What a farce...

I'll say! Especially when you have leagues who have paid the full dues, are actually fully compliant with the requirements.. and yet end up somehow not being allowed to vote! Given all that, given that its effectively "taxation without representation", why would any league want to give their valuable player-derived money to USACA in the form of dues this year?

I'd like to see how each board member voted. Wonder if they'd dare to make the votes on each league public.

Impressive manipulation by Dainty, I must say.  Likely that the West reps voted against when they did.  Didnt help two leagues that have been around for over a 100 years from being "legal" -- SCCA and NCCA.  I am told some leagues got blessed despite not having paid their dues.  Nice touch by Robert Chance there.  Unless there is some serious legal action, we are done for the next three years of Dainty and his merry men pillaging through US cricket.  

Farce, pure and simple.  The entire future of USA cricket controlled by fifteen votes!  No Middle East dictator could come up with a more manipulative scheme.  

But can you really expect anything else with this rotten borough league voting

scheme? The USACA does absolutley nothing for grass roots cricket so how can you expect anything

but total apathy?  For practical purposes what's  the difference if a league is in complience or not? According to the USACA constitution only players from these fifteen leagues are eligible for the national team and national championship teams.  But this requirement's completely ignored.  Everyone knows they can still

play on these teams whether their league's  "compliant" or not.    

Wonder what they paid this Chance guy for doing

little more than some paperwork.

NCCA had 31 teams in its league last year (2011). Plus a youth squad that was entered into the competition as well, but is not a standalone member club.

NCCA paid USACA for 31 teams.

USACA has now banned NCCA from voting, on the grounds that, according to USACA, NCCA should have paid for 35 teams. The fact that it's pretty darn clear looking at the league tables on the NCCA website that there were only 31 teams is apparently not at all relevant.

That's how stupid this is - apparently USACA wants to require leagues to pay for teams that do not exist.

Pretty poor audit process if you ask me, and the board has a lot to answer for.

@hkgrohan - I am told some leagues that were approved unconditionally did not pay their dues.  If you think this has to do with logic, you are mistaken.  This is the kind of stuff that happens in banana republics the world over where people are silenced in various ways.  What we have is a rank thug running USACA and wanna-be thugs as his cronies.  

In a gesture of respect for many of the leagues in the US which will have no representation in USACA due to their disqualification from voting, DreamCricket is pulling all news coverage of USA cricket for the next 24 hours.  

We admire the courage, passion and hard work of the USA cricket fan.  We are with you in your times of darkness.

DreamCricket Editorial Team

www.dreamcricket.com/.../news.hspl

@ opening bat - I hope you can be the voice of the rank and file cricketer in the US.  They need a voice and sometimes this voice may need to say uncomfortable things in search of justice.  

Glass houses & Stones.

Not a surprising outcome, when you consider all the delaying tactics undertaken in recent months.  Just a few thoughts, and more out of my own ignorance I don't know the answer, but I'm sure someone does...

1 - How many of the squad selected for the T20 qualifier in Dubai play(ed) in ineligible leagues?  I'm sure Mr Viera and the ICC would enjoy excluding members of the squad on the basis they are effectively playing unsanctioned cricket.

2 - How many leagues met the crietion for membership voting rights in the USACA's constitution but have been ruled ineligible by the Chance-Dainty exercise?

3 - If, as I understand it, two regions have no leagues represented, what happens to their elected Board representatives?  They would surely have to stand down, given they have no leagues to represent?

4 - Any views from the candidates wishing to stand against Dainty?  Is it easier to beat him when there are only 15 votes available rather than the pre-cull number?

As I mentioned on another thread, I think any lawyer with an interest in cricket would have a field day at ripping Dainty and his Board to shreds...

A very sad day for US cricket

This whole farce calls the very legitimacy of the USACA in question.  Who

does this organization represent anymore when paid up members are debarred, non-paying

members allowed to vote?  How can anyone tell, anymore, who's a member and

what you have to do to be a member?  If entire regions are  no longer represented they can't enter any teams

in the mens, junior, or women's tournaments, not to mention no one from the

region can play on any national teams.  There's simply  no longer any rules

with the cricket organized in this country...which is exactly how Baby Doc and

his cronies want it.  No more oppostion, no more accountability; everything is personal fiat.

As for the fifteen votes...I'm sure Baby Doc and his cronies made sure the

majority of  those votes will only go to you-know-who.