledged that he picked up the phone and asked Richardson to put his name forward. Richardson’s only apparent connection to Irish cricket is through Deutrom, given they worked together while the former was head of the ICC. Yet CI’s CEO is answerable to the board. The possibility of Deutrom picking his own bosses is a significant perception issue.
In that same interview, the CEO said that Richardson still went through CI’s “governance processes". In other words, yes the CEO got the ball rolling, but it’s all above board because a nominations committee, made up of board members and, crucially, not Deutrom, decided Richardson would be a good fit.
Multiple questions remained. Firstly, in 2015, while still ICC CEO, Richardson made a comment in an interview which appeared to suggest that Zimbabwe held a more important position in world cricket than Ireland, as reported here by journalist Tim Wigmore.
Did Richardson have to explain his words to the nominations committee? An answer came from CI’s chair and their leading board member Brian MacNeice, who spoke after Sunday’s AGM.
“That specific interview wasn’t [discussed],” he said. “Put that comment in context of the time, where everybody was at that stage. 2015, Zimbabwe was a full member, Ireland wasn’t. I won’t get into all the issues associated with Zimbabwe Cricket at the time, but there were a lot of significant issues.
“When a full member gets in trouble, it’s a bigger issue for ICC than an associate member, with all due respect to associate members - we were one at the time. The context of that remark was David Richardson saying ‘Look, we’ve got issues in Zimbabwe.’ It was more a remark about Zimbabwe than it was Ireland.
“What that doesn’t include is the comments that he made when he came over here to open our high performance centre. It doesn’t include the comments he made about Ireland when Ireland became a full member. It doesn’t include the work that he did as CEO of the ICC for Ireland to become a full member. We would not be a full member were it not for David Richardson.
“Think about the context we’re operating in at the moment. Part of the reason we have had some of the challenges of this year is, we were under the impression, as a result of a board meeting held in November by the ICC, that we were getting an additional $1.5 million. In the board meeting in March, that didn’t happen. We’re in a position where our biggest source of revenue for funds is the ICC.
“Having somebody who understands and knows the inner workings of the ICC better than anybody else and who can help us navigate some of those elements is a massive, massive advantage to the board.”
CI are not of the opinion that Richardson had a case to answer in regard to his prior statement. Through a CI spokesperson, Richardson has been asked to comment on what he said in 2015.
What, then, of the potential perception issue of the CEO picking his bosses? When questions were put to him, MacNeice said that “The subtext here is that it’s a cosy little club.” Needless to say, he strongly disagrees with such a characterisation.
When the news of Richardson’s impending arrival first broke, a CI spokesman acknowledged that his role was not publicly advertised. CI’s position was that, according to their constitution, it did not have to be. In addition, because Porterfield stepped back so close to the AGM, there was no time for the usual advertising process. Faced with a deadline of to elect Richardson on Sunday, everything was expedited by the CEO asking him to initially come forward.
Those comments from the spokesman came on April 18th. In the intervening period, a document was shared with this publication, one which was circulated to board members in the final months of 2020. It discussed the candidate process for independent directors on the board.
The following paragraph is of particular interest: “Given that a number of candidates put forward to NomCom [nominations committee] for consideration had emanated from within the business networks of the Chair and CEO, there was a concern that this could give rise to a potential perception issue, and that a more robust and transparent selection process should be introduced to withstand internal and external scrutiny.”
As part of that process, it was proposed that position descriptions be developed for each role, and that “advertisements are placed on relevant websites which must at least include Cricket Ireland, the provincial unions, Sport Ireland, Sport NI, the Federation of Irish Sport and the NI Sports Forum.”
Less than four years after this was raised within CI, their latest board director has come directly from the network of the CEO. It was put to MacNeice that this practice appears to no longer be a concern despite being so back in 2020.
“I don’t think that’s fair,” he said. “The various different roles are and have been advertised. William’s [Porterfield] was advertised. What we ended up with here was a timing issue that, in order to ratify a nomination of the board, we didn’t have time to advertise it and go through the nomination process…then have it ratified at this meeting.”
This same document says that any nominations must be made one month prior to the AGM. This is in line with CI’s assertions that there was a timing factor behind the decision not to advertise for Richardson’s role.
However, further on down the document, it is stated that if the nominations committee fails to find a suitable candidate prior to the April AGM, a “casual vacancy” can be created which, “in accordance with Article 84 of the constitution, the board would be free to fill as soon as a suitable candidate had been identified.” In other words, here is a CI document which suggests the timing of Richardson’s election was not as pressing as we were led to believe.
MacNeice responded with the following: “What we’re overlooking here is what we’ve got, [which] is, in my opinion, a significant asset to the organisation in terms of a board member who understands the inner workings of the ICC like nobody else does in a way that will help us navigate the politics of the ICC, the funding model, the opportunities that arise around that, the negotiating with the players and the collective agreements that have been in place.”
Does this send a message that the caliber of the individual involved is more important than the process by which he is elected?
“I don’t think it does,” said MacNeice. “I understand the point that you’re making.
“If the charge, if you want, is we’re deliberately subventing process, that’s not the case.
“People will have to make up their own kind of judgements on how they balance the caliber of individual that we’re able to attract to perform a voluntary role. It’s not like there’s anything in this for him personally.
“Once the process commences, his details go in the same way anyone’s details go in to the nominations committee… It’s not that this is without process.
“In an ideal world, would we advertise every independent director role? Yes of course.”
MacNeice goes on to address Article 84 which appears to negate the concern for bringing someone in prior to the AGM.
“But there was a timing issue relative to this, and I know there’s a provision in the constitution that allows us to put in place a temporary… but we’ve had, for various different reasons, quite a [high] degree of turnover on the board.
“In the case of high performance, there aren’t very many people who understand high performance that are available, that aren’t conflicted in some way and come from a cricket background.
“Porty [Porterfield] was a great addition to the board because he brings that experience of high performance and understanding high performance in a way he can explain and people respect as well. He was a very straight talker as well which is exactly what you want in an independent director. I’ve no doubt that Dave [Richardson] will be the same.”
Technically speaking, the issue of a high turnover of board members doesn’t directly deal with the question on Article 84 and casual vacancies negating any time pressure previously outlined by CI.
Regardless, the position of the chair appears to be that the caliber of Richardson meant that the opportunity to get him on board was too good to pass up. Is that opinion consistent with the document from 2020 - MacNeice joined the board in June of that year - which outlined a perception concern about the CEO’s contacts joining the board?
CI were adamant that their constitution does not necessitate the advertising of board positions. This document does not necessarily contradict that. After all, it was a list of procedural proposals rather than formal changes to the constitution. In all likelihood, they haven’t technically done anything wrong.
Yet as cricketers well know, there is the letter of the law and then the spirit of the law. Does the manner in which Richardson was elected share the spirit of an internal document which expresses concerns for the CEO suggesting who sits on the body to which he is answerable? Does the “gravitas” (Deutrom’s word, not mine) of Richardson and all he brings to the table outweigh the spirit of that concern? Does it matter if an exception to recommended procedure has been made for one individual?
As MacNeice himself said, it’s up for individuals to decide where they stand.
AGM AOB
A handful of other issues also came up in the discussion with MacNeice. Given this was the first time he spoke publicly since releasing a statement defending the procurement of two Teslas for the CEO and CFO (Andrew May) in close proximity to Ireland postponing fixture commitments, the topic of the cars also came up.
Question: If you stand by the business case behind the Teslas, why did you send one of the two back?
BM: “We still had the ability to be able to send one back effectively. We recognise there’s a perception issue that is associated with it. From a financial perspective, I think there’s enough information out there that people hopefully understand the financial case that was behind it. That perception is there, we’re very cognisant of that.”
Q: Was there ever a discussion on the need for company cars for two of the highest paid staff members of an organisation postponing its FTP commitments?
BM: “That comes down to an argument about do they need a car as part of their day-to-day duties to perform the role that they perform. Bear in mind we’re accused all the time of the Cricket Ireland staff living in an ivory tower and not getting out…There is a need to be out and about, travelling the length and breadth of the country.
“Andrew’s role has events as part of his remit as well as finance, we host events all over the place as well. It is a contractual arrangement that’s part of their contract that was signed off by the remunerations committee in the past.
“Warren’s had a car allowance since he joined the organisation since 2006, Andrew I’m pretty sure since he joined the organisation.”
Q: Do you stand by Warren Deutrom’s comments in a recent podcast interview that different brands of car would have been more expensive than a Tesla?
BM: “Look, you’re now getting into a debate…that’s what I mean about perception. I understand that, that’s why when there was an opportunity, ‘Look, if we can send one of them back then let’s do that.’ As long as it’s there and it turns up in any club ground somebody will go…
“I’m sure you follow a lot of the commentary that’s out there, anything that we publish at the moment will have some reference somewhere to Teslas. It’s for that perception reason that if there was an opportunity to not follow through on at least one of them, then let’s do that.”
Q: As the CEO’s boss, given both the length of time he’s been in the position and all the recent controversies including fixture postponements, lack of public communication, defending company car practices and questions about board appointments coming from the CEO’s personal network, do you still have confidence in Warren Deutrom?
BM: “Absolutely. Yep, absolutely. Irish cricket wouldn’t be where it is today without the drive, the ambition, the focus that he’s had from day one to get us to where we’ve got to today.
“Does that mean he should be there forever and a day? No. But do I have full confidence in him and does the rest of the board have full confidence in him? Yes. We’ve still got a lot of ambitious things to achieve and I believe he’s capable of helping us achieve those things.”